January 2024 Observations and Discussion

Irish wrote:

sroc4 wrote:

Irish wrote:

sroc4 wrote:

Irish wrote:Why is there no thread for Friday's storm?

Why do you need a seperate thread Irish?  You may not be superstitious but there are many who are. It’s a discussion thread and an observation thread.  I know it may sound silly to some but for many this next statement makes all the sense in the world. Please for the love of God and old man winter please don’t start a thread for this one.

Honestly, I think the exact opposite of you guys. I'm not superstitious at all.   The weather and how it pans out is not reliant at all on whether or not this forum starts a separate storm thread.  For me part of the build-up and excitement and thrill of the hunt (whether or not it comes to fruition) is the start of a separate, dedicated thread for a storm we're tracking.  

I also feel that if we don't start a separate thread then it removes the intensity of the hunt and is basically delivering the message that the upcoming storm isn't significant and not worthy of our attention, even if that's not the case. Not having one takes the wind out of my sails a bit. 

However, this is not my board and I'm not they only one to consider, especially when it comes to folks being superstitious, so the leaders here will do what they decide to do and I will follow and enjoy the best I can.

Sounds to me you’re just as superstitious as the rest of us loons. Lol. If you weren’t then who cares where we post about it?  

Sounds valid. However, it's not being superstitious, it's being OCD a control freak. For me this is not the thread to discuss an individual storm, so it kinda irks me.  But I'm managing through it just fine.   

Potato, poe Ta toe. Lol. We’ve def discussed smaller storms in the observation thread before; esp during active years when there were plenty of big ones to track. I hear what your saying though. Just give me this one. If it turns out we all get crushed by 10” you’ll thank me and perhaps believe. Lol. If it’s a dud then no harm no foul and I’ll be the first to start a thread on the next one to track.

nutleyblizzard wrote:

heehaw453 wrote:Sometimes the NAM can see this type of evolution before most models. But what struck me with this run is the trough was able to dig more and raise heights out ahead. that allowed it to capture the energy out ahead which exploded it as it hit the coast. interesting run.

I assume that our departing storm was farther away from the trough as well allowing it to go negative?

I think it was better n/s interaction into the trough. So more juice was added to it best I can tell.

00Z


18Z

heehaw453 wrote:

nutleyblizzard wrote:

heehaw453 wrote:Sometimes the NAM can see this type of evolution before most models. But what struck me with this run is the trough was able to dig more and raise heights out ahead. that allowed it to capture the energy out ahead which exploded it as it hit the coast. interesting run.

I assume that our departing storm was farther away from the trough as well allowing it to go negative?

I think it was better n/s interaction into the trough. So more juice was added to it best I can tell.

Heehaw. Using that same 500mb chart you have here toggle between 18z and 00z and stare at the pna ridge. It def is a tad further north with its heights. I’m sure that’s playing a role as to why it digs a tad better. It appears Rgem is doing the same

heehaw453 wrote:

nutleyblizzard wrote:

heehaw453 wrote:Sometimes the NAM can see this type of evolution before most models. But what struck me with this run is the trough was able to dig more and raise heights out ahead. that allowed it to capture the energy out ahead which exploded it as it hit the coast. interesting run.

I assume that our departing storm was farther away from the trough as well allowing it to go negative?

I think it was better n/s interaction into the trough. So more juice was added to it best I can tell.

Heehaw. Using that same 500mb chart you have here toggle between 18z and 00z and stare at the pna ridge. It def is a tad further north with its heights. I’m sure that’s playing a role as to why it digs a tad better. It appears Rgem is doing the same

And Rgem says you've all been nam'ed

sroc4 wrote:

heehaw453 wrote:

nutleyblizzard wrote:

heehaw453 wrote:Sometimes the NAM can see this type of evolution before most models. But what struck me with this run is the trough was able to dig more and raise heights out ahead. that allowed it to capture the energy out ahead which exploded it as it hit the coast. interesting run.

I assume that our departing storm was farther away from the trough as well allowing it to go negative?

I think it was better n/s interaction into the trough. So more juice was added to it best I can tell.

Heehaw. Using that same 500mb chart you have here toggle between 18z and 00z and stare at the pna ridge. It def is a tad further north with its heights. I’m sure that’s playing a role as to why it digs a tad better. It appears Rgem is doing the same

Yeah no doubt better ridging facilitated it. The N/S also has a lot juice close by with the TPV.

sroc4 wrote:And Rgem says you've all been nam'ed

Yep got to temper excitement. I say this to the NAM...

sroc4 wrote:And Rgem says you've all been nam'ed

RGEM is usually a good model. Doesn’t typically move away from the nam that much. Love the NAM/HRRR combo tonight, but that RGEM gives me cause to temper expectations a bit, at least through 18z tmw.

RGEM says no

NAM says yes

HRRR says yes

SREFS (21z not 00z) say yes ( posted here)

All this talk about H5 and the latest NAM run, but nothing is being mentioned about the rest of the atmosphere??? Come on, my fellow snow-starved weather nut family, we’re better than this!! lol to me, the changes at H5 seem to be relatively minor compared to previous runs, but it’s what’s happening everywhere else that made the difference. Let’s work from the lower levels, upward, starting at the 850 hPa level.

850 hPa (and even further below): Notably stronger f-gen/isentropic forcing likely induced by enhanced low-level vortex tube stretching and associated cyclonic vorticity/curvature thanks to an anomalous westerly wind component coming across the Appalachians. We aren’t dealing with a regular trough here; it’s actually a lobe of the Tropospheric PV, which is highly anomalous at this latitude, and therefore, modeling has been under-representative of the effects that this will have on the atmosphere.This also goes for all levels above this as well.

700 hPa: similar to the changes seen at the 850 hPa level.

250 hPa: Notably stronger jet streak with our area located in the left exit region, which allows enhanced forcing for ascent. This is directly a result of the enhanced f-gen in the lower levels. All of these enhanced forcing mechanisms align, which resulted in the higher output.

In my opinion, having only looked at this tonight, the enhanced solution would seem to fit the anomalousness of having a lobe of the tropospheric PV rotating overhead, and modeling being slow to pick up on that, and I would therefore not be surprised to see these trends continue across guidance over the next couple of runs.

Carry on.

rb924119 wrote:All this talk about H5 and the latest NAM run, but nothing is being mentioned about the rest of the atmosphere??? Come on, my fellow snow-starved weather nut family, we’re better than this!! lol to me, the changes at H5 seem to be relatively minor compared to previous runs, but it’s what’s happening everywhere else that made the difference. Let’s work from the lower levels, upward, starting at the 850 hPa level.

850 hPa (and even further below): Notably stronger f-gen/isentropic forcing likely induced by enhanced low-level vortex tube stretching and associated cyclonic vorticity/curvature thanks to an anomalous westerly wind component coming across the Appalachians. We aren’t dealing with a regular trough here; it’s actually a lobe of the Tropospheric PV, which is highly anomalous at this latitude, and therefore, modeling has been under-representative of the effects that this will have on the atmosphere.This also goes for all levels above this as well.

700 hPa: similar to the changes seen at the 850 hPa level.

250 hPa: Notably stronger jet streak with our area located in the left exit region, which allows enhanced forcing for ascent. This is directly a result of the enhanced f-gen in the lower levels. All of these enhanced forcing mechanisms align, which resulted in the higher output.

In my opinion, having only looked at this tonight, the enhanced solution would seem to fit the anomalousness of having a lobe of the tropospheric PV rotating overhead, and modeling being slow to pick up on that, and I would therefore not be surprised to see these trends continue across guidance over the next couple of runs.

Carry on.

It's nice to have a resident met keeping it real!

Frank_Wx wrote:RGEM says no

NAM says yes

HRRR says yes

SREFS (21z not 00z) say yes ( posted here)

Yeah the SREFS are getting more aggressive with the inverted trough feature. Run over run.

Ray just saved 40% of us from jumping a bridge

Great to see ya/ hear from you, rb. Happy you're chiming in.

I shared your thoughts with other weather enthusiasts, see what they think...

rb924119 wrote:All this talk about H5 and the latest NAM run, but nothing is being mentioned about the rest of the atmosphere??? Come on, my fellow snow-starved weather nut family, we’re better than this!! lol to me, the changes at H5 seem to be relatively minor compared to previous runs, but it’s what’s happening everywhere else that made the difference. Let’s work from the lower levels, upward, starting at the 850 hPa level.

850 hPa (and even further below): Notably stronger f-gen/isentropic forcing likely induced by enhanced low-level vortex tube stretching and associated cyclonic vorticity/curvature thanks to an anomalous westerly wind component coming across the Appalachians. We aren’t dealing with a regular trough here; it’s actually a lobe of the Tropospheric PV, which is highly anomalous at this latitude, and therefore, modeling has been under-representative of the effects that this will have on the atmosphere.This also goes for all levels above this as well.

700 hPa: similar to the changes seen at the 850 hPa level.

250 hPa: Notably stronger jet streak with our area located in the left exit region, which allows enhanced forcing for ascent. This is directly a result of the enhanced f-gen in the lower levels. All of these enhanced forcing mechanisms align, which resulted in the higher output.

In my opinion, having only looked at this tonight, the enhanced solution would seem to fit the anomalousness of having a lobe of the tropospheric PV rotating overhead, and modeling being slow to pick up on that, and I would therefore not be surprised to see these trends continue across guidance over the next couple of runs.

Carry on.

Hemispherically, there looks to be strong support that the axis of the IVT feature should be centered further south than what the NAM/SREF/HRRR cluster have, closer to the latitude of Philadelphia. HOWEVER, this isn’t really a standard IVT setup in that you have a very broad area of synoptically forced ascent. So, while the centerline may be that far south, a large portion of our area would likely still see the higher totals because of the broadness of the zone of forcing for ascent. Basically, I think it could be a horizontal band of snow that sets up from about Baltimore to I-84 that then slips eastward, rather than a band that’s extremely narrow.

Just because I have a blue tag, doesn’t make my thoughts any more or less important than anybody else’s heehaw haha if anything, I’m not doing too well so far this season lol

Definitely glad I brought some of us back off the ledge a little bit Frank haha

And thanks, Irish!

Just offering some quick thoughts on this while I have the time haha

This is not the storm for the I-84 crew. Expecting maybe an inch up here. Good luck to the rest of you.

Frank_Wx wrote:RGEM says no

NAM says yes

HRRR says yes

SREFS (21z not 00z) say yes ( posted here)

Wow if verified at 15:1 this would be warning level snows for many. Not counting on it need to see more consistency but rb's analysis was really good and makes a good point and hopefully we do see trends for the better.

rb924119 wrote:

rb924119 wrote:All this talk about H5 and the latest NAM run, but nothing is being mentioned about the rest of the atmosphere??? Come on, my fellow snow-starved weather nut family, we’re better than this!! lol to me, the changes at H5 seem to be relatively minor compared to previous runs, but it’s what’s happening everywhere else that made the difference. Let’s work from the lower levels, upward, starting at the 850 hPa level.

850 hPa (and even further below): Notably stronger f-gen/isentropic forcing likely induced by enhanced low-level vortex tube stretching and associated cyclonic vorticity/curvature thanks to an anomalous westerly wind component coming across the Appalachians. We aren’t dealing with a regular trough here; it’s actually a lobe of the Tropospheric PV, which is highly anomalous at this latitude, and therefore, modeling has been under-representative of the effects that this will have on the atmosphere.This also goes for all levels above this as well.

700 hPa: similar to the changes seen at the 850 hPa level.

250 hPa: Notably stronger jet streak with our area located in the left exit region, which allows enhanced forcing for ascent. This is directly a result of the enhanced f-gen in the lower levels. All of these enhanced forcing mechanisms align, which resulted in the higher output.

In my opinion, having only looked at this tonight, the enhanced solution would seem to fit the anomalousness of having a lobe of the tropospheric PV rotating overhead, and modeling being slow to pick up on that, and I would therefore not be surprised to see these trends continue across guidance over the next couple of runs.

Carry on.

Hemispherically, there looks to be strong support that the axis of the IVT feature should be centered further south than what the NAM/SREF/HRRR cluster have, closer to the latitude of Philadelphia. HOWEVER, this isn’t really a standard IVT setup in that you have a very broad area of synoptically forced ascent. So, while the centerline may be that far south, a large portion of our area would likely still see the higher totals because of the broadness of the zone of forcing for ascent. Basically, I think it could be a horizontal band of snow that sets up from about Baltimore to I-84 that then slips eastward, rather than a band that’s extremely narrow.

I cannot picture that does that place NYC in that band or are we north of it? Not too familiar with NJ highways. Edit NVW I see now so ya NYC would be in fair game and even southern NY.

Basically the entire length of NJ, Jman, from Cape May to the tip of Sussex lol

rb924119 wrote:Basically the entire length of NJ, Jman, from Cape May to the tip of Sussex lol

Headed east, trying to picture how ur saying it would move, thats not a band lol thats a huge area, and looking where I-84 is (duh) its well north of me putting me in the northern half of your call area.  Here is hoping. Still doubting it especially since we have no WWA.

Frank_Wx wrote:Ray just saved 40% of us from jumping a bridge

LOL! Right up there with John Belushi in Animal House..."It's not over until we say it over!"

This part right here almost had me out of my seat... "Notably stronger f-gen/isentropic forcing likely induced by enhanced low-level vortex tube stretching and associated cyclonic vorticity/curvature thanks to an anomalous westerly wind component..." I'm like "YEAH! I don't know what this means but...YEAH!!!!!"

Temperatures here in Albany are currently in the teens, which is very typical for mid-January, when the normal low is 15*. Now, given that it's the coldest air of the season thus far, the local news here is making a big deal out of it, especially since this weekend it is set to drop into the single digits. But let's take a look at the cold seasons of the past going in reverse and see the lowest temperature from each of them (and by cold season, I mean the 12-month period ending June 30th):

2022-23: -13* (2/4/23)
2021-22: -6* (1/22/22)
2020-21: -7* (1/31/21)
2019-20: +1* (12/8/19)
2018-19: -8* (2/1/19)
2017-18: -10* (1/1/18)
2016-17: +1* (12/16/16)
2015-16: -13* (2/14/16)
2014-15: -12* (2/3/15)
2013-14: -12* (1/4/14)
2012-13: -5* (1/3/13 & 2/10/13)
2011-12: 0* (1/15/12 & 1/22/12)
2010-11: -13* (1/24/11)
2009-10: -2* (1/30/10)
2008-09: -8* (1/16/09)
2007-08: -5* (1/3/08)
2006-07: -3* (1/26/07, 3/6/07 & 3/9/07)
2005-06: +1* (12/14/05)
2004-05: -16* (1/28/05)
2003-04: -13* (1/14/04)
2002-03: -12* (1/28/03)
2001-02: +1* (1/8/02)

This is as far back as I decided to go. This weekend, it'll be unseasonable cold for sure, but nothing compared to the cold weather on the dates I have provided.

Reporting 8 degrees at 2:37 in the am, two nights in a row less then 10 degrees, last night a Low of 7 , no wind so it’s not to bad, the wind is what causes problems, hopefully the next weather event gives everyone from Jersey shore to Albany in NY a nice Snow Storm,
       Good Luck!

Going to be an interesting day of tracking tomorrow. Hopefully someone on here gets under a classic IVT band and gets dumped on. Rooting for ya SENJ

Nws upped my totals around nyc to 2 to 3 from 1 to 2 with a max wcs of 5. So the increase though small was nice to see. Lets see what happens but looking at morning SR they all agree basically on SENJ as frank stated for the jackpot.