Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,604
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    ArlyDude
    Newest Member
    ArlyDude
    Joined

Jan 20-22 Threat Potential Part 2


am19psu

Recommended Posts

This thread is hilarious with respect to the various posters saying the NAM is great versus the NAM sucks. Some folks should think more and post less...

People have different expectations. There are the younger posters who only care about storms that would close schools. Then the other young ones who only know big storms of the past 10 years.

Then there are some, like me, who appreciate any snow of any amount.

How anyone can think 2"-5" is a miss or bad is beyond me as a snow lover.

If I wake up to 4" of fresh powder Friday morning, I would be very happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 992
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Personally I am not worried about the overall solution, it is the chance this southern wave may be too weak to do much of anything. It serves 2 purposes here--to advect GOM moisture/warm air into the low to effectively "prime" it for rapid development--and to "trigger" the development of the upper level cold front in the northern stream trough. That cold air aloft in the northern trough will be wasted if that southern wave is too weak to incite CAA/development of the cold front through the troposphere. Don't worry about the NAM run verbatim here--but wait and see if the GFS and other guidance trends in a similar manner now that we are sampling both the northern trough and the southern wave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look at the NAM surface at 54 hours on the ewall there are two low centers, the NAM seems to make the SE most one dominant after 54 hours, I'm thinking that might be a mistake and the NW low might be the more dominant low or that simply the initial double low center is resulting in the SE track.

I think this is reaching.

The multiple lows on ewall is mostly just a misleading graphical oddity. In reality regions of low pressure are often strung out and elongated, especially during the early stages of development. But surface pressure is a product of processes throughout the entire atmospheric column, so a surface "error" of this type is not likely to compound itself over time in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<br />NAM looks strange, the b500MB is stronger, yet the low is weaker.<br />
<br /><br /><br />

I think the low is weaker for a more extended period of time on this run because the height field on the lee side of the trof did not spread until later in the game.. This was due to weaker energy... Less consolidated vorticity... Thus less vorticity advection into the base of the trof.. Looking back at the panels, it does make sense to me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think people also need to remember that WE JUST HAD TWO EPIC Nice SNOWSTORMS in the past 30 days.

Epic is overated. and it;s a banned word :lightning:

12/26 was just outright awesome if you were in NYC/NJ... The last event was also very nice, but nothing "epic"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think people also need to remember that WE JUST HAD TWO EPIC SNOWSTORMS in the past 30 days.

people that live NYC and north............just pointing that out.........not sweating it if we don't get much this weekend down here........there will be more opportunities.......we still have a good 6 weeks to go still imho

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NAM is still a 2"-5" snowfall. People need to chill.

And NAM always has hiccup runs. This could be one.

But even if it's not,

Nothing wrong with 2"-5" of snowfall areawide.

Wouldn't it be more like a possible 4-7 with potential ratios of up to 15:1? It looks plenty cold above on this run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People have different expectations. There are the younger posters who only care about storms that would close schools. Then the other young ones who only know big storms of the past 10 years.

Then there are some, like me, who appreciate any snow of any amount.

How anyone can think 2"-5" is a miss or bad is beyond me as a snow lover.

If I wake up to 4" of fresh powder Friday morning, I would be very happy.

I agree completely, 2-5" is a fine event, heck I enjoyed the 1.5" the city got two weeks ago. Obviously, the problem is that the NAM seems to have moved way further south and east and much weaker, which for many is a concern. Then again, there are concerns that the NAM should have shown a different solution in the NW direction, but that's just speculation (informative nonetheless), and the later models could easily converge on a light event of 2-5".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the concern is that the NAM didn't have a ton of support for its monster storm idea, and if the NAM jumps off its own bandwagon, where do we go from there?

Either other Models trend Better or we wait til Tomorrow to see if anything changes..If not accept a nice little snow event and hope for bigger next week..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<br /><br /><br />

I think the low is weaker for a more extended period of time on this run because the height field on the lee side of the trof did not spread until later in the game.. This was due to weaker energy... Less consolidated vorticity... Thus less vorticity advection into the base of the trof.. Looking back at the panels, it does make sense to me

And the jet dynamics not as favorable. We were in the LFQ with the stronger low in the 12z run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the PNA and NAO positive, I would think that this storm would be further north and closer to the coast than what the Nam shows.

A highly phased system would probably due that, a weaker one no....the bombing low from today's storm would also help prevent the west track to an extent.

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...