Jump to content

vortex95

Meteorologist
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,676

  • Joined

About vortex95

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

8,302 profile views
  1. vortex95
    Andrew in Aug 1992 was among the "luckiest" intense hurricanes I have seen. It struggled for days N of the Caribbean due to an upper low. In fact, one could argue it actually lost its sfc circulation for a time as recon found only 1015 mb pressure! FL winds were still near hurricane-force though due to gradient from high pressure to the N, so they keep it going. But then the upper low moved away to the SW and a strong 500 mb high built due N, resulting in nearly ideal conditions, and we saw what happened. 1992 was a "quiet" hurricane season overall, but reanalysis has shown 4-5 systems that were at least of min TS strength (two hurricanes) that were never declared operationally. They will all likely get added once the reanalysis project reaches this year.
  2. vortex95
    I bet there is another meso model out there that has strengths of the NAM. Just we have been so used to the NAM, we have not being forced otherwise to look! So now we will be looking. @CoastalWx misses having access to the IBM GRAF! LOL.
  3. vortex95
    Ahh, one w/ MPAS! So @CoastalWx need to stop complaining! We have a version of the RRFS to compare and we know it is better.
  4. vortex95
    WHAN-bulence time!
  5. vortex95
    The 3km NAM is all over the place for convection, both in areal coverage and location, so I do not use it for that. Also consistent high bias for QPF, esp. orographics, so it goes really nuts w/ snowfall. And any NAM is useless for TC situations, as it never was designed for them. The model initialization is "quick and dirty" for a "first look." That's why it often does odd things beyond about 36 hr. Model initialization is key, and that why the ECMWF is often better and why it is available later b/c they take care for the model initialization. The value goes beyond the weenies that understand the above. For those hype-masters that are always looking for the model that shows "the worst," having something like the NAM just ends up promoting bad/misinformation b/c of it multiple shortcomings. Yes, all models have shortcomings, but let me put it this way, all those memes about the NAM? (the most classic meme attached). They exist for a reason! Yes, we are "used to it" for bias, but we will get used to the RRFS biases as well and its MPAS model core will be implemented in 2028. @CoastalWx needs to move on and realize you can't have it the same forever. By that logic, he would still want the LFM and NGM!
  6. vortex95
    But it still better than the NAM! Geez, the 3km NAM same res as the RRFS and look at what the 3 km NAM does. Talk about overdoing convection and QPF in general. That's the "garbage model." I avoid it! RRFS can actually show mesocyclones and local low pressure from intense supercells.
  7. vortex95
    One area actually got what the RRFS was forecasting. 6.41" Midlothian VA! RRFS overdid the areal coverage. HRRR was a bit high but still 2.00" max a Franconia VA not far S of DC metro. Looking at the wind reports, it appears the Appalachians barrier for bow echoes/derechoes was a big factor here. https://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/260816_rpts.html
  8. vortex95
    I was hoping low-level mesos from the shear could compensate here. Dir shear sfc-850 is excellent.
  9. vortex95
    Maybe we can do ok overnight. The WV MCS looks solid. Nocturnal sometimes makes a sig difference, at least for big rains.
  10. vortex95
    HRRR fcst radar is good, but just not getting the svr. That strong finger of CAPE just to the W of DC verified. 925 dew points and PWATs have increased over the entire area last few hr (big 2.3" PWAT now over all of DC area). DCA dew point went from 69 to 74. 35 kt 0-6 km shear. So I don't get! And it's not the DC split, its everywhere! Even the CGs are MEH!
  11. vortex95
    That sharp CAPE gradient (attached) the modeled show ydy has verified well. Notice IAD has 74 Td and HEF 76 Td but DCA 69. 925 mb Td gradient evident as well (also attached). No PWAT gradient though, bull's-eye 2.2+ centered right over DC metro! The cells forming ahead of the line, have to watch those when they cross this gradient as storm boundary interaction is often key for svr/tor. Also, if the gust front fans out well ahead of the line, how will that affect the Td and CAPE gradient? Bodily push it E? Bow echo often ride parallel to boundaries, but slamming into it perpendicularly? I don't know.
  12. vortex95
    Wow, RRFS not as good for CAD? Given its 3 km resolution (same as NAM Nest) and the RRFS has 65 vertical layers compared to the NAMs 60, that seems odd. Lowest RRFS layer is 8 m "to better capture surface and planetary boundary layer (PBL) dynamics."
  13. vortex95
    Well, since you posted it @yoda, that gives me an excuse to comment! And it is not merely a rant, it is food for thought. It is a bit odd b/c there is a SVR out now for the county, which was highly likely to begin w/. The SPS are typically reserved for non-svr storms for heavy rain and LTG risk. Also, whether the CG lightning is frequent or not is or should be irrelevant. The risk is still there regardless. So it is superfluous wording really. And "frequent" definition for lightning is questionable as it pertains to wx IMHO. In a METAR, lightning is considered frequent 1 to 6 flashes per min. Is 1-2 per min really "frequent?" And "continuous" is more than 6 flashes per minute. That not what "continuous" really means by its actual definition. It can and does get far more than 6 flashes per min (200 per min at times) enough in many parts of the county often enough that it can clearly be quantified better. How things are said/worded and their context are important. It is what IDSS is all about.
  14. vortex95
    See X post attached. The Baltimore TV market is not tiny and this is a major network affiliate, not cable or independent! And owners don’t seem to understand that many ppl watch local news for the anchors! Pre-recorded segments? You can get that anywhere. But at least they have live wx still. The wxcast is the number one reason why ppl watch local news. Yes, I understand the economics and how the business is evolving but it is still not good. I have noticed since the advent of widespread AI-generated content several years ago, there is a strong backlash and stigma now in much of the population, and it is not just older generations. "AI Slop" as a term has becomes mainstream. Funny, when CGI first became big in the 90s, that did not have nearly as much pushback, probably b/c you still actually had ppl as actors and you knew they were real. Now? It has gone into "uncanny valley" territory. Ppl do not know what is real or fake now, and that fundamentally raises alert/suspicion in our minds. I think some smaller TV markets have already done this, but as noted, Baltimore is not a small TV market. Has it happened anywhere for New England markets yet?
  15. vortex95
    The line is already there in ern OH (looks like a LEWP), so the HRRR is not creating the mini-bow echo from nowhere. HRRR has a couple of cells before the bow, and then clusters after it! My kind of tstm day!
×
×
  • Create New...