Jump to content

vortex95

Meteorologist
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,669

  • Joined

About vortex95

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

8,283 profile views
  1. vortex95
    I was hoping low-level mesos from the shear could compensate here. Dir shear sfc-850 is excellent.
  2. vortex95
    Maybe we can do ok overnight. The WV MCS looks solid. Nocturnal sometimes makes a sig difference, at least for big rains.
  3. 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!
  4. 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.
  5. 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."
  6. 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.
  7. 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?
  8. 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!
  9. vortex95
    In tropical situations, it can be useful to use the virtual temp at the sfc instead of the dry bulb temp. Using it can represent CAPE better in such environments (virtual temp decreases CIN and increases CAPE). 76 dew point is nothing to shake a stick at! Don't need too much heating for things to go and go well w/ that kind of juice.
  10. vortex95
    Yes, the NAM has some uses. It handles CAD much better than the GFS, as one example and its MOS reflects that. But the HRRR handles CAD well, so no loss there. Since it has more vertical levels than all the global models, its should handle mix zone better and we are used to that. But again, the HRRR and now RRFS should effectively replace that skill (eventually). Losing some for other gain happens. I recall NHC objected to an upgrade of the GFS some years ago b/c it was clearly shown that the upgrade made TC skill less for the EPAC basin. The upgrade was done regardless. So it's hard to please everyone!
  11. vortex95
  12. vortex95
    Along the same lines, how does the RRFS do w/ TCs? And for that matter, the HRRR? We know the NAM (3 and 12 km) is terrible and was never designed for TCs, but the newer CAMs?
  13. vortex95
    Was told this by @wxmeddler. So @CoastalWx needs to shut up about calling it a "garbage model." It's bias is known and not on purpose! As I like to say, "would he prefer keeping the NAM?" The over-convection and "big blobs" on the RRFS is a known bias or "bug" with the FV3 Dynamical Core. This was explored recently by Lou Wicker at OU (See: https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-25-0230.1). In short, it can't really be fixed without significant changes to the core. OMD hasn't said it outright publicly but the original plan was to turn off the HRRR and RAP at the same time as the RRFS Operationalization. But they've scrapped that specifically because of the FV3 core issues. Now the plan is to turn off the HRRR and RAP when the RRFS transitions to the MPAS Core in ~2028. (https://www.weather.gov/media/wrn/calendar/RRFS_webinar_20260625.pdf)
  14. vortex95
    That's pretty good. Just thinking that in the summer, it not easy to snow in the tropics even at 14,000 ft, but even less likely when a TC is present b/c of its warm core nature, but PHTO sounding 16/00z showed it right at 0 C at this level.
  15. vortex95
    Thanks! Great to know and I will pass along. Turning off the NAM I have no issue w/, but when you roll out a new model, you should always keep its predecessor for a time for comparison. The NAM is severely outdated, but the HRRR is not and still does a solid job, so kept it UFN! They were supposed to stop the HWRF and HMON last year, as the HAFS has shown marked improvement overall (I was sold when it nailed MIlton's RI, then weakening, then another RI, and then its rapid weakening leading to landfall). The HMON?. recall when that was first rolled out in 2017 I think. It was showing crazy intense TCs, so much the model fields would "turn inside-out" b/c the intensity was nuts. But the HWRF and HMON continue. I prefer avoid the notion "more is better." Yes, second options and consensus have value, but only to a point. It can easily become TMI and hurt the fcst process. Also, you have those that always look for the one model that shows the worst case scenario, and they run w/ that for clicks/likes on social media, when it is well known X model is terrible or has bias for Y phenomena. It's like the GFS for spinning up bogus TCs beyond day 7 or the ICON in just how it handles TCs (much too intense forecasts for current TCs).
×
×
  • Create New...