aldie 22 Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 1 minute ago, WVclimo said: Salisbury lost 2 feet seems pretty consistent 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkstorm Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 1 minute ago, WVclimo said: Salisbury lost 2 feet Don't see me crying. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 1 minute ago, Ji said: You must’ve missed the icon run from yesterday at 12z did you miss the LAST run where it gave us NOTHING! why are you setting the bar at some obsolete run 4 cycles ago? And frankly this run gives me more snow than that one did...it was a bomb for the coastal areas SE of 95 but it wasn't THAT good for places NW of 95. This run was the most widespread snowstorm its shown on any run for our whole region and other then one bomb solution 24 hours ago a huge improvement over the last run which is what we usually compare a model to. 4 3 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terpeast Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 1 minute ago, psuhoffman said: did you miss the LAST run where it gave us NOTHING! why are you setting the bar at some obsolete run 4 cycles ago? And frankly this run gives me more snow than that one did...it was a bomb for the coastal areas SE of 95 but it wasn't THAT good for places NW of 95. This run was the most widespread snowstorm its shown on any run for our whole region and other then one bomb solution 24 hours ago a huge improvement over the last run which is what we usually compare a model to. Tbf I look at 4-6 past runs to glean any meaningful trends. But if it’s jumpy, it doesn’t mean much it anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Lastly, the ICON is weirdly disconnected between the upper level energy and the surface, if it were to correct that its a bigger run, without needing any major track adjustments. Just need the storm to be more "connected" at all levels, better organized is all. 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoast NPZ Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 If this threat goes sideways (literally and figuratively) this forum is going full-on Captain America Civil War. 1 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Something I've noticed guidance doing on some runs which limits the outcome but I think might be a common error...as the wave approaches there is a duel wave structure with a wave along the arctic boundary associated with the upper low and a wave down along the gulf coast with the STJ. As the whole system progresses east some runs (this latest ICON and last GFS) are focusing too much on the STJ wave and having that wave amplify and race out ahead of the real energy which is along the arctic front. I think that is wrong. I think the main wave is the one along the arctic front which has much better mid and upper level support and that one takes over, amplifies, transfers to the coast and we have a more connected phased system not the strung out disconnected one some runs are showing. I think famously this was the error in 1996 which was why guidance was too far south with that system all week leading up. 9 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravensrule Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 4 minutes ago, EastCoast NPZ said: If this threat goes sideways (literally and figuratively) this forum is going full-on Captain America Civil War. We definitely have you to rely on as our fearless leader. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowGolfBro Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 1 minute ago, psuhoffman said: Something I've noticed guidance doing on some runs which limits the outcome but I think might be a common error...as the wave approaches there is a duel wave structure with a wave along the arctic boundary associated with the upper low and a wave down along the gulf coast with the STJ. As the whole system progresses east some runs (this latest ICON and last GFS) are focusing too much on the STJ wave and having that wave amplify and race out ahead of the real energy which is along the arctic front. I think that is wrong. I think the main wave is the one along the arctic front which has much better mid and upper level support and that one takes over, amplifies, transfers to the coast and we have a more connected phased system not the strung out disconnected one some runs are showing. I think famously this was the error in 1996 which was why guidance was too far south with that system all week leading up. PSU said this is guaranteed to be a 96 redux (at least that’s how I and a majority of the other weenies will read this post lol). 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormtracker Posted February 14 Author Share Posted February 14 We fighting over the ICON yall. 1 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkstorm Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Just now, stormtracker said: We fighting over the ICON yall. Because the Germans bombed pearl harbor 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchnick Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 2 minutes ago, stormtracker said: We fighting over the ICON yall. Practice makes perfect. Just wait for the Euro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormtracker Posted February 14 Author Share Posted February 14 1 minute ago, Darkstorm said: Because the Germans bombed pearl harbor Guaranteed somebody would have replied to you that it was the Japanese. Happens every time with that quote. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormtracker Posted February 14 Author Share Posted February 14 So far, outside of noise, not seeing any notable differences on the GFS vs 6z 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solution Man Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 2 minutes ago, stormtracker said: Guaranteed somebody would have replied to you that it was the Japanese. Happens every time with that quote. Let’s Go, bring us home Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paleocene Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Big dawg incoming? 1 1 18 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ji Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 1 minute ago, stormtracker said: So far, outside of noise, not seeing any notable differences on the GFS vs 6z thats not good then because the 6z gfs sucked right? 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terpeast Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 hr 87, looks like the s/w out west has more room to dig. We'll see. Early 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormtracker Posted February 14 Author Share Posted February 14 Just now, Ji said: thats not good then because the 6z gfs sucked right? But that's why you compare the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heisy Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 I like how the N wave is backed up a little farther W. I prefer W gives it more room to develop when it eventually tries to. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midatlanticweather Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 17 minutes ago, EastCoast NPZ said: If this threat goes sideways (literally and figuratively) this forum is going full-on Captain America Civil War. Especially for you all 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terpeast Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Just now, Heisy said: I like how the N wave is backed up a little farther W. I prefer W gives it more room to develop when it eventually tries to . Was going to say the same thing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormtracker Posted February 14 Author Share Posted February 14 Some subtle differences so far....western s/w is a bit more wester. H5 lobe north of the border is elongated a bit wester 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 1 minute ago, Heisy said: I like how the N wave is backed up a little farther W. I prefer W gives it more room to develop when it eventually tries to . This 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eduggs Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 12 minutes ago, psuhoffman said: I keep an eye on other areas for skiing purposes...and to give you an example for a week the ICON was way SE of most other guidance with the storm this weekend up in New England, along with the Euro AI BTW...showing the storm redeveloping off the coast v cutting up into upstate NY, showing the rain snow line never getting into VT when other guidance had it getting all the way into northern VT almost to Canada. Guess which models won and the ICON finally caved last night on that...now has the storm cutting with the mix getting into northern VT. You have to apply the models typical bias to their solutions when judging what is or isn't a "good" run. It's different if the euro which is the most amplified model typically is weak and progressive. We want to see the euro cranking up some 970 monster. The ICON...its find if its weaker since thats its typical error. I follow that same area for skiing purposes as well, but I don't fully agree with your analysis. The ICON, GFS, and CMC were clustered fairly close together for several days. Only the ECM showed a stronger primary SLP holding on and sending mixing into NVT and NNY. Yesterday the GFS shifted a bit towards the ECM, but the CMC stayed in the southeast (faster 2ndary development) camp. It's a bit difficult to judge since it changes every cycle, but I would say the ICON has adjusted similarly to the GFS. From NW to SE the order has been ECM, GFS, ICON, CMC... with the NAM now the furthest NW as we approach shorter ranges. I have not noticed the ICON having a "weak" bias relative to the other mid-range models. Certainly it has less of a tendency to amplify minor shortwaves than the NAM. But from what I've seen it's fairly middle of the road in its upper level synoptics and surface reflections. Regardless of its specific biases, it is slightly less accurate than the CMC and UK. It's one of the best mid-range models in the world, but clearly on the 2nd tier. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heisy Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 . 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Wiggum Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Changes up top and with the polar jet are becoming notable. *Should* in theory equate to a better run 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormtracker Posted February 14 Author Share Posted February 14 So, precip is angled a bit better from SW to NE so far...way too early to make calls tho 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terpeast Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 N/S and S/S timing more aligned, making a phase more likely. Still early. 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solution Man Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 1 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now