Ginx snewx Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Consensus building for a juicy coastal snowstorm possible KU blizzard for the Feb20th period. With origins in the newly named Gulf of America riding the coast it appears to be our first legitimate Noreaster threat. 5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typhoon Tip Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 The 20th is a real storm problem. It's going to be on the map; the uncertainty isn't whether a storm is real, the sensitivity as far as I'm observing ( fwiw...) is tightly connected to phase proficiency. Those guidance that suggest more of it, end up more meaningfully impacting/W solutions. It's really attempting a subsume phase type ( 1978 is a spectacular course work on what that cinema looks like - not saying so as an analog in this case ), but there's still a bit of compression and speed bias lingering - mainly because the western heights are not canonically extending polarward enough. It's poorly constructed and the stream lines are also partially fractured ...these constructs signal vague L/W support for this event over the eastern mid latitudes. Such that the wave spacing is being lengthened - you can see it how a partial phase in these guidance is then causing the SPV (N/stream vortex part) to spaghettify toward the E... It's like it grabs the S/stream and then gets it's arms ripped off ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sn0waddict Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Let’s hope this is finally the one. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typhoon Tip Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 It's a little bit of a negative interference offset to this system's total potential. Nevertheless, in so far as the 00z GFS, that solution was not so dismantled that it could not put out a big dawg solution. It just shows it is within the realm of possibility. But this system's ultimate fate is still bit up in the air ( pun hopefully annoying ...) as far as timing these stream mechanics. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40/70 Benchmark Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 If the evolution remains Miller A like, that limits the ceiling for this up here....you aren't getting an upper tier solution like Jan 2015 or Feb 2013 from that....you just aren't, espcially across the northern half of the area. We are going to need a very proficient phase to get up to this latitude for a 1'+ type of deal for the majority of the area. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typhoon Tip Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 4 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said: If the evolution remains Miller A like, that limits the ceiling for this up here....you aren't getting an upper tier solution like Jan 2015 or Feb 2013 from that....you just aren't. We are going to need a very proficient phase to get up to this latitude. I disagree a little ... a little - let's not blow tops off volcano cones here.. This is a different species than a pure Miller A. The S/stream does actively trigger a wave down S... but a Miller A model's total manifold does not have an SPV N/stream timed scenario of capturing and subsuming. That is different than a Miller A in the purer sense - thus I don't believe the correlations is entirely clad. Also, there are Miller A's in history that were massive snow producers. It may be rarer, but they have occurred. I've always been a little bit leery of relying on that idea. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUNNAWAYICEBERG Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 6 minutes ago, Sn0waddict said: Let’s hope this is finally the one. It is not. Not for WOR. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40/70 Benchmark Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 12 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said: I disagree a little ... a little - let's not blow tops off volcano cones here.. This is a different species than a pure Miller A. The S/stream does actively trigger a wave down S... but a Miller A model's total manifold does not have an SPV N/stream timed scenario of capturing and subsuming. That is different than a Miller A in the purer sense - thus I don't believe the correlations is entirely clad. Also, there are Miller A's in history that were massive snow producers. It may be rarer, but they have occurred. I've always been a little bit leery of relying on that idea. Could you name one that produced widespread 2'+ across the majority of the area? Maybe Feb 1899? I guess Jan 1996, but that had a sharp cutt-off across the northern reaches of the area.... There usually is some northern stream contribution, that is why I used the word "spectrum", but this looks to have a very large s stream contribution....this isn't like a '78 deal, which essentially consisted of the N stream subsuming a s stream zygote. IDK, has me very leery....then you also have to worry more about track that far south....the more latituide between point x and storm inception, the more that can go awry en route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JC-CT Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 @RUNNAWAYICEBERGwill singlehandledly bring this storm to fruition by pumping east coast heights ahead of the storm with his melt 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40/70 Benchmark Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 5 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said: We have had many Name them....I'll grant you Feb 1899 and Jan 1996, desite the fact that the latter proked the northern third of the area. You could use Feb 2003, but that was a different animal in that it was a wall of moisture tossed over an arctic dome.....more precarious with a wound up tempest like this will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted February 14 Author Share Posted February 14 1 minute ago, 40/70 Benchmark said: Name them....I'll grant you Feb 1899 and Jan 1996, desite the fact that the latter proked the northern third of the area. You could use Feb 2003, but that was a different animal in that it was a wall of moisture tossed over an arctic dome.....more precarious with a wound up tempest like this will be. Maybe an E hybrid like so many Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40/70 Benchmark Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 3 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said: Maybe an E hybrid like so many Which ones? I don't think any of those dropped widespread 2' amounts up here, which is my point. All I said was the ceiling is capped, not that there can't be a nice storm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 It's not a true Miller A, but does have the LBSW characteristics. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sn0waddict Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 24 minutes ago, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said: It is not. Not for WOR. Ups on further review of the 0z GFS I see it had that dual low look. You just know if that happened the father out to see low would end up robbing us of all the precip lol 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40/70 Benchmark Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 3 minutes ago, CoastalWx said: It's not a true Miller A, but does have the LBSW characteristics. Right....hardly any are....like I said, its a spectrum. But this one has a large s stream constribution, hence the "LBSW characteristics". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted February 14 Author Share Posted February 14 2 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said: Which ones? I don't think any of those dropped widespread 2' amounts up here, which is my point. All I sad was the ceiling is capped, not that there can't be a nice storm. Lol there aren't many widespread foot storms 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40/70 Benchmark Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Just now, Ginx snewx said: Lol there aren't many widespread foot storms Throughout our area? Sure are..plenty, they just evolve differently from this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted February 14 Author Share Posted February 14 4 minutes ago, CoastalWx said: It's not a true Miller A, but does have the LBSW characteristics. Meh it's deepening all the way to GOM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40/70 Benchmark Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Just now, Ginx snewx said: Meh it's deepening all the way to GOM Its about MAX RATE of deepening and when H5 closes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted February 14 Author Share Posted February 14 Just now, 40/70 Benchmark said: Throughout our area? Sure are..plenty, they just evolve differently from this one. 2 foot? Please list widespread 2 footers. Rare Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinterWolf Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 28 minutes ago, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said: It is not. Not for WOR. Well, if there’s any consolation(at 6? Days out lol) Miller A’s are usually decent for western areas. But at this range it’s all just possibilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted February 14 Author Share Posted February 14 Just now, 40/70 Benchmark said: Its about MAX RATE of deepening and when H5 closes. Yea ENS have bombogenisis maxed at BM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Regardless there is certainly potential....but I think we all know the risk could be the ole Good Bye and Good Luck. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typhoon Tip Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 28 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said: Could you name one that produced widespread 2'+ across the majority of the area? Maybe Feb 1899? I guess Jan 1996, but that had a sharp cutt-off across the northern reaches of the area.... There usually is some northern stream contribution, that is why I used the word "spectrum", but this looks to have a very large s stream contribution....this isn't like a '78 deal, which essentially consisted of the N stream subsuming a s stream zygote. IDK, has me very leery....then you also have to worry more about track that far south....the more latituide between point x and storm inception, the more that can go awry en route. Why does it have to be "2'+" ? "Massive snow producer" granted that's subjective but N of 12" is massive for our climate. What's the interquartile density of snow-related storm totals? A regional foot average is probably on the rarer side compared to where the bulk is in that scatter plot. Wherever the bulk average of all snow events is, that's the cut off for massive consideration? At least in my mind. I know in 1977-1978 winter there were a couple of Miller As in late Dec thru early Jan. One of them, I want to say it was 19.1" fell at Logan and set the 24-hour records for snowfall at that location. A record that would be broken several weeks later by the Feb 5-7 juggernaut of course - which wasn't a Miller A... BUT, there was a Miller A wave that was technically captured in that, but it was weak and was pulled N while E of the Va Capes. Anyway, I'm losing track of the purpose of this conversation. Ha. I was just pointing out that it's not really a very good Miller A comparison, when there is this N/stream capture thing going on. The Miller A model doesn't contain that, which is a entirely instrumental in this case for getting an event here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mahk_webstah Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Reading the good analysis in here and the caution flags. I’d have to bet against this event being a big one at least in a broad area. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40/70 Benchmark Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Just now, Ginx snewx said: 2 foot? Please list widespread 2 footers. Rare Jan 2015, Jan 2011, Jan 2005, Dec 2003, April 1997, Feb 1978, Feb 1969x2...I won't count Jan 1961 because that was pretty localized 2' amounts. All of those evolved differently form this in that they had more n stream vs s stream contribution. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40/70 Benchmark Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 5 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said: Why does it have to be "2'+" ? "Massive snow producer" granted that's subjective but N of 12" is massive for our climate. What's the interquartile density of snow-related storm totals? A regional foot average is probably on the rarer side compared to where the bulk is in that scatter plot. Wherever the bulk average of all snow events is, that's the cut off for massive consideration? At least in my mind. I know in 1977-1978 winter there were a couple of Miller As in late Dec thru early Jan. One of them, I want to say it was 19.1" fell at Logan and set the 24-hour records for snowfall at that location. A record that would be broken several weeks later by the Feb 5-7 juggernaut of course - which wasn't a Miller A... BUT, there was a Miller A wave that was technically captured in that, but it was weak and was pulled N while E of the Va Capes. My original point was that the ceiling is capped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40/70 Benchmark Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 4 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said: Why does it have to be "2'+" ? "Massive snow producer" granted that's subjective but N of 12" is massive for our climate. What's the interquartile density of snow-related storm totals? A regional foot average is probably on the rarer side compared to where the bulk is in that scatter plot. Wherever the bulk average of all snow events is, that's the cut off for massive consideration? At least in my mind. I know in 1977-1978 winter there were a couple of Miller As in late Dec thru early Jan. One of them, I want to say it was 19.1" fell at Logan and set the 24-hour records for snowfall at that location. A record that would be broken several weeks later by the Feb 5-7 juggernaut of course - which wasn't a Miller A... BUT, there was a Miller A wave that was technically captured in that, but it was weak and was pulled N while E of the Va Capes. Ok, yes...very possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40/70 Benchmark Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 6 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said: Yea ENS have bombogenisis maxed at BM Right, but they don't get quite far enough north....there are a couple of risks here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted February 14 Author Share Posted February 14 2 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said: Jan 2015, Jan 2011, Jan 2005, Dec 2003, April 1997, Feb 1978, Feb 1969x2...I won't count Jan 1961 because that was pretty localized 2' amounts. All of those evolved differently form this in that they had more n stream vs s stream contribution. I still contend Jan15 was an A 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