blizzardmeiser Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 17 minutes ago, Ji said: once you hit the JB ensemble.....it means you are on your last resort. I think at Accuweather, they used to edit is grammar...now its just a disaster as i noticed when i read his posts today. I havent read him in a long time but its hilarious he still uses feedback when things dont go his way. JB is a great met in snowy winters. Lets hope you and him have the right idea Always feedback Every 6 years he gets it right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usedtobe Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 14 minutes ago, HighStakes said: As of right now I see a lot of similarities to the 1/25-26/1987 NESIS storm. Very cold storm. I lived in Owings Mills then and we got 6. Probably was only around 4 up here where I am now. This upcoming storm looks to have a much broader precipitation field with much less chance for a sharp cutoff like in the 87 storm. Better upside for all involved with next week's storm 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 13 minutes ago, HighStakes said: As of right now I see a lot of similarities to the 1/25-26/1987 NESIS storm. Very cold storm. I lived in Owings Mills then and we got 6. Probably was only around 4 up here where I am now. This upcoming storm looks to have a much broader precipitation field with much less chance for a sharp cutoff like in the 87 storm. Better upside for all involved with next week's storm That was one of the storms I included in my set earlier of close misses to our SE. But again...look at the H5 and the H7 along with the RH for that storm... Now compare it to the GFS for this storm. Look how much less suppressive the flow is for this storm in every way! 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eskimo Joe Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 Ruh roh @usedtobe is lurking! Hi Wes 5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wxmvpete Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 1 hour ago, psuhoffman said: I know I am beating a dead horse some here, I'm sorry, but do me a favor...humor me here... @Terpeast @Bob Chill @CAPE @WxUSAF @brooklynwx99 Just step back and look at this... (18z EPS) and tell me...is "oh no that might get suppressed" really what pops into your head? What am I missing? From an "upper-level axis" standpoint, the initial lead wave provides modest PVA aloft to where it still produces WAA "front-end thump" type snow probably regardless for most of the region. But the last 5 runs of the EPS shows some fundamental changes. 500mb trend loop: There is a clear separation of the TPV lobe over the Midwest and the lead southern shortwave. When they were phased, a stronger source of PVA/500-700mb WAA was placed more favorably over the Mid-Atlantic. As the two separate, the TPV which was faster and could help capture the leading low-level circulation spawning out ahead of the lead southern shortwave trough simply isn't fast enough or amplified enough to "tug" on the southern feature and key the storm closer to the coast. 300mb streamlines loop: This loop shows the faster southern S/W and separation of these two features in action. The mean 300mb axis is faster and heights are not necessarily as suppressed, but less influence in connection with the TPV is making the southern S/W so progressive and WAA aloft is weaker to where heights are not as high from previous runs. Final graphic via Tomer Burg's site (500mb skewness): Now the question is: Is this a trend or noise? There is still a case to be made that the TPV could speed up, and in turn catch up to the southern shortwave trough. The speed/depth of the lead shortwave trough can also change. The EPS skewness page, which shows heights that are more sensitive or less confident in placement/strength, shows the TPV heights in the Mid-South being closer to yellow (still higher than usual spread), while some lighter green colors are off the Mid-Atlantic coast. That could be more related to the strength, speed, and orientation of the trough axis. This is unfortunately what we get with Miller B's. Despite model guidance improvements over the years, these subtle and intricate details: axis position, timing, depth, and interaction can make the difference in a 50-100 mile shift. This could very well shift north with the lead shortwave and still produce a healthy SECS without the help of the TPV. But that TPV merger will be the key in a MECS or larger. 14 12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usedtobe Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 I worked that storm and if you look at the 500h it was a lot different than the projected storm. It had a much stronger southern stream trough displaced farther south than this one. It was a cold event and one where the models were late in forecasting it to come far enough n to hit DC. 12 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MillvilleWx Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 4 minutes ago, HighStakes said: As of right now I see a lot of similarities to the 1/25-26/1987 NESIS storm. Very cold storm. I lived in Owings Mills then and we got 6. Probably was only around 4 up here where I am now. This upcoming storm looks to have a much broader precipitation field with much less chance for a sharp cutoff like in the 87 storm. Better upside for all involved with next week's storm The 1987 storm was a huge hit for areas like Annapolis/Waldorf/Entire eastern shore. In fact, that storm is one of the top 10 all time snowfall over areas like Easton, I believe. This storm I feel has a lot of similarities and should be a more aggressive version of that one, if it materializes like some of the guidance infer. There is a strong push of deep layer moisture at 850-700mb on guidance right now with significant ascent within a period of pronounced 25H jet coupling. The ECMWF Extreme Forecast Index (EFI) signifies a pretty robust outline of very anomalous/extreme output within the envelope of possibilities. This is a sign for perhaps greater impacts extending back into the Piedmont with the strongest core of anomalies centered over the Eastern Shore, especially across the Lower ES. Now, this can shift if the synoptic pattern deviates from what is being forecast, but seeing that EFI (Shaded area) represent values >0.8 leads me to believe that we have ourselves a pretty significant output potential with this one and some indication of a further west and southwestward expanse of the heavy precip field. 6 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terpeast Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 8 minutes ago, Heisy said: In 1 day we went from this to that lol . If it’s changing that much, then it will continue to change more. This isn’t final 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthArlington101 Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 Seeing our best posters talk this up and then having a lot of us running around like a chicken with its head cut off is funny. Guess we’ll see what happens lol 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighStakes Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 2 minutes ago, usedtobe said: I worked that storm and if you look at the 500h it was a lot different than the projected storm. It had a much stronger southern stream trough displaced farther south than this one. It was a cold event and one where the models were late in forecasting it to come far enough n to hit DC. The thing that I most remember about that storm was how light and powdery the snow was. Easily 1 of the top 3 driest snows I've ever experienced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Drifter Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 Why is this troll still posting on here? Every post he makes is designed to attack someone or stir shit up. Amen. He adds nothing to the board.Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ji Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 Apparently 47 out of 50 eps members gives someone a foot or snow or more in the mid Atlantic 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keviepoo Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 1 hour ago, stormtracker said: Pivot guys. A foot is now the goal. If we can’t get there, so what? Accumulating snow is going to happen. We don’t live in New England. Regardless of what happens, this will probably be our biggest snowstorm to date. It’s all relative fam. Perspective people... perspective. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 7 minutes ago, wxmvpete said: From an "upper-level axis" standpoint, the initial lead wave provides modest PVA aloft to where it still produces WAA "front-end thump" type snow probably regardless for most of the region. But the last 5 runs of the EPS shows some fundamental changes. 500mb trend loop: There is a clear separation of the TPV lobe over the Midwest and the lead southern shortwave. When they were phased, a stronger source of PVA/500-700mb WAA was placed more favorably over the Mid-Atlantic. As the two separate, the TPV which was faster and could help capture the leading low-level circulation spawning out ahead of the lead southern shortwave trough simply isn't fast enough or amplified enough to "tug" on the southern feature and key the storm closer to the coast. 300mb streamlines loop: This loop shows the faster southern S/W and separation of these two features in action. The mean 300mb axis is faster and heights are not necessarily as suppressed, but less influence in connection with the TPV is making the southern S/W so progressive and WAA aloft is weaker to where heights are not as high from previous runs. Final graphic via Tomer Burg's site (500mb skewness): Now the question is: Is this a trend or noise? There is still a case to be made that the TPV could speed up, and in turn catch up to the southern shortwave trough. The speed/depth of the lead shortwave trough can also change. The EPS skewness page, which shows heights that are more sensitive or less confident in placement/strength, shows the TPV heights in the Mid-South being closer to yellow (still higher than usual spread), while some lighter green colors are off the Mid-Atlantic coast. That could be more related to the strength, speed, and orientation of the trough axis. This is unfortunately what we get with Miller B's. Despite model guidance improvements over the years, these subtle and intricate details: axis position, timing, depth, and interaction can make the difference in a 50-100 mile shift. This could very well shift north with the lead shortwave and still produce a healthy SECS without the help of the TPV. But that TPV merger will be the key in a MECS or larger. Thank you, that was a great explanation. Honest question: Why can't I find any examples with this H5 look and a big snowstorm for Richmond to Delmarva where all the guidance says it will be right now? They all feature a significantly further southeast H5 track. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighStakes Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 9 minutes ago, psuhoffman said: That was one of the storms I included in my set earlier of close misses to our SE. But again...look at the H5 and the H7 along with the RH for that storm... Now compare it to the GFS for this storm. Look how much less suppressive the flow is for this storm in every way! I agree. I don't think this ever had 20 inches plus like a few runs but I think an outcome like today's 12z EURO is plausible. Definitely a little baffled since like you said this isn't a suppressive look. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Wiggum Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 Lots of red taggers lurking and posting. This is why this is the best sub on this site. 26 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 8 minutes ago, usedtobe said: I worked that storm and if you look at the 500h it was a lot different than the projected storm. It had a much stronger southern stream trough displaced farther south than this one. It was a cold event and one where the models were late in forecasting it to come far enough n to hit DC. Would love your thoughts on this... why the disconnect between the H5 track here and the models depiction of the heavy snow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 Since we are enjoying tonight's discussion... let's add our favorite 00z NAM into the mix... h5 at 75 hours FWIW 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anotherman Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 Lots of red daggers lurking and posting. This is why this is the best sub on this site.Red daggers…..hopefully that’s not prophetic. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bncho Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 Are we going to extrapolate the NAM 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Wiggum Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 1 minute ago, anotherman said: Red daggers…..hopefully that’s not prophetic. Shit, I hate this screen protector I swear 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 00z NAM at 84 h5 Surface 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BristowWx Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 1 minute ago, bncho said: Are we going to extrapolate the NAM I think it’s good. I really have no idea what’s good anymore. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddy1987 Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 Just now, yoda said: 00z NAM at 84 h5 Surface Surface LP good bit northwest of GFS and Euro at end of its run. Looks good. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 50 minutes ago, wasnow215 said: What about Feb 10-11 1983? Big from Richmond through NE? Different setup? The H5 track was closer to that storm but still further SE than this, otherwise not a lot of similarities. Also while that hit Richmond good it also got significant 12" plus snows way up into central PA and so didn't fit the criteria of what I was looking for. In terms of the "suppression" its more similar to this, which is kind of my point. 43 minutes ago, Ralph Wiggum said: Guidance is either going to come around and support your thoughts over the coming few days OR you are going to refer to your log and insert a new chapter or section about more unprecedented storm behavior in this modern clime. This has nothing to do with warming IMO, sometimes weird bleep just happens 5 minutes ago, Snow Drifter said: Amen. He adds nothing to the board. Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk I got into it with him a couple years ago, now I just ignore him 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtlanticWx Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 NAM had positive changes with our vort & confluence starting at hour 48. If this means anything for 0z runs, we're set. Confluence def lifted by 48 w/ trough buckling more -> more interaction by the period of interest 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ji Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 That looks pretty goodLet’s say it all together now “ too bad it’s the 84 hour Nam” 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ji Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 NAM had positive changes with our vort & confluence starting at hour 48. If this means anything for 0z runs, we're set. Confluence def lifted by 48 w/ trough buckling more -> more interaction by the period of interest The heights east were also higher 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlet Pimpernel Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 Wait...we're seriously analyzing the NAM now for this event?? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maestrobjwa Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 Just now, Scarlet Pimpernel said: Wait...we're seriously analyzing the NAM now for this event?? Desperate times, lol 2 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