ag3 Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 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 More sharing options...
RUNNAWAYICEBERG Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 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... THAT was never said..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 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 More sharing options...
eduggs Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 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 More sharing options...
SnoSki14 Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 That's why the NAM sucks after 48 hours.It changes too frequently, watch the next run be completely different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUNNAWAYICEBERG Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 WOW.... ....all of the sudden, mets can back up some of my thoughts..now how does it make those that criticize look? come on folks. lets shake hands, come together, and gain knowledge. stop the hate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EasternLI Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Jeez....I'm new in here, but even I know not to get all crazy over one model run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtRosen Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 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. I think people also need to remember that WE JUST HAD TWO EPIC SNOWSTORMS in the past 30 days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tornadojay Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 <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 More sharing options...
ace0927 Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 so lets do that then....ONLY mets post. we just read. no, there should be MET ONLY threads...not sure why that hasnt happened in all these years.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NaoPos Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 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 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 More sharing options...
RUNNAWAYICEBERG Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 no, there should be MET ONLY threads...not sure why that hasnt happened in all these years.... thats what i said....agreed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJO812 Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 0z Nam text soundings NYC http://68.226.77.253/text/NAM80km/NAM_Knyc.txt 0.48 QPF with temps in the lower 20's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juliancolton Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Jeez....I'm new in here, but even I know not to get all crazy over one model run. 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tcutter Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 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 More sharing options...
Voyager Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 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 More sharing options...
LVblizzard Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 The one good thing about this NAM run is higher ratios. With .3-.4" of QPF and temps in all levels below -5C, that would mean 4-6" of snow, which is nothing to complain about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EasternLI Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 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? I just think that we need to see all the other 0z runs before we lose all hope Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ag3 Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 0z Nam text soundings NYC http://68.226.77.253/text/NAM80km/NAM_Knyc.txt 0.48 QPF with temps in the lower 20's. It's actually .37" for Friday. .11" falls tomorrow morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yes_Probably_Maybe_No Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Epic is overated. and it;s a banned word 12/26 was just outright awesome if you were in NYC/NJ... The last event was also very nice, but nothing "epic" def some high ratios per this run and we get like 0.3-0.4" of QPF according to the high res on ewall...id take the 4-6" of snow here any day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manny Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 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 More sharing options...
Kingwill Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 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 More sharing options...
earthlight Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 The NAM actually gives NYC and an area of NE NJ .5+" liquid. Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ag3 Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 The NAM actually gives NYC and an area of NE NJ .5+" liquid. Lol .11"-.15" falls tomorrow morning. NAM is .35"-.40" for us on Friday. Text shows .37" for NYC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earthlight Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 .11"-.15" falls tomorrow morning. NAM is .35"-.40" for us on Friday. Text shows .37" for NYC Yeah, I was just tallying all the QPF that falls from now through the storm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike_D Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 <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 More sharing options...
Mitchel Volk Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 From the 06Z NAM run this morning to tonight 00Z run a world of difference. The NAM also flip flop over the Boxing Day blizzard. I guess I wait for the GFS run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ag3 Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Yeah, I was just tallying all the QPF that falls from now through the storm. Unfortunately, tomorrow's .11"-.15" might have warm boundary temps. But I wouldn't be surprised with a coating to 1" areawide early tomorrow morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killabud Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 the first model runs of "all the data being sampled" always seems to be way different than what actually happens maybe a run or two is needed to work out the kinks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowGoose69 Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 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 More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.