mattinpa Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 Geez, you guys are acting like it's 90/10 we're going to get a KU storm, when in actuality, it's about 10/90. Look where the ridge is out west, look how much ridging there is out in front, look when and where the H5 low cuts off. This has a TON of work to do before you can start throwing around 12/16/09 and 2/6/10. 10/90 this far out? I figured that earthlight liked a lot of things in the setup from his post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dsnowx53 Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 Please...God no. Two screwjobs here. It almost certainly won't happen like those two events since we don't have the southern stream moisture that those events had, but this one might have more northern stream energy. But the fact that there is a pseudo-split flow (you can see it at 90 hours), along with a pretty strong west and west-north-west flow at 500mb into our area, that almost assures that a storm cannot cut, and a southern stream impulse has to slowly slide underneath--IIRC something that was pretty evident for the 2/6 and 12/19 events. Also, since the southern shortwave is forced underneath into the Gulf, it undergoes positive feedback mechanisms which have to increase the heights and thicknesses out ahead of it, and thus amplifies the trough--an extra feedback that goes further than a simply amplifying shortwave. The combination of all of this certainly prevents a storm from cutting inland, allows a storm to move slowly and gain moisture, and then also aids in allowing northern stream energy coming from the intermountain west to catch up with our storm--only aiding in a tucking the storm closer to the coast rather than sliding out to sea. The pieces don't come together perfectly this run. However, we all saw how for the last system, the models didn't seem to pick up on the positive feedback mechanism from the convection in the Gulf until very close to the event. I'm pretty confident--that as long as we have the initial confluent flow, and the southern stream digs into the Gulf, that someone is going to get a pretty big storm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-X Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 Geez, you guys are acting like it's 90/10 we're going to get a KU storm, when in actuality, it's about 10/90. Look where the ridge is out west, look how much ridging there is out in front, look when and where the H5 low cuts off. This has a TON of work to do before you can start throwing around 12/16/09 and 2/6/10. I find it just as incredulous that people from up here would be glad to use 2/6/10 analog-- the worst screwjob this area has ever seen lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dsnowx53 Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 Southern stream plus very loose height gradient leaves a lot of wiggle room to the north. Agreed. Assuming the huge PV exits in time, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
am19psu Posted January 5, 2011 Author Share Posted January 5, 2011 10/90 this far out? I figured that earthlight liked a lot of things in the setup from his post. 10/90 >>>>>>> climo six days out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dsnowx53 Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 I find it just as incredulous that people from up here would be glad to use 2/6/10 analog-- the worst screwjob this area has ever seen lol. 2/6/10 was one of the worst weather experiences of my life...lol...I hated that screwjob so much. But with the initial strong confluence, there might have to be a sharp cutoff somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattinpa Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 10/90 >>>>>>> climo six days out. Remember the models didn't get a handle on the last storm until the last minute. Lots of room then, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-X Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 10/90 >>>>>>> climo six days out. Yeah, but I guess people love having some hope. Having seen the way people react to not having any threats on the horizon, Ive come to the conclusion that it damages people mentally if they dont have a snow threat on the horizon. Even if it doesnt pan out later, they need to have some hope to hold onto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
am19psu Posted January 5, 2011 Author Share Posted January 5, 2011 Remember the models didn't get a handle on the last storm until the last minute. Lots of room then, IMO. Past results nor the most recent results do not predict future events. 2/6/10 was perfectly modeled five days out. It's not impossible to get a KU storm out of this set up, but this is NOT the preferred pattern for one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
am19psu Posted January 5, 2011 Author Share Posted January 5, 2011 Yeah, but I guess people love having some hope. Having seen the way people react to not having any threats on the horizon, Ive come to the conclusion that it damages people mentally if they dont have a snow threat on the horizon. Even if it doesnt pan out later, they need to have some hope to hold onto. People around here have been incredibly lucky over the last 13 mos and it's leading to some ridiculous expectations. There's a reason every other forum makes fun of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-X Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 2/6/10 was one of the worst weather experiences of my life...lol...I hated that screwjob so much. But with the initial strong confluence, there might have to be a sharp cutoff somewhere. Yeah and the funny thing is, I guess its been pure luck, but usually those cut offs have been to the north of us. We hadnt seen a storm like that since the 80s. Those 80s winters would have really driven you crazy lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rib Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 People around here have been incredibly lucky over the last 13 mos and it's leading to some ridiculous expectations. There's a reason every other forum makes fun of us. I was about to post the same thing. Not every event can be a KU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eduggs Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 Geez, you guys are acting like it's 90/10 we're going to get a KU storm, when in actuality, it's about 10/90. Look where the ridge is out west, look how much ridging there is out in front, look when and where the H5 low cuts off. This has a TON of work to do before you can start throwing around 12/16/09 and 2/6/10. Yup, agree. Still low probability of a high impact storm. The pattern sure doesn't have a classic feel. The high latitudes in particular look pretty squirrely. But what's wrong with the western ridge? It's not as high amplitude as I would like, but it looks okay to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-X Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 People around here have been incredibly lucky over the last 13 mos and it's leading to some ridiculous expectations. There's a reason every other forum makes fun of us. the weenies seem to be just as delusional pretty much everywhere lol. You know what it reminds me of? Its like going to Las Vegas, getting on a huge winning streak and thinking you can do no wrong. Some time it has to end, but that thought goes all the way to the back of the head while they ride that streak. In part, this is making up for the incredibly unlucky decades of the 70s 80s and early 90s which were a true horror show and totally not indicative of what winters are supposed to be like around here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JERSEYSNOWROB Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 People around here have been incredibly lucky over the last 13 mos and it's leading to some ridiculous expectations. There's a reason every other forum makes fun of us. hmm not sure anyone is calling for a KU storm here. They are just pointing out that the signals are certainly there for a major storm next week. Yes we are still 6-7 days out and I for one wouldn't want to be in the bullseye this far out anyway. However, the signals are certainly there for a big storm next week up and down the eastern seaboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-X Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 I was about to post the same thing. Not every event can be a KU. Some of it can also be put down to snowfall measuring technique, although I dont know how to correlate 80s storms to now in terms of how the measuring technique has changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
am19psu Posted January 5, 2011 Author Share Posted January 5, 2011 Yup, agree. Still low probability of a high impact storm. The pattern sure doesn't have a classic feel. The high latitudes in particular look pretty squirrely. But what's wrong with the western ridge? It's not as high amplitude as I would like, but it looks okay to me. I'd prefer it to be about 500 mi farther east, but the ridiculously long wavelength trough might still bring the storm back. It's certainly not a textbook western ridge, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rib Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 hmm not sure anyone is calling for a KU storm here. They are just pointing out that the signals are certainly there for a major storm next week. Yes we are still 6-7 days out and I for one wouldn't want to be in the bullseye this far out anyway. However, the signals are certainly there for a big storm next week up and down the eastern seaboard. When one compares future storms on the models to KU storms, that is exactly how it comes off. If I say, next week looks much like 1/7/96, then the conclusion will be drawn that I am expecting the result to be a KU storm. JB does that a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-X Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 When one compares future storms on the models to KU storms, that is exactly how it comes off. If I say, next week looks much like 1/7/96, then the conclusion will be drawn that I am expecting the result to be a KU storm. JB does that a lot. Yeah, and they put out that ridiculous map, but I guess thats how the make money. Point taken-- putting out analogs is useless at this time range; all that can be done is look at whats going on, what is progged to happen and comment on what needs to happen to make it better and what can happen to make it go wrong. I mean, no one wants to sound like Rex Ryan and guaranteeing wins lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JERSEYSNOWROB Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 When one compares future storms on the models to KU storms, that is exactly how it comes off. If I say, next week looks much like 1/7/96, then the conclusion will be drawn that I am expecting the result to be a KU storm. JB does that a lot. Oh yeah I hate when people do that, especially after somebody literally just looks at the latest model runs and somehow they remember how the synoptics of a particular storm were years ago and start throwing dates out there blindly. That really grinds my gears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
am19psu Posted January 5, 2011 Author Share Posted January 5, 2011 Yeah, and they put out that ridiculous map, but I guess thats how the make money. Point taken-- putting out analogs is useless at this time range; all that can be done is look at whats going on, what is progged to happen and comment on what needs to happen to make it better and what can happen to make it go wrong. Putting out analogs is fine, but be realistic. In all seriousness, if you want to throw some around, do what Wes does. Go here and figure out what PHL and LGA got around each of those dates in the bottom right. That would be a good analog forecast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atownwxwatcher Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 I do not think analogs are good this winter season at all when you factor in that this LA NINA is not behaving like a LA Nina should be behaving. The pattern has trumped the ENSO state.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earthlight Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 Geez, you guys are acting like it's 90/10 we're going to get a KU storm, when in actuality, it's about 10/90. Look where the ridge is out west, look how much ridging there is out in front, look when and where the H5 low cuts off. This has a TON of work to do before you can start throwing around 12/16/09 and 2/6/10. I never said anything about a KU storm, or said anything about any sort of analogs. I don't see anybody here throwing around the term KU or anything like that, either, or any sort of percentages. All I said was that the setup was conducive to a big mid atlantic snowstorm. The superensemble analogs at +144 hours are very favorable and have several big time mid atlantic storms on the list. I'm not sure how you can really argue that. It's all heresay at this range but I don't see why one can't get excited about this depiction. I certainly am stoked, it's a really favorable situation. Even at 78 hrs you can see the GFS lining up for something big. If there isn't going to be a big PNA ridge out west, we can still do fine with this setup. With the confluent flow and Polar Vortex lifting north and giving us a loosening of H5 heights, with a southern stream signal this strong, the system can eject northeast towards the Mid-Atlantic states and amplify towards the coast, especially if the models are correct with the general movement of the feature. I'm not saying anything about a KU, or any percentages, 90/10/40/30 whatever...I'm just saying that given the signal we are seeing right now--there is reason to be excited for the potential of a snowstorm across the Mid-Atlantic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eduggs Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 I'd prefer it to be about 500 mi farther east, but the ridiculously long wavelength trough might still bring the storm back. It's certainly not a textbook western ridge, though. OK good. It looks further west than ideal to me too... but I thought you might say it was too far east based on the OTS result. A sharp, consolidated s/w would probably bring this well inland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-X Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 Putting out analogs is fine, but be realistic. In all seriousness, if you want to throw some around, do what Wes does. Go here and figure out what PHL and LGA got around each of those dates in the bottom right. That would be a good analog forecast. Thanks for that map But quite honestly, someone should write a tutorial for using analogs; I think people tend to misuse seasonal as well as single storm analogs, because they seem to think those kinds of situations will be exactly duplicated. One thing to remember is that most storms and even whole seasons hang on tenuous threads and little movements to the left or right that can be entirely due to chaos (or a subtle pattern shift) can completely change the outcome-- and yet the analog is still valid because its a "close" match in terms of overall pattern even though not on observed weather. I know you and the other pro mets know this, but a few of the amateurs should keep this in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earthlight Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 It should be noted, though, that there are some complex interactions going on here with Pac energy after the shortwave ejects east. I just like what I am seeing at the moment regarding the upper air pattern. We will know more over the next few days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BucksCO_PA Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 People around here have been incredibly lucky over the last 13 mos and it's leading to some ridiculous expectations. There's a reason every other forum makes fun of us. I'm shocked - a weather board driven by winter weather weenies who get exicited about the prospects of snow. One the biggest appeals of this board is weenie model analysis, creating delusions of winter grander, which is immediately quelled by red-taggers swooping in to throw cold water reality on the fire, pure entertainment.Regarding other forums making fun of this forum – you really can’t be serious, go back & read the Mid-Atlantic train wreck from the 12/25 6Z GFS through the storm and I guess you missed the New England mess during the 2/6/10 storm on board x. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
am19psu Posted January 5, 2011 Author Share Posted January 5, 2011 OK good. It looks further west than ideal to me too... but I thought you might say it was too far east based on the OTS result. A sharp, consolidated s/w would probably bring this well inland. Yeah, and that's what concerns me about an OTS solution... with a flat, broad H5 trough, I'm not sure how you advect enough warm air northward to send up ridging ahead of the sfc low to turn the storm northward, especially with how much ground the s/w has to make up between the Rockies and the Coast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Wiggum Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 Looks like the NAM at 18Z is kicking the Southwest vorticity out at a decent clip, though it remains closed longer than some other guidance? Looks like the GFS is even a bit faster in ejecting the Southwest energy at 84hrs vs the 18Z NAM at the same time: Which eventually leads to this at the surface later on in the run: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tombo82685 Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 Yeah, and that's what concerns me about an OTS solution... with a flat, broad H5 trough, I'm not sure how you advect enough warm air northward to send up ridging ahead of the sfc low to turn the storm northward, especially with how much ground the s/w has to make up between the Rockies and the Coast. so are you thinking that an ots solution is greatest concern now? Cause i know earlier you said you were thinking the primary is going to go to far north to help phl out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.