Jump to content

  • Member Statistics

    17,729
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    kraken613
    Newest Member
    kraken613
    Joined

Feb 9: Iggles flying, weenies high-fivin’: the kickoff to a great stretch

mahk_webstah

By mahk_webstah,
in New England

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

metagraphica
metagraphica

Gotta love this place.  

40/70 Benchmark
40/70 Benchmark

https://www.blogger.com/blog/posts/2820149554058213224  

FXWX
FXWX

It's amazing... We have multiple sh$t winters in a row, and a good chunk of this winter has sucked, and now we are entering a wonderfully looking pattern and this thread becomes a crap show.  Will eve

Posted Images

Typhoon Tip

Typhoon Tip

Posted
Posted

I doubt there is a complete whiff in this. 

The low is triggered initially along the b-c axis because there's a lot of gradient there and the subtle increase in difluence as the jet compression/velocity increases over the boundary leads to wave genesis.  

But this is actually well ahead of N/stream S/W that is torpedoing along 45 N... This N/stream aft feature eventually catches up to this wave ...eventually giving it a boost in strength once it's long gone, but in the process of closing the gap it's probably going to ignite lighter snows lagging back - pretty much the only way to get a lag in this synoptic speed shit.   Anyway, the NAM pretty clearly shows this taking place ... 

It's not a lot... but, that's 1-2" ...maybe 3", which eliminates the whiff, if using the NAM-like take on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dendrite

dendrite

Posted
Posted

It’s not a whiff. NH is just stealing the forcing this run. 

2 minutes ago, dryslot said:

Didn't perform very well with yesterdays.

Did well up here I thought. I don’t even look at 12k anymore unless I want to see midlevel temps. But I’m not putting much stock in this solution. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
weatherwiz

weatherwiz

Posted
Posted

I feel kind of dumb. With the other day system I think it was @HoarfrostHubb who made a comment saying one of the models might be overdone with QPF but I said I think it was right...I didn't end up following the whole evolution too closely but I am going to guess that was overdone with QPF. 

Anyways, my point is, when looking at this setup it's important to understand what mechanisms are involved for the QPF production. We do have the strong diffluence aloft which is helping to net some upper-level divergence, but the overall driver here in QPF production is probably the WAA and llvl frontogenesis. That may and should yield some caution, not just with total QPF but QPF structure and how that QPF is being utilized (i.e. we're going to have to relay on pockets of enhanced VV to maximize snow growth and ratio). 

damn it...I should have went 3-6...maybe 3-5. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Typhoon Tip

Typhoon Tip

Posted
Posted

Here's the NAM FOUS grid QPF for Logan ...  .43" liq equiv total... At 20:1 out west of the city ( assuming high ratio) that's 8"   

42008959143 06924 151009 35979292   
48029975705 03721 110212 28999490  
54005764704 -2418 153409 23009388

Maybe the ratios won't be that high.  Looks like there could be a "ratio gradient" too.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TauntonBlizzard2013

TauntonBlizzard2013

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, weatherwiz said:

I feel kind of dumb. With the other day system I think it was @HoarfrostHubb who made a comment saying one of the models might be overdone with QPF but I said I think it was right...I didn't end up following the whole evolution too closely but I am going to guess that was overdone with QPF. 

Anyways, my point is, when looking at this setup it's important to understand what mechanisms are involved for the QPF production. We do have the strong diffluence aloft which is helping to net some upper-level divergence, but the overall driver here in QPF production is probably the WAA and llvl frontogenesis. That may and should yield some caution, not just with total QPF but QPF structure and how that QPF is being utilized (i.e. we're going to have to relay on pockets of enhanced VV to maximize snow growth and ratio). 

damn it...I should have went 3-6...maybe 3-5. 

I was mocked this morning for going 2-4 isolated 5 or 6

Link to comment
Share on other sites
weatherwiz

weatherwiz

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TauntonBlizzard2013 said:

I was mocked this morning for going 2-4 isolated 5 or 6

We seem to have short memories and aren't great at learning from mistakes. Or we get too caught up in stuff like QPF and then of course tossing in snow maps like they're worth a damn. 

But something of 2-4 somewhere is absolutely 100% doable. It's also not like we're getting several hours of intense lifting through the DGZ and even looking at bufkit soundings, outside of the periods where you're maximizing lift the snow ratios aren't anything spectacular. Outside of maximizing lift, snow growth and ratios will probably be meh. I promise you'll see several posts commenting how awful they are. 

  • Like 2
  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TauntonBlizzard2013

TauntonBlizzard2013

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, WinterWolf said:

You were mocked because nothing showed what you said.  And if you want to rest your cap on the NAM..you go right ahead. 

Just because a model doesn’t show it, doesn’t mean it won’t in the future or won’t happen. I’m forecasting this weakening as we approach go time, as we’ve seen many times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Typhoon Tip

Typhoon Tip

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said:

I think you’d rather the NAM where it is now than already having warm tongue up S Wey fanny with sleet. If the NAM doesn’t have it, it ain’t real 

I don't think that's ever a possibility in this. 

This is narrowed impact corridor from a system moving straight west-east across the continent. The jet structures aloft are not impinging that way.

In general, it's got some dynamics; it's more a question of where the moisture is coming from for the QPF because the back ground synoptic circumstance suggests drier is supported.  That's why we should not be quick to drop the NAM's drier profile - but again...I think there's also folks overdoing it on the dry interpretation - part of the 'oh god oh god' manic thing. haha. 

Anyway, I just pointed out that the NAM's total QPF is doable for at least an advisory event, given to .3 to .45" liq equiv dropped through an arctic medium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
weatherwiz

weatherwiz

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TauntonBlizzard2013 said:

Just because a model doesn’t show it, doesn’t mean it won’t in the future or won’t happen. I’m forecasting this weakening as we approach go time, as we’ve seen many times.

ehhh...if one takes the time to really digest everything, assess forecast soundings, evolution of low-levels and mid-levels, and then applying knowledge of these setups well there are plenty of flags which show what you're suggesting isn't far-fetched. Every single weather system is going to have flags and its important that flags be pointed out and assessed to determine what impact those flags would/could have. More often that not, red flags are going to have some impact on what occurs, otherwise every single weather system would overperform. 

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
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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