earthlight Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 03z SREFs are not as wrapped up or deep with the surface low. Definitely not further "east" per se...but less amplified for sure. Surface low was sub 996 on 21z...around ~1000 or maybe a bit below on 03z. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earthlight Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 As far as track goes, though..the mean is very similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earthlight Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 A tick east and less amplified..but still wetter than the GFS and also well further northwest of it's track. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dale803 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 does anyone think isentropic lifting/overunning precip is being underestimated by the models? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earthlight Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 The RH fields on the mean are still impressive. Important to remember that one or two members losing the big wrapped up solution could certainly result in the difference on the mean. There still seems to be a spread back left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
friedmators Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 mm5 eh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tombo82685 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 03z SREFs are not as wrapped up or deep with the surface low. Definitely not further "east" per se...but less amplified for sure. Surface low was sub 996 on 21z...around ~1000 or maybe a bit below on 03z. its going to be interesting to see what the indiv runs look like. I wonder if there is some really wet solutions that skew it that way towards higher. Also, if there are some that give little and skew it that way while the vast are hits.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earthlight Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 This probably suggests a less amplified nudge coming for the NAM at 06z...not that it means an awful lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jm1220 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I don't think anyone honestly believes the NAM's QPF forecast is correct, but it may have the general idea right in tucking the low closer to the coast with H5 closing off....the H7 low also has a beautiful track just south of LI which guarantees that everyone in the metro would see fairly heavy snow, although I do think locations like JFK and the immediate Jersey shore might be dryslotted slightly as the heaviest banding occurs over SW Connecticut through Westchester into the Bronx and N NJ. GFS seems to pull the H7 low away more quickly, which would be a negative for NYC and its NW suburbs but might actually help people in Long Island. I do believe the NAM's QPF is on crack, though; there's just not much precedent for such a wide area receiving nearly 1" liquid in 6 hours, especially with the surface low only deepening to around 990mb. So far, I like a compromise between the NAM and ECM where the heaviest banding yields 12-15" snowfall with most places in the 8-12" category, perhaps 6-10" a bit further SW. These bands are always the wild card in dynamic systems like this, and numerous times the models smooth the QPF too much without maxing the areas with the heaviest bands enough. I was supposed to get more snow from most models on 12/26, but parts of eastern NJ beat me by up to 10" from the dynamic band that sat overhead. Same for 2/12/06 (although I wasn't here at the time). When the low isn't bombing and it's mostly just overrunning, the banding signatures aren't as prevalent and it's more of a widespread mod-heavy snow that isn't as heavy as the bands present in a bombing low, but also without the mins surrounding the band. The models are coming closer to making it a dynamic system here and are moving away from a heavier overrunning storm that doesn't develop the banding until New England. The question is the track of the coastal and how much influence the primary holds. Again, we should get an idea soon, hopefully by 12z and the eastern models come back west to an extent. The NAM is likely overdone to be sure and is hard to trust given its wildly changing solutions yesterday. I just can't see the low crossing E LI and there being such a ridiculous band the way the NAM has it for so long. Verbatim we would rival 12/26's amounts for some of us and with such a fast moving low, it seems unlikely. But the available energy and also baroclinicity is definitely a possible reason to believe the globals are too flat and resolving something incorrectly. I think the "blended" solution, or a slightly west version of most globals sounds like the best way to go now. The models certainly blew their collective top very quickly when the Gulf energy and heat was taken into account and went from a suppressed nothing to a monster in a matter of 2 runs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tombo82685 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 This probably suggests a less amplified nudge coming for the NAM at 06z...not that it means an awful lot. it did the same at 18z then came back with the 0z... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earthlight Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 it did the same at 18z then came back with the 0z... Yeah, that's why I say it doesn't mean an awful lot. I'm probably going to head to bed in a few..so I can be up for the 12z's. I think by that point we should have less variance amongst guidance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowGoose69 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 does anyone think isentropic lifting/overunning precip is being underestimated by the models? Not so much in this case, there is not enough of a high to the north, that occurs more frequently with SW flow type storms or can occur with coastals in the case where you have a 1030+ high over Maine or SE Canada...once again though in this storm VIRGA is not likely to be a factor with GFS/NAM showing 32/25 33/23 when precip arrives near 00Z Tue evening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BL03 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 still wet... pushes the 1" line to middle LI... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jm1220 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 mm5 eh MM5 certainly isn't in its go-to range currently but it shows very heavy snow across E NJ on east at that time, and would likely result in massive snow accumulations in later panels. No mixing either even at Montauk or down in S NJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowGoose69 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 it did the same at 18z then came back with the 0z... The off hour NAM runs the last few years have been frequently putrid, it had a horrific 06Z run with yesterday's storm where it missed S NJ and E LI entirely with the snow only 12-18 hours out....both places got 4-7 inches in the end...I used to sort of put some faith in the NAM's 06 and 18 runs but now only the GFS ones do I really look at much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tombo82685 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 you can already see through hr 12 its not as amplified as 0z was with the northern stream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 MM5 certainly isn't in its go-to range currently but it shows very heavy snow across E NJ on east at that time, and would likely result in massive snow accumulations in later panels. No mixing either even at Montauk or down in S NJ. Can you send me the link to the SUNY MM5? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earthlight Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Euro ensembles essentially in agreement with the OP. I don't usually make these posts..but my hunch is that this is going to end up nearer to the ECMWF or GFS solution. The NAM is absolutely notorious for doing things like this with these type of storms---I don't have the greatest feeling about the fact that it's going to pull off the coup here. I like a more moderate solution similar to the Euro or Euro ensembles..which unfortunately for us means less dynamic snow..and more .5-.75" QPF amounts with higher on the island. The rapid cyclogenesis and CCB development will take place over Southern New England. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earthlight Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Already some pretty large de-amplification differences on the NAM through 21 hours. Frustrating early morning if you want big snow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
friedmators Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Can you send me the link to the SUNY MM5? http://cheget.msrc.sunysb.edu/html/alt_mm5.cgi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bass28 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Already some pretty large de-amplification differences on the NAM through 21 hours. Frustrating early morning if you want big snow Gotta give the gfs credit between this and the blizzard two weeks ago it's looking good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earthlight Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 The differences arent excessive..but they are enough to probably take away the big bomb it had at 00z. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lisnow66 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Gotta give the gfs credit between this and the blizzard two weeks ago it's looking good. Thought that 6Z and 18Z NAM not as important as 0Z and 12Z. Let's wait until 12Z before buying the GFS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atownwxwatcher Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 HPC Short Range Images Correct me if i am wrong but that is SW of the GFS.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 http://cheget.msrc.s...tml/alt_mm5.cgi Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jm1220 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Can you send me the link to the SUNY MM5? http://cheget.msrc.sunysb.edu/html/alt_mm5.cgi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lisnow66 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 The differences arent excessive..but they are enough to probably take away the big bomb it had at 00z. Watch that bomb come back at 12z. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earthlight Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Watch that bomb come back at 12z. Wouldn't totally surprise me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lisnow66 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Wouldn't totally surprise me But if it does do we believe it more then than tonight's 0z? Anyone wanna chime in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jm1220 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Euro ensembles essentially in agreement with the OP. I don't usually make these posts..but my hunch is that this is going to end up nearer to the ECMWF or GFS solution. The NAM is absolutely notorious for doing things like this with these type of storms---I don't have the greatest feeling about the fact that it's going to pull off the coup here. I like a more moderate solution similar to the Euro or Euro ensembles..which unfortunately for us means less dynamic snow..and more .5-.75" QPF amounts with higher on the island. The rapid cyclogenesis and CCB development will take place over Southern New England. I'm thinking maybe a slightly more wrapped up solution than the GFS, maybe about what the Euro has now. Something just seems "off" to me with these weak models like the GGEM and maybe GFS in keeping it so flat despite the strong upper air support, and I think they have some catchup left. But that's still nothing like the ridiculously amped NAM from 0z. A good range may be 6-12 for most of the area, maybe 8-14 out on Long Island. Still a borderline major snow event and definitely an awesome birthday gift from Mother Nature (my birthday is on Wednesday, should be another long day shoveling!!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.