weatherwiz

I'm actually pretty pumped not to see any major storm signals in the long-range...seems like we do well when something pops up around the D5-6 timeframe instead of 240-hours out. But at the rate we're going...pretty soon the D11-15 period will be looking for 70's and 80's!!!

1 minute ago, OSUmetstud said:

That was written about the model a long time ago. We sure that's still the case? 

From what I read not long ago it's still a bias, though not as extreme as it used to be. 

2 minutes ago, OSUmetstud said:

Pivotalwx has really made it nice for doing more detailed analysis on the best verifying models out there. You aren't as hamstrung using worse models because of amount of detail available with them (Nam and gfs, for example). 

I know they've made some incredible strides into their layout and structure...just did some browsing around and the site has really become much more user friendly and it looks like navigation between products/models is rather simple too.

That's another factor into the whole wide options of models available...if you have to spend a ton of time navigating or exploring to find products...it gets annoying and too time consuming.

But Pivotal looks like it really makes it easier to do all of this.

Just now, OSUmetstud said:

If the model isn't right synoptically speaking then doing detailed analysis on it is not going to be fruitful. 

that's one of the questions I try and ask myself...does what is being presented make sense  

but sometimes I don't get very far as I still struggle with a stronger understanding 

2 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I feel like we are either going big with the polar energy joining the fray, complete with precip type issues, or we aren't, and it will miss.

I don't like the odds of the s stream getting it done on its own.

I completely agree.

Just now, Ginx snewx said:

You don't use the number 2 best model the UK? Wow that's not good

not really...just not enough time. I like to spend a ton of time looking at each model and do the best I can to understand what's going on within each and then run through a list of questions in my head. 

I don't bother to just glance b/c that does nothing too me...it's super easy to just look at one product of a model (like SLP and QPF) but you're not really answering any questions. If I can't devote a certain amount of time to analyzing then to me its not really worth it. 

Just now, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I scan them all, but usually ostensibly focus on the EURO in my blog visuals...for the sake of brevity.

Otherwise Easternmassweather would be Typhoontipweather.

I just stick with NAM, GFS, and Euro...otherwise it just gets too complex and confusing. 

Anyways in the case of this upcoming weekend's event I'm just really focusing on how the models are handling the potential evolution of the pattern. With all these shortwaves, shortwave troughs, and pieces of energy involved we're going to get a million different sfc projections between now and the end of the week and they're all really meaningless anyways...unless of course we start getting a better handle on just what s/w or two will be the main focus. 

Given this seems largely phase dependent we could see the next 10 solutions show all snow, rain, fish storm, cutter...wouldn't really matter 

3 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I haven't paid enough attention to it to know.

There are way too many computer forecast models out there. It's nearly impossible to analyze each and every one...at least to the degree which is needed to construct the most accurate/logical forecast you can make. Just too much data/information to consume. 

95 days to go!!!

Will be doing a countdown post every Monday morning. Will also be incorporating one or two or five posts per week dedicated to a previous convective event. 

Is this legal to post? 

At least they agree on the idea of ridge/trough  

Just now, OceanStWx said:

Getting close to the convective scale introduces problems. Not my area of expertise, but I would imagine it leads to more of the chaos effect in the long term when you develop those small scale, but sometimes large magnitude features. 

I was actually going to get into that in my post...was reading a bit about that on a MedEd module a bit back. I think this explains (partly) the famous D10 "fantasy" storms that arise. 

I do have some fear for amped solutions. Makes me a little nervous seeing where the Euro/GFS sharpen the trough and how both advertise a rather significant MLJ streak rounding the base of the trough and where this occurs. Really too far out to be overly concerned about but is this can happen just a tad later our chances increase a bit  

4 minutes ago, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said:

I don’t like the 4x runs either but...

I think they make sense for short-range (inside 96-hours) but not outside that. it just really adds further confusing instead of clarification. 

Just now, OceanStWx said:

Meh, they're still getting better. I think what we've discovered with higher resolution and more frequent model runs, is that run to run variability is very high with a complicated process like the atmosphere. When we were limited to sparse data and infrequent model runs they seemed more locked than was actuality. 

In the long term they really are just another ensemble member.

That's an excellent point. I think in the perfect world, the thought that higher resolution with more data inputs would result in far more accurate forecasts, however, that doesn't necessarily seem to be the case. With how complicated and complex the atmosphere in incorporating more variables just results in a more complex and highly variable results. Even in the short-term we've seen some drastic changes...especially with larger-scale features. 

Just now, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said:

60/40 compromise, congrats interior.

that might be congrats PA  

but seriously...and not just with this system but just overall...there have been times of enormous differences between the two. I totally understand the time frame we're dealing with but with technology and modeling supposedly becoming better diversions just keep getting worse. Perhaps they need to start canning some models, get rid of running them 4x per day and re-prioritize the focus in improving them.  

Staggering differences between Euro/GFS...almost laughable really.  

1 minute ago, ORH_wxman said:

I'm not sure I ever got excited for a 204 hour prog....we used to not even really look past D6-7....though maybe we'd peak just for fun at the clown range.

Then the stupid snow maps came along. 

There are people who will post total snowfall through 384-HR TO ILLUSTRATE WHAT TYPE OF PATTERN MAY BE....WTF????????

the euro actually has been pretty consistent with those little pockets of CAPE moving overhead 

5 minutes ago, WinterWolf said:

LOL...ya cuz that's so obvious.  Did you just pull that out of your Arse or what???   

We should also watch the June - September timeframe for a potential cold front that could spark t'storms 

4 minutes ago, OceanStWx said:

I don't think it's far enough north. 

expansion coming tonight 

On 1/21/2020 at 1:48 PM, weatherwiz said:

The euro has tiny pockets of surface-based CAPE move across the region!!! not surprised given those lapse rates...wish Ryan's page had elevated CAPE but I would think we could be dealing with some weak elevated CAPE...could see elevated convection (especially in the "warm sector"). 

6 minutes ago, Baroclinic Zone said:

 

4 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said:

What a torch today . 50’s

Beautiful out. 

1 minute ago, Baroclinic Zone said:

Nah, I called it 1st.

@HoarfrostHubb

change title to reflect convection please 

4 hours ago, weatherwiz said:

We should see general t'storm line get into parts of New England with the new D2 I would think 

GOOD CALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

4 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

Here is 2015. At 50mb, it's more near and just north of Siberia...not so much in Canada or over Hudson Bay. However, as Tombo noted a few days ago, you can see a big ridge in AK and the elongation favorable for cold air delivery. You don't have to have the strat PV sitting in Canada. That 50mb look would be fine. 

Also note I am no expert...just sort of going by what makes sense to me. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Placement of the warmest temperatures anomalies I think worked in our favor significantly as well:

also the core of the westerlies surrounding the SPV were displaced towards the other side of the hemisphere 

But I think I am a little confused about something...this event in 2015 (since i don't remember off the top of my head is that referring to a strong PV or weakened PV? Based on what you posted and what i did I would assume the PV is pretty strong here (2015)...which is a good thing that it is displaced towards the other side of the globe. A strong PV displaced south into Canada would result in strong westerlies over the U.S.