Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,608
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Vesuvius
    Newest Member
    Vesuvius
    Joined

January 2024


wdrag
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, bluewave said:

We have much higher forecast skill with cutters beyond 3-5 days like the two we just had. Since NYC will usually get mostly rain whether the low cuts 50 miles or 500 miles to the west. But a storm tracking within 50 miles east to 500 miles east of NYC will have a much different outcome. Anything from mixing, perfect benchmark snowstorm track, or complete suppression. I would love it if all the global and meso modeling centers kept specific model skill scores for East Coast storm tracks. Unfortunately, these hemispheric skill scores don’t always tell the story about how good the model is doing on East Coast storm tracks. We have seen periods when the CMC nailed a snowstorm forecast beyond 5 days like 1-31-21. Other times when the UKMET did great like the follow up storm after the January the 2016 blizzard. Then we have the Euro which was too far west with the January 2015 blizzard. And too suppressed with the 2016 blizzard. The Euro did a amazing with NEMO. Often times we have to wait until we get to within the NAM and RGEMs range to figure out the exact track and rain-snow line for NYC. 

What was the followup storm to January 2016, Chris? Was that the storm we had a few inches of snow but it could have been a lot more (the storm was just east of us.)  Or was that in February? The storm where the crane fell in NYC?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, psv88 said:

Hi Walt. Just a question. Why do you lean on the Canadian so much? Doesn’t it have the lowest verification scores of all the main globals?

I haven't checked but its verification last year was #2.

Also, its' steadfast performance on the previous big inland event and the current one. It's a winter very good snow model. 

 

We must disagree.  Most folks dont pay attention to the CMC... so they dont really know.

It';s how you use these models.  I'd say EC and GFS are a little shaky this coming event,   

Differing input? Go for it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, winterwx21 said:

Just moderate here and didn't stick to anything. I guess the heaviest missed me just a few miles to the south. Glad you got to see a nice squall. 

Snowing nicely here, not really hard, but it's nice to see it snowing and it's blowing around with the high winds and the temp is now 36

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, wdrag said:

I haven't checked but its verification last year was #2.

Also, its' steadfast performance on the previous big inland event and the current one. It's a winter very good snow model. 

 

We must disagree.  Most folks dont pay attention to the CMC... so they dont really know.

It';s how you use these models.  I'd say EC and GFS are a little shaky this coming event,   

Differing input? Go for it.

The CMC has had quite a few big victories with winter storm threats in the last few years. I trust it a lot more than GFS, that's for sure. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi!  I'll set up hopefully a carefully worded snow thread for Friday (late Thu-early Sat).  Enough modeling has a cdefinite period of snow,  or a moderate snow storm,  take your pick.  I'll check the ensembles this evening.  I think we can wait on this a bit longer til this evening,  before  getting ahead of ourselves especially since ensembles are as of yet not more than 2".  

I kind of like a reasonable chance of getting snow accum in NYC and/or a 6+  just west of I95 for our I84 Pics/nw Nj slot before getting the thread going. 

Thanks for your patience.

 

Walt

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Stormlover74 said:

I can ask for the nam to stop giving me sleet

Mid level warming.  EC doesn't have it. RGEM does.  I think we need to pay attention to RGEM-NAM blend.  EC and GFS flagged a significant event when the Tue thread was started then disappeared only to slowly return.

 

The global models (EC-GFS) probably handle closed lows situations better then general WAA overrunning.  Someone with knowledge of the models are welcome to check me on this.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could be wrong but I think in this case RGEM/NAM are too amped and still out of their best range for Tuesdays storm (RGEM is always warm biased and NAM has been a terrible model for a while). I think this is almost all snow for everyone maybe lower ratios or a bit of sleet mixed in on the immediate coast.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, kat5hurricane said:

Meh is a massive upgrade from what we've had the last few years. It's all about perspective.

I'd rather have 20s and two light snow events than single digits and dry anyway (I know the second event of the week may not even be that light or happen at all) but saying hypothetically if it panned out as modeled this would be an ideal winter week imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, HVSnowLover said:

Could be wrong but I think in this case RGEM/NAM are too amped and still out of their best range for Tuesdays storm (RGEM is always warm biased and NAM has been a terrible model for a while). I think this is almost all snow for everyone maybe lower ratios or a bit of sleet mixed in on the immediate coast.  

They very well could be amped and I don't  usually worry about the icon or rgem being too warm. The nam can often suck but is useful at finding that warm layer is all I'm saying

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...