H2Otown_WX Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Anyone who is discounting this potential from Jan 6 - 11 apparently has a short memory. Most model at some point in the last few days has showed a major storm for the Northern Mid Atlantic North. One discounter is guess who - this has to be the most ridicoulus forecast around right now... http://www.accuweath...old-weather.asp Oh geeze... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnoSki14 Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Do you think it will get as cold as what the 0z GFS depicted? People were talking about Jan 1994 revisited in another thread lol. I thought they were kidding when they mentioned 1994 to be honest with you lol. I don't think we'll get anywhere close to that but I believe we'll be consistently below average by a few degrees every day. We'll probably have 3 or 4 days with a double digit negative departure, maybe some lows in the single digits outside the cities, Big Maybe on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Analog96 Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 I don't know if I'd dub it "ridiculous'...1-3 inches with first storm...2-4 with second...potentially turning into something major from NYC and points northeast....it seems within the realm of possible and reasonable solutions...out here on L.I. January has seen a high # of sub 3 inch events...probably more than any other month over the last 30 years or so...the larger events have generally been in December, February, and to a lesser extent, March. That's not what's ridiculous. What's ridiculous is Henry writing amounts and drawing a map for something so far out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atownwxwatcher Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 MEANWHILE CONFIDENCE IS MUCH LOWER WITH A COUPLE OF SRN STREAMFEATURES THAT MAY HAVE A MEANINGFUL IMPACT PCPN-WISE OVER SOMEAREAS. SHORT RANGE DISAGREEMENTS WITH THE COMPLEX EVOLUTION OVERAND OFFSHORE FROM CA...ALONG WITH UNCERTAINTIES OF INTERACTING NRNSTREAM SHORTWAVE ENERGY...LEAD TO TIMING/STRENGTH DIFFS WITH THESHORTWAVE PROGRESSING EWD FROM THE PLAINS WED INTO THU. THE 00ZGFS COMBINATION OF BEING SLOWER THAN THE 00Z ECMWF/UKMET/CMC WITHTHIS SHORTWAVE ALONG WITH HAVING A SLOW SOLUTION TO THE NORTH LEADTO A MORE DEVELOPED SYSTEM VERSUS CONSENSUS OVER THE WRN ATLANTICBY LATE THU. THERE IS ALSO A DECENT SPREAD WITH THE EWDPROGRESSION OF CLOSED LOW ENERGY TO THE SW OF CA AS OF DAY 3WED...WITH THE 00Z ECMWF/ECMWF ENSEMBLE MEAN AMONG THE FASTERSOLUTIONS BUT THE 06/12Z GFS HAVE TRENDED FASTER WITH THE LOWCOMPARED TO THE 00Z GFS. THE PREFERRED 3-WAY BLEND DOES REASONABLYWELL AT DAMPENING THE LOW CONFIDENCE WAVE THAT THE 00Z ECMWFBRINGS INTO THE SOUTHEAST BY DAY 7 SUN. HOWEVER...DESPITEUNCERTAINTY THIS FEATURE MAINTAINS SOME THREAT AS A SENSIBLEWEATHER FOCUS RUNNING UNDERNEATH IN THIS PATTERN FROM 00/12 UTCGUIDANCE SO HPC FINAL PROGS MAINTAIN REASONABLE DEFINITION ANDCONTINUITY.RAUSCH/SCHICHTEL Day 4 Day 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEG NAO Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 That's not what's ridiculous. What's ridiculous is Henry writing amounts and drawing a map for something so far out. Agree 100% - in fact its not certain if this will be a 2 storm scenario - its possible there might just be one event - models are all over the place ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-X Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 I thought they were kidding when they mentioned 1994 to be honest with you lol. I don't think we'll get anywhere close to that but I believe we'll be consistently below average by a few degrees every day. We'll probably have 3 or 4 days with a double digit negative departure, maybe some lows in the single digits outside the cities, Big Maybe on that one. I just hope its cold and snowy and not cold and dry-- looks like a long duration snowcover if the former Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-X Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 The fellow is entitled to give his mid range opinion just like anyone else...just as you are free to criticize it...and I am free to question your criticism if I believe it undue... William, I dont know if that was his forecast or just his interpretation of what the model was saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edge Weather Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Yes, they have no clue either. MEANWHILE CONFIDENCE IS MUCH LOWER WITH A COUPLE OF SRN STREAMFEATURES THAT MAY HAVE A MEANINGFUL IMPACT PCPN-WISE OVER SOMEAREAS. SHORT RANGE DISAGREEMENTS WITH THE COMPLEX EVOLUTION OVERAND OFFSHORE FROM CA...ALONG WITH UNCERTAINTIES OF INTERACTING NRNSTREAM SHORTWAVE ENERGY...LEAD TO TIMING/STRENGTH DIFFS WITH THESHORTWAVE PROGRESSING EWD FROM THE PLAINS WED INTO THU. THE 00ZGFS COMBINATION OF BEING SLOWER THAN THE 00Z ECMWF/UKMET/CMC WITHTHIS SHORTWAVE ALONG WITH HAVING A SLOW SOLUTION TO THE NORTH LEADTO A MORE DEVELOPED SYSTEM VERSUS CONSENSUS OVER THE WRN ATLANTICBY LATE THU. THERE IS ALSO A DECENT SPREAD WITH THE EWDPROGRESSION OF CLOSED LOW ENERGY TO THE SW OF CA AS OF DAY 3WED...WITH THE 00Z ECMWF/ECMWF ENSEMBLE MEAN AMONG THE FASTERSOLUTIONS BUT THE 06/12Z GFS HAVE TRENDED FASTER WITH THE LOWCOMPARED TO THE 00Z GFS. THE PREFERRED 3-WAY BLEND DOES REASONABLYWELL AT DAMPENING THE LOW CONFIDENCE WAVE THAT THE 00Z ECMWFBRINGS INTO THE SOUTHEAST BY DAY 7 SUN. HOWEVER...DESPITEUNCERTAINTY THIS FEATURE MAINTAINS SOME THREAT AS A SENSIBLEWEATHER FOCUS RUNNING UNDERNEATH IN THIS PATTERN FROM 00/12 UTCGUIDANCE SO HPC FINAL PROGS MAINTAIN REASONABLE DEFINITION ANDCONTINUITY.RAUSCH/SCHICHTEL Day 4 Day 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sock Puppet Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 I don't believe that was his forecast but rather an interpretation of what the model depicted Ah, irony... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-X Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Yeah, Ben, I dont know why people over-react when people say 6-10" of snow.... whats the difference between that and saying 0.7" qpf aside from the fact that 0.7" qpf just sounds fancier. Both are just model interpretations. The fact is ratios are usually 10:1 to 12:1 no matter what the initial conditions are. You very rarely get big snowstorms with the kinds of ratios that Jan 2004 had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsentropicLift Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 This event reminds me of the 2003 President's Day Storm. It looked as if we were going to get two seperate distinct systems dropping 6-10" 48 hours apart and ended up with one huge powerhouse of a storm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-X Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 This event reminds me of the 2003 President's Day Storm. It looked as if we were going to get two seperate distinct systems dropping 6-10" 48 hours apart and ended up with one huge powerhouse of a storm. LOL that was one of my favorite storms. Wasnt there actually a somewhat big storm a few days before that? I remember we had snowcover when the really big one began. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atownwxwatcher Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Yes, they have no clue either. That is why I do not understand why people on forums talk in such definite's when it comes to the solutions that the models are showing. Its quite clear that the larger pattern over all is agreed upon but the smaller scale details there is much disagreement on and until there is actual agreement no solution is off the table. Whether that be a light event or a more worthy event. Just last night on 00z GFS runs and 6 Z GFS runs we had southern stream features involved and today at 12 Z it has become more of a Northern Stream event.. With so much energy involved and difference in these small scale details it is just too early to write anything off . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edge Weather Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Well put and very true. I fell into that trap earlier myself. I just needed a break from the models for a few hours. This hobby can make you crazy if you don't take a break once in a while. That is why I do not understand why people on forums talk in such definite's when it comes to the solutions that the models are showing. Its quite clear that the larger pattern over all is agreed upon but the smaller scale details there is much disagreement on and until there is actual agreement no solution is off the table. Whether that be a light event or a more worthy event. Just last night on 00z GFS runs and 6 Z GFS runs we had southern stream features involved and today at 12 Z it has become more of a Northern Stream event.. With so much energy involved and difference in these small scale details it is just too early to write anything off . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daxx Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 That is why I do not understand why people on forums talk in such definite's when it comes to the solutions that the models are showing. Its quite clear that the larger pattern over all is agreed upon but the smaller scale details there is much disagreement on and until there is actual agreement no solution is off the table. Whether that be a light event or a more worthy event. Just last night on 00z GFS runs and 6 Z GFS runs we had southern stream features involved and today at 12 Z it has become more of a Northern Stream event.. With so much energy involved and difference in these small scale details it is just too early to write anything off . Most people on here do not live, or die by each model run. Just a few have a complete breakdown, when it does not show what they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ridingtime Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Wow- we are approaching a really really complex set up. We aren't really going to be knowing what happens until 1-2 days before an event guys. So lets not live and die by each model run. Analyze the upper level pattern first, look at trends, and then get worked up with the details 24-48 hrs before it occurs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Analog96 Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 The fellow is entitled to give his mid range opinion just like anyone else...just as you are free to criticize it...and I am free to question your criticism if I believe it undue... He's entitled to give his opinion and then have his coworkers (of whom I was one) basically giving him the facepalm in person and asking WHY did you make a map so early? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eduggs Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Yeah, Ben, I dont know why people over-react when people say 6-10" of snow.... whats the difference between that and saying 0.7" qpf aside from the fact that 0.7" qpf just sounds fancier. Both are just model interpretations. The fact is ratios are usually 10:1 to 12:1 no matter what the initial conditions are. You very rarely get big snowstorms with the kinds of ratios that Jan 2004 had. The problem is you get further away from what the model is showing synoptically and closer to IMBY obsessions that models aren't suited for. .7 l.e. is a least numerical model output, albeit rough and unreliable. But when you convert to snowfall estimates from a mid-range chart you are squarely in fantasy land. When short range model consensus shows 0.5 for a particular location, it receives between 4-6" of snow much less than 50% of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptb127 Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Very excited to have two snowstorm threats down here on the euro! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Analog96 Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 The problem is you get further away from what the model is showing synoptically and closer to IMBY obsessions that models aren't suited for. .7 l.e. is a least numerical model output, albeit rough and unreliable. But when you convert to snowfall estimates from a mid-range chart you are squarely in fantasy land. When short range model consensus shows 0.5 for a particular location, it receives between 4-6" of snow much less than 50% of the time. Do you have any proof for the drivel that you are spouting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atownwxwatcher Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Interestingly enough the ECM ensemble means at 12 Z is alot further to the west then the operational run at 120 hrs... Compare this to the op @ 120 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atownwxwatcher Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 I can say this much - 120 hours or so before the onset of an event, considerable uncertainty may prevail...particularly with disparate model solutions. But I would argue that Marquisty's forecast...while by no means guaranteed...is far from entirely unsupportable or "ridiculous". There is some model support for a two part / separated events...one system is a clipper, a system that in many cases is not a major liquid producer until 1/ it reaches the ocean or 2/ fills, followed by secondary development out in the water. If the redevelopement is not at a favorable latitude, not a huge amount of moisture can be thrown back west. Then we just have basic climatology...the last few years nonwithstanding, most snowfall events between NYC and Philadelphia, believe it or not, are under the 5 inch amount...and even in this historically snowy period, January has been a historically lean month with regards to major snowstorms in this region. So although the Accuweather met's initial guess on an event still five days away may prove incorrect, it is a bit unfair to call it ridiculous. In these model threads, both here, at Eastern and on other boards, one of the main things is throwing out a forecast. If someone sees a snow event at Hour 384 on the GFS and then calls for 6 - 12 inches 16 days from now; then quite rightly, they are to be lampooned. But throwing out amounts as we get within 5 days of an event, based on model guidance, historical climatology, and the forecaster's general gut feeling falls well within the ambit of reasonableness. You have directed this post towards the wrong individual as I have mentioned nothing about Henry M...Though i will say this much i do not take anything he says as serious for good reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isnice Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Interestingly enough the ECM ensemble means at 12 Z is alot further to the west then the operational run at 120 hrs... Compare this to the op @ 120 When ANY ensemble is west of its operational, that should be a red flag. Just sayin' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eduggs Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Do you have any proof for the drivel that you are spouting? Of course not. But its self evident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eduggs Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 When ANY ensemble is west of its operational, that should be a red flag. Just sayin' Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isnice Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Why? A larger spread on the individual members translates to a less amplified mean. Most of the time, this is the case and the flow is more progressive/east. However, when a mean is more amplified and further west than an operational, it means that the individual members are all comparitively more amplified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonli18t Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Why? With all due respect (and im really not being sarcastic) you don't really have a right to be asking someone to qualify their statement. Maybe that, too, is "self evident." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jm1220 Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 LOL that was one of my favorite storms. Wasnt there actually a somewhat big storm a few days before that? I remember we had snowcover when the really big one began. 2/7/03: Probably around 6-8" region wide. There was also a small piece that arrived before the main event on around Valentines' Day that gave Balt/DC 3-6". That piece was originally modelled to be more substantial and further north. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edge Weather Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Very, very interesting. As I have been saying for a few days now. Many things about this potential event have similarities to the previous one. Mainly how the models are wanting to develop the surface low out in the Gulf Stream as opposed to closer to the coast where in my humble opinion it is more likely to be, just as with the last event. I have seen many times in previous years how these patterns do tend to repeat. History does often repeat itself. Interestingly enough the ECM ensemble means at 12 Z is alot further to the west then the operational run at 120 hrs... Compare this to the op @ 120 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Analog96 Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Of course not. But its self evident. As I thought! Carry on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.