high risk

Meteorologist
  • Content Count

    1,487
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About high risk

Profile Information

  • Four Letter Airport Code For Weather Obs (Such as KDCA)
    KBWI
  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    North Laurel, MD

Recent Profile Visitors

1,937 profile views
  1. Ok, this is admittedly where it gets more complicated, and it's a good catch on your part. I have no idea why they do it this way, but SPC basically computes their own HREF. (Remember that the HREF is just taking existing hi-res models and computing means and probabilities.) They're including the HRRR, but the "official" HREF Version 2 (implemented October 2017) does not. Kinda wish that SPC didn't "go rogue" on this or at least identified it more clearly on their site, so I understand why you thought that the HRRR Is included. As for physics, a few physics components are shared amongst a lot of the models, but overall, none of the HREF members is overall close to being the GFS.
  2. Sorry to be "that guy", but yeah, you're wrong. The SREF and HREF are independent systems. The SREF is 13 ARW and 13 NMMB runs, all at 16 km. The HREF is simply aggregating existing high-resolution (~3 km) model runs (NAM nest, and the Hi-Res Windows NMMB, ARW, and ARW2) into means and probabilities. The HRRR will be included in the HREF computations starting next summer.
  3. Feeling a lot better about the chances of healthy rainfall totals on Wednesday after seeing the 00z NAM runs.
  4. I love the GFS solution for the middle of next week in which the wave on the front passes too far southeast to give us rain but sufficiently kills convergence along the front in our area, leaving us in a giant precip hole. T
  5. Gonna be a fascinating temperature forecast for Thursday for sure. It's pretty certain that Baltimore and points northeast will be cool, but I don't think it's as certain for DC metro. 12z NAM has low 90s in northern VA, with the gradient right along the Potomac. NAM nest has the gradient ever so slightly to the east.
  6. A decent chunk of EC ensemble members have been showing the "no landfall" solution for several cycles now, so there is absolutely a chance that this ends up happening.
  7. so, that's a decent looking line to the west. The cape and shear are weak, so I'm not expecting severe, and the CAMs have generally been weakening it...... but the recent HRRR runs look better, and I could use some rain.
  8. Not trying in any way to say that the GFS track will be correct, but given that the GEFS is using a completely different model core now than the operational GFS (and old physics - the GEFS hasn't had an update since 2015), the fact that the ops GFS is inconsistent with its ensembles should not be the basis for discounting the GFS solution (as one normally would with that discrepancy).
  9. I've captured some links to relevant CWG tweets to explain why your phone went off: 1) https://twitter.com/capitalweather/status/1163645178428690437/ significant storm northwest of Alexandria moving southeast. 2) https://twitter.com/NWSSevereTstorm/status/1163648473989648384 storm continues to look good on radar, and some wind damage is reported, so the warning is issued further downstream (including Alexandria) 3) https://twitter.com/capitalweather/status/1163651801536761856 The part of the line segment heading towards Alexandria weakens, but new cells are firing near Alexandria, so the warning is continued. 4) https://twitter.com/capitalweather/status/1163653293228400640 The storms for which the warning was issued weaken significantly, and the warning is dropped. New cells fire south of Alexandria. No one wants needless warnings, but it's hard to find fault with the actions taken by the local NWS office. Maybe the warning was issued too far east, but that wouldn't change anything for Alexandria. Given the ongoing severe storm just upstream, they had to put a warning on it for the areas out ahead. We're just not good enough yet to know when a storm like that will collapse.
  10. CAPE is good, and shear is marginal, but the combo overall is ok-ish, so I understand the slight risk. But it sure would be nice to see some better signals in the hi-res guidance. Maybe they're missing the potential impact of the MCV moving east, but they're certainly overall uninspiring (except for the NSSL-WRF).
  11. Southern Howard County has really missed out on a LOT in recent weeks. I have lots of leaves down in my yard from stressed trees. Not that I have too much confidence in the guidance in such a weakly-forced pattern, but the CAMs today have most of the storms affecting DC and points south.
  12. not much to add - just one more huge thumbs up for this lightning show.
  13. terrific question. While most of the CAMs had some cells erupting in IL before 00z, there was some consensus that the biggest contributor to an MCS approaching the Appalachians tomorrow morning would be storms that fired in central IL this evening. And that development (while not SVR so far) appears to be underway, so it may still be on track. That said, that morning MCS tomorrow could end up further south than expected, although I'd still be concerned about the cloud shield further north.
  14. I'm definitely not ready to be in for this. I do understand the SPC optimism based on the shear and the arrival of a well-timed vort. But I don't like that multiple CAMs show an MCS coming out of OH later tonight and then falling apart as it approaches around midday tomorrow. To be fair, the models that have that scenario do develop another round of convection later in the day, and it could certainly be severe, but we usually run into instability problems in those events due to the cloud shield or, in the worst case scenario, sfc outflow. I still think we can score on either 1) the original midday/early afternoon line or 2) new development later in the day , but I need to see the later CAM solutions look more favorable.
  15. As always, we have these days when the guidance consistently shows multiple rounds, and some people start crying 'bust' when round 1 misses them.