tornadojay Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 ... and anywhere west of I-287 in NJ, it's 4-8 inches... All of southern CT is in the 12-18 inch range, per NAM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorEaster27 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 HPC: "THE NAM IS DEEPER TRACKING THE LOW THROUGH OH/PA AND SHIFTS THE CENTER OF THE LOW OFFSHORE SLOWER THAN THE GFS/ECMWF WHICH AGREE WITH EACH OTHER. THIS CONSENSUS IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE NEW UKMET/CANADIAN. THUS...RECOMMEND DISCOUNTING THE NAM AND USING EITHER THE GFS OR ECMWF." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radders Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 HPC: "THE NAM IS DEEPER TRACKING THE LOW THROUGH OH/PA AND SHIFTS THE CENTER OF THE LOW OFFSHORE SLOWER THAN THE GFS/ECMWF WHICH AGREE WITH EACH OTHER. THIS CONSENSUS IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE NEW UKMET/CANADIAN. THUS...RECOMMEND DISCOUNTING THE NAM AND USING EITHER THE GFS OR ECMWF." Not surprised and makes sense.. We will see if any other guidance follows suit at 12Z.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTrials Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 HPC: "THE NAM IS DEEPER TRACKING THE LOW THROUGH OH/PA AND SHIFTS THE CENTER OF THE LOW OFFSHORE SLOWER THAN THE GFS/ECMWF WHICH AGREE WITH EACH OTHER. THIS CONSENSUS IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE NEW UKMET/CANADIAN. THUS...RECOMMEND DISCOUNTING THE NAM AND USING EITHER THE GFS OR ECMWF." Exactly. Its completely on its own and thus is for entertainment purposes only. This is shaping up to be a classic SNE event with eastern CT, Boston, Rhode Island cleaning up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radders Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 HPC: "THE NAM IS DEEPER TRACKING THE LOW THROUGH OH/PA AND SHIFTS THE CENTER OF THE LOW OFFSHORE SLOWER THAN THE GFS/ECMWF WHICH AGREE WITH EACH OTHER. THIS CONSENSUS IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE NEW UKMET/CANADIAN. THUS...RECOMMEND DISCOUNTING THE NAM AND USING EITHER THE GFS OR ECMWF." Trying to find this HPC update on their site... Can you share a link? Thx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ag3 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 NAM better quality. 1.25"-1.50" for Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx and near NYC. 1.50"-1.75" for all of LI with a precip maximum of 1.75"-2" for Port Jefferson area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ag3 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Exactly. Its completely on its own and thus is for entertainment purposes only. This is shaping up to be a classic SNE event with eastern CT, Boston, Rhode Island cleaning up. Let the rest of the 12z suite run first. A model cant be on its own if the rest of the models haven't come out yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJO812 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Exactly. Its completely on its own and thus is for entertainment purposes only. This is shaping up to be a classic SNE event with eastern CT, Boston, Rhode Island cleaning up. Let the other models play out first before saying this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 HPC: "THE NAM IS DEEPER TRACKING THE LOW THROUGH OH/PA AND SHIFTS THE CENTER OF THE LOW OFFSHORE SLOWER THAN THE GFS/ECMWF WHICH AGREE WITH EACH OTHER. THIS CONSENSUS IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE NEW UKMET/CANADIAN. THUS...RECOMMEND DISCOUNTING THE NAM AND USING EITHER THE GFS OR ECMWF." Thats from this mornings disco at 1:35 AM FYI... http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/discussions/pmdhmd.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTrials Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Let the rest of the 12z suite run first. A model cant be on its own if the rest of the models haven't come out yet. Even without the 12z it has been the western outlier for some time, and its siginificant that the srefs do not match up to it. Howeverf, you are correct, lets see if there are any other models that trend its way at 12z. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SACRUS Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Trying to find this HPC update on their site... Can you share a link? Thx I'm not sure if that was after the 00z or 06z guidance. I did notice the 06z rgem was still east, havent seen the 06z UK, but lets see what the rest of the 12z suite does. Either way they still have the area in/around NYC in a very good heavy snow (76" +)potential as does most guidance . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ag3 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Thats from this mornings disco at 1:35 AM FYI... http://www.hpc.ncep....ons/pmdhmd.html Of course it is. HPC would never write up a discussion without seeing all of the 12z models. NAM could be wrong, but let's see the rest of the 12z modeling before we say that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I'm not sure if that was after the 00z or 06z guidance. I did notice the 06z rgem was still east, havent seen the 06z UK, but lets see what the rest of the 12z suite does. Either way they still have the area in/around NYC in a very good heavy snow (76" +)potential as does most guidance . Sorry Sacrus, I had to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbc Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Exactly. Its completely on its own and thus is for entertainment purposes only. This is shaping up to be a classic SNE event with eastern CT, Boston, Rhode Island cleaning up. This kind of stuff is worse than IMBY posts. Can a met tell us if the qpf output makes sense with the NAM's evolution at the upper levels and how it tracks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radders Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Of course it is. HPC would never write up a discussion without seeing all of the 12z models. NAM could be wrong, but let's see the rest of the 12z modeling before we say that. Right... This is what I thought, and why i wanted to see the link so I could see when it was published.. Need to see the rest of the 12Z guidance first before we conclude NAM as being out to lunch.. It's track is actually not too far from the other globals, it is just more juiced up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
am19psu Posted January 10, 2011 Author Share Posted January 10, 2011 This kind of stuff is worse than IMBY posts. Can a met tell us if the qpf output makes sense with the NAM's evolution at the upper levels and how it tracks? It's physically realistic, but a western/deep outlier. I'm not weighting the NAM strongly at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeS Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbc Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 It's physically realistic, but a western/deep outlier. I'm not weighting the NAM strongly at all. Ok that's what I wanted to know. I realize it is a western outlier and has been for several runs. We mustn't forget though what happened at this stage of the game with the models for 12/26. Obviously this is a much different evolution and storm but I would not discount anything even just 36-42 hours prior to the event. The models went bonkers at this time frame w/ 12-26-10 after completely being out to lunch just prior to this time frame and at this point nothing would surprise me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthShoreWx Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Thats more like Riverhead for the max, but anyway you slice it this is the wettest NAM run yet. It is insistent. The GFS has been just as insistent with its version of events. Euro has been fairly consistent too, but I think just sightly more variable than the American solutions. Unfortunately it is NAM against the world at this moment. I know which version we are all rooting for. NAM better quality. 1.25"-1.50" for Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx and near NYC. 1.50"-1.75" for all of LI with a precip maximum of 1.75"-2" for Port Jefferson area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SACRUS Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Seems the 09z SREF charts were trending east and a bit less qpf for the NJ/NYC area, but I do believe the SREF's will ingest all the 12z guidance for the 15z package. In other words the 09z SREfs compared to the 12z NAm are not purely apples to apples data wise. Still would have been better for the SREF to hold serve, still some members leaning left though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthShoreWx Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Thats from this mornings disco at 1:35 AM FYI... http://www.hpc.ncep....ons/pmdhmd.html Plus he didn't even give the full context: ...UPPER LOW MOVING FROM THE ROCKIES TO THE NORTHEAST THROUGH THE PERIOD... PREFERENCE: GFS OR ECMWF THE NAM IS DEEPER TRACKING THE LOW THROUGH OH/PA AND SHIFTS THE CENTER OF THE LOW OFFSHORE SLOWER THAN THE GFS/ECMWF WHICH AGREE WITH EACH OTHER. THIS CONSENSUS IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE NEW UKMET/CANADIAN. THUS...RECOMMEND DISCOUNTING THE NAM AND USING EITHER THE GFS OR ECMWF. ...LOW PRESSURE DEEPENING OFF THE MID-ATLANTIC/NORTHEAST COAST TUE-WED... PREFERENCE: BEFORE 00Z WED...NAM OR ECMWF AFTER 00Z WED...2/3 ECMWF TO 1/3 GFS THE NAM AND ECMWF ARE SIMILAR THROUGH 00Z WED...WITH THE GFS SLIGHTLY EAST OF BOTH SOLUTIONS. HOWEVER...THEREAFTER THE NAM...DUE TO ITS DEEPER AND SLOWER SOLUTION UPSTREAM...PULLS THE LOW INCREASINGLY TOWARD THE WESTERN EDGE OF THE GUIDANCE...WHILE THE GFS REMAINS CLOSE BUT SLIGHTLY EAST OF THE ECMWF LOW TRACK THROUGH THE REMAINDER OF THE PERIOD. WHILE NO OBVIOUS PROBLEMS EXIST WITH THE NAM'S SOLUTION LATE IN THE PERIOD...INCLUDING FROM INITIALIZATION...ITS LOW TRACK LIES WEST OF NEARLY THE ENTIRE DETERMINISTIC/ENSEMBLE GUIDANCE ENVELOPE AFTER 12Z WED AND THUS IS DEEMED AN OUTLIER. AMONG THE REMAINING GUIDANCE...THE ECMWF HAS SLIGHTLY BETTER ENSEMBLE SUPPORT THAN THE GFS...WITH BOTH THE UKMET/CANADIAN CONTINUING TO LIE EAST OF THE GFS AND REPRESENTING THE EASTERN EDGE OF THE GUIDANCE. THUS...THE ECMWF/GFS SOLUTIONS ARE CONSIDERED MOST PROBABLE...WITH A SLIGHT PREFERENCE FOR THE ECMWF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPizz Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I don't recall any nws or hpc discussions ever talking about the srefs. Is this a model that they use? They seem to be talked about on here a lot. Just wondering, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SACRUS Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I'm assuming this part of the discussion also covers C-NJ from exit 8a on north 12z NAm NYC : 1.17 EWR : 1.03 TEB : 1.07 LGA: 1.25 JFK : 1.39 ISP " 1.71 N/C-NJ : MMU : 0.80 BLM : 1.20 TTN : 0.71 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthShoreWx Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 This kind of stuff is worse than IMBY posts. Can a met tell us if the qpf output makes sense with the NAM's evolution at the upper levels and how it tracks? The overnight HPC discussion indicated that the NAM solution was reasonable but that they were weighting the GFS/ECMWF more because their solutions were also reasonable, were more consistent with each other and with their ensembles. But there appear to be no reasons why the NAM soution wouldn't be possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SACRUS Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 The overnight HPC discussion indicated that the NAM solution was reasonable but that they were weighting the GFS/ECMWF more because their solutions were also reasonable, were more consistent with each other and with their ensembles. But there appear to be no reasons why the NAM soution wouldn't be possible. We'll know in a little while if the NAm remains the outlier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbc Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 The overnight HPC discussion indicated that the NAM solution was reasonable but that they were weighting the GFS/ECMWF more because their solutions were also reasonable, were more consistent with each other and with their ensembles. But there appear to be no reasons why the NAM soution wouldn't be possible. Thanks. I don't rule out anything at this stage. The 12-26-10 storm certainly taught us that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SACRUS Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 12z RGEM running now http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/data/model_forecast/591_100.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gkrangers Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 RGEM brings maybe .30 inches or so to NYC through 48 hours. Low is just east of the BM at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jm1220 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 RGEM takes a 997 low directly over the B/M and the heavy precip mostly stays just offshore. Nicks E NJ and E LI (10mm+ which is around 0.4" liquid in 6 hrs). Aloft it looks pretty robust than the NAM but adjusted east a hair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossi Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 RGEM takes a 997 low directly over the B/M and the heavy precip mostly stays just offshore. Nicks E NJ and E LI (10mm+ which is around 0.4" liquid in 6 hrs). Aloft it looks pretty robust than the NAM but adjusted east a hair. So whats the precip amounts from C. NJ N & E.? Thanks, Rossi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.