Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,611
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    NH8550
    Newest Member
    NH8550
    Joined

NYC Jan 11-12 Miller B Thread


am19psu

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 995
  • Created
  • Last Reply

less QPF than 12z

just looking at H5 i would have expected the opposite

It is because the ejecting S/W over the Gulf Stream is coming in a tad slower. If this was all shifted farther S and had more time to develop, the eventual low would be more impressive given that height field and impressive ejecting wave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NYC metro gets bombed with .75+" of liquid from 6z to 12z Wednesday.

I'd say that's a pretty big snow...with ratios of 12:1 or potentially a bit more in the elevated suburbs, we could be talking about 8-10" of snowfall in 6 hours...that's pretty impressive! It looks as if the NAM wants to jackpot central/eastern LI, and that seems to be the consensus with the storm. Track is beautiful for everyone though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NAM usually has the sharper cutoffs on the edges with QPF as well correct? So it's nice to see it push mod snows back further west instead of the other way around like 12/26

Upper levels were a touch more amplified and the QPF shield a good 25 miles push NW. Definately a hold from the NAM.

I think NYC should be good for a 8-12" storm more on LI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

heres an interesting question for anyone who'd like to answer. This is exactly the timeframe when we usually see the 18z NAM with some sort of QPF bomb that is likely way overdone. Does it's consistency from run to run basically since I believe 12z yest, lend credence to its solution? Granted cutting QPF to just under 1 in the NYC area with maybe 1+ on LI might be prudent, but the possibility of more QPF is definitely there with these INSANE dynamics. So what do you guys think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

heres an interesting question for anyone who'd like to answer. This is exactly the timeframe when we usually see the 18z NAM with some sort of QPF bomb that is likely way overdone. Does it's consistency from run to run basically since I believe 12z yest, lend credence to its solution? Granted cutting QPF to just under 1 in the NYC area with maybe 1+ on LI might be prudent, but the possibility of more QPF is definitely there with these INSANE dynamics. So what do you guys think?

I don't think the QPF will go up. I still think the QPF is slightly over done IMO. I think the 1" line should be pulled closer to the coast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

heres an interesting question for anyone who'd like to answer. This is exactly the timeframe when we usually see the 18z NAM with some sort of QPF bomb that is likely way overdone. Does it's consistency from run to run basically since I believe 12z yest, lend credence to its solution? Granted cutting QPF to just under 1 in the NYC area with maybe 1+ on LI might be prudent, but the possibility of more QPF is definitely there with these INSANE dynamics. So what do you guys think?

There is always that possibility. I do find this run realistic on the QPF--probably more realistic overall than the 12Z. Some of the QPF bomb runs are likely having some positive feedback issues. Moreover, the NAM may be trying to develop some sub-grid scale processes which results in too large of a region of high qpf. It may be right in localized spots, but this is probably more realistic of region wide values.

As for the NAM--I think the mesoscale models deserve a lot of credence under this scenario for multiple reasons including their better handling of the more amplified height field compared to the globals, the relative lag in the global models reacting to change in their own height field, the strength and magnitude of the ejecting S/W, the non-hydrostatic effects which will play a prominent role, and the relatively small size of the low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is always that possibility. I do find this run realistic on the QPF--probably more realistic overall than the 12Z. Some of the QPF bomb runs are likely having some positive feedback issues. Moreover, the NAM may be trying to develop some sub-grid scale processes which results in too large of a region of high qpf. It may be right in localized spots, but this is probably more realistic of region wide values.

As for the NAM--I think the mesoscale models deserve a lot of credence under this scenario for multiple reasons including their better handling of the more amplified height field compared to the globals, the relative lag in the global models reacting to change in their own height field, the strength and magnitude of the ejecting S/W, the non-hydrostatic effects which will play a prominent role, and the small scale nature of the system.

thanks for the response. In all honestly, sensibly it doesn't matter THAT much bec I think its obvious there be be 6+ region wide. Some people will likely crack the mid teens though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks for the response. In all honestly, sensibly it doesn't matter THAT much bec I think its obvious there be be 6+ region wide. Some people will likely crack the mid teens though...

I think the most important thing here is it will be dumping early in the morning, and a lot of folks on LI and in SNE will have a difficult morning commute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the most important thing here is it will be dumping early in the morning, and a lot of folks on LI and in SNE will have a difficult morning commute.

for sure. Will be a very disruptive storm even the in NYC metro, but they MAY dodge a bullet in terms of timing knowing that at least anecdotally most storms start earlier and end earlier than forecasted. Either way though there will likely be major disruptions in an around the NYC metro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...