psuhoffman Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 5 minutes ago, bncho said: Are we going to extrapolate the NAM 3 2 6 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeesburgWx Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 1 minute ago, Scarlet Pimpernel said: Wait...we're seriously analyzing the NAM now for this event?? Yes 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlet Pimpernel Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 Just now, Maestrobjwa said: Desperate times, lol I really, really, really...really! want to see @stormtracker have a reason to show the "Shocked Beethoven" image again!!! 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlet Pimpernel Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 Just now, LeesburgWx said: Yes Well in that case, God help us all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayyy Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 00z NAM at 84 h5 Surface Extrapolate, you will. Heavy snow, we receive. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deer Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 1 minute ago, Scarlet Pimpernel said: Wait...we're seriously analyzing the NAM now for this event?? are you new? 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BristowWx Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 2 minutes ago, Scarlet Pimpernel said: Wait...we're seriously analyzing the NAM now for this event?? Yes I think that’s the best course of action at this juncture. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ji Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 Wait...we're seriously analyzing the NAM now for this event?? Well if what happens in 48 hours on the Nam is important for the potential phasing Then sure 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 It's the NAM so... it's the NAM but it was about to open a can on us 10 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wxmvpete Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 6 minutes ago, psuhoffman said: 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. I hope this link to the CIPS Analogs works. https://www.eas.slu.edu/CIPS/ANALOG/DFHR.php?reg=EC&fhr=F108&rundt=2025021512&map=thbCOOP72 Just clicking around, I thought the January 25-26, 1987 event has some similarities and was at least closer to the snowfall look you mention. Obviously it has some flaws, but the MSLP and 850mb representation isn't too dissimilar. But to your point, if you look at the mean snowfall probs, most of those snowfall areas were more north. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlet Pimpernel Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 Just now, Ji said: Well if what happens in 48 hours on the Nam is important for the potential phasing Then sure True...and honestly with so much other crap going on I've almost lost track of time, and the fact that this event would actually start here sometime later Wednesday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warm Nose Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 4 minutes ago, psuhoffman said: 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 8 minutes ago, Ji said: That looks pretty good Let’s say it all together now “ too bad it’s the 84 hour Nam” Ok just something that stuck with me...the 84 hours NAM was the first indication we had that the March 2017 storm I've said has some h5 similarities was going way NW of what guidance had indicated. We tossed it of course...NAM and all...no way was our snowstorm turning into a sleet bomb...lol We have much deeper cold air this time...we want that same shift in the track this time. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
87storms Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 Miller b hybrid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlet Pimpernel Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 4 minutes ago, deer said: are you new? Hahaha, no, not quite! Yeah, we overanalyze every model, even the NAM at its far ranges! But then I just saw @psuhoffman starting to extrapolate it. WTF is the world coming to?!?!?! We need snow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wxmvpete Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 2 minutes ago, wxmvpete said: I hope this link to the CIPS Analogs works. https://www.eas.slu.edu/CIPS/ANALOG/DFHR.php?reg=EC&fhr=F108&rundt=2025021512&map=thbCOOP72 Just clicking around, I thought the January 25-26, 1987 event has some similarities and was at least closer to the snowfall look you mention. Obviously it has some flaws, but the MSLP and 850mb representation isn't too dissimilar. But to your point, if you look at the mean snowfall probs, most of those snowfall areas were more north. And it just dawned on me (trying to read the posts) that @MillvilleWxand others made reference to that storm lol. But the CIPS analogs at least had some extra links to review them. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solution Man Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 13 minutes ago, BristowWx said: I think it’s good. I really have no idea what’s good anymore. If you think it’s good I think it’s good 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 4 minutes ago, wxmvpete said: I hope this link to the CIPS Analogs works. https://www.eas.slu.edu/CIPS/ANALOG/DFHR.php?reg=EC&fhr=F108&rundt=2025021512&map=thbCOOP72 Just clicking around, I thought the January 25-26, 1987 event has some similarities and was at least closer to the snowfall look you mention. Obviously it has some flaws, but the MSLP and 850mb representation isn't too dissimilar. But to your point, if you look at the mean snowfall probs, most of those snowfall areas were more north. yea we were discussing that fact (the analogs) earlier. Also that 87 storm was brought up by me as an example of a snowfall distribution similar to what guidance indicates now...but it had a significantly further south H5 track and a more suppressive flow over the top. I've yet to find a big Richmond-Delmarva snowstorm with an H5 low tracking through Ohio and southern PA. Maybe we are about to witness a first! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wonderdog Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 Just now, Solution Man said: If you think it’s good I think it’s good It's good 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maestrobjwa Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 3 minutes ago, psuhoffman said: Ok just something that stuck with me...the 84 hours NAM was the first indication we had that the March 2017 storm I've said has some h5 similarities was going way NW of what guidance had indicated. We tossed it of course...NAM and all...no way was our snowstorm turning into a sleet bomb...lol We have much deeper cold air this time...we want that same shift in the track this time. Good enough reason for me 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solution Man Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 Just now, Wonderdog said: It's good Let’s roll with it 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 3 minutes ago, 87storms said: Miller b hybrid? yes, the H5 argues for this. There should be more amplitude to the wave along the arctic boundary with a transfer to the coastal off the mid atlantic coast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlet Pimpernel Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 Just now, Maestrobjwa said: Good enough reason for me We need to bring the DGEX (REJEX??? LOL!!) back!!! Which was essentially an extrapolated NAM! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wxdude64 Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 13 minutes ago, psuhoffman said: Wait... isn't that a Miller B? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BristowWx Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 4 minutes ago, Wonderdog said: It's good Ok I’m convinced it’s good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Wiggum Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 4 minutes ago, psuhoffman said: I've yet to find a big Richmond-Delmarva snowstorm with an H5 low tracking through Ohio and southern PA. Maybe we are about to witness a first! And you don't think the elephant in The room has anything to do with that? Even indirectly? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wxmvpete Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 1 minute ago, psuhoffman said: yea we were discussing that fact (the analogs) earlier. Also that 87 storm was brought up by me as an example of a snowfall distribution similar to what guidance indicates now...but it had a significantly further south H5 track and a more suppressive flow over the top. I've yet to find a big Richmond-Delmarva snowstorm with an H5 low tracking through Ohio and southern PA. Maybe we are about to witness a first! If I can find any of note I'll post them. One other site you could try to use is https://xmacis.rcc-acis.org/ and search either by individual station or mulit-station and look back to see if maybe RIC, SBY, or even WAL may have some useful data that aligns. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
87storms Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 yes, the H5 argues for this. There should be more amplitude to the wave along the arctic boundary with a transfer to the coastal off the mid atlantic coast. Reel it in…you’ve been hawking over this time period. I like that the gulf is involved and we’re not just relying on Atlantic moisture from the coastal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 Just now, wxdude64 said: Wait... isn't that a Miller B? We want a miller b hybrid actually...without the wave into the TN valley the coastal initiates too far southeast...its rare for us to get a big snowstorm from that trajectory. Would take a really crazy capture phase. If the initial wave along the arctic front has a little more amplitude it causes a further north transfer and tucked location of the coastal off the mid atlantic and we need a less extreme interplay with the NS and STJ to get this to work. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 1 minute ago, wxmvpete said: If I can find any of note I'll post them. One other site you could try to use is https://xmacis.rcc-acis.org/ and search either by individual station or mulit-station and look back to see if maybe RIC, SBY, or even WAL may have some useful data that aligns. Thanks! There goes what was left of my productivity 2 3 1 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