Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,532
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    northernriwx
    Newest Member
    northernriwx
    Joined

Feb. 8-12 Model Discussion Part III


beanskip

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 973
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The NW trend just prior to go time is about as predictable as saying it's going to be hot and humid in Columbia, SC.

:lol::P We all know this is true

And boom goes the dynamite.

Wow....that impressed me just a bit :)

Note quite... I'm implying that while we didn't see the more extreme solution that the RUC had, the models are still trending towards the RUC because even after being less amplified in verification, its still was more amplified than any of the model guidance.

If anything, this just reminds me of the February 12th, 2010 event last year. The setup is pretty different, but pretty much all the guidance lost the storm (The GFS infamously sent the low to Cuba). However, the last 24 hours saw a major trend northward with the system and also revealed an inverted trough that ended up producing much of the snow that occurred on the north end of the storm, despite the 850mb low being much further south over South Georgia and South Carolina. I think we are going to see another inverted trough that will have a notch of higher precipitation further north into TN and NC... however at some point this feature will transfer to the coastal low and skip over or speed over certain regions. Unfortunately the midlands of NC/SC look like a prime target for this occur as the energy transfer occurs. However, if the models continue to trend stronger with the s/w, it will also draw the coastal low further west, and the energy transfer will be more seamless, with less of a hole of precipitation in this region. I really wish I could go back and read the thread last year, because I feel like we were worried about a similar situation playing out, and I believe everywhere in the Carolinas got at leas some accumulation from the event.

Feb 12th 2010 was the one and only time I have ever been positive it would snow imby. At the moment I've got my fingers crossed there is more moisture to work with over the midlands.

Robert......thanks for giving mby some :wub: I've been thinking just a dusting here at the most, so you have given me some hope. :hug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do people keep saying we had a good winter? I don't see it here. A couple of snows back in December, one of them over 6 inches, and nothing in January but cold and miserable weather. How is one good storm a good winter? ...Brick Tamland 11:33pm 2/7/11

I don't care if it was good for a La Nina winter. It still stunk pretty much overall here. Just a lot of wasted potential. ...Brick Tamland 12:04am 2/8/11

Yeah, I'm slow because we only had two measurable snow falls here in December, and one of them was a good one. Then nothing for January. Wow, that really makes winter so awesome! Just because you have a different opinion of what a good winter is doesn't mean I am slow. I just think only two snow events out of three months is not very good. ...Brick Tamland 2/8/11 9:31am

Brick, word of advice... in the day and age of internet you must realize folks can go back and look up quotes stated earlier. Why then do you insist on flip flopping your opinion like a fish out of water? Post something and stick to it, if you want to change explain why.

Sorry for being OT. Too much frustration to not make him aware! :gun_bandana:

:rolleyes: This means I am rolling my eyes, which usually indicates sarcasm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

now is a good time to start comparing the RUC against the previous runs of NAM, GFS and others. Already, at 18 hours the RUC is substantially further north over Tex, Ark and Ok with the 7h RH field and has a tighter look at 5H. Another thing I'm noticed if you loop the 5H, the northern lakes stream may not have as much squelching or supression effect if it gets out of the way or doesn't drop as far south as the other models showed. Its a little too early to say that, but keep an eye on it, b/c thats what the RUC is showing in its later hours, more separation in the flow, which allows the southern stream to be stronger. It even still cuts off some 5H energy over ne Colo, and nw Kansas, and develops a closed 7H as well in Oklahoma...all indicative of a much more substantial system than the NAM GFS are showing, and to some degree the others as well. In the end, it stil may not mean much for NC esp the lee areas, but then again each tick north is a step toward getting an inch, versus flurries. It would also bode much better than the GFS shows for sure, somewhat along the lines of the WRF. Its these kind of little changes that can mean a big difference to some areas.

post-38-0-73542900-1297193200.gif

post-38-0-62466500-1297193227.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DOT must know something - got behind the brining trucks about an hour ago between Clayton and Smithfield... both 70 and 70Bus are streaked now.

The birds in my yard must know the same as your state's DOT. There are thousands! We will see if they or our local mets are correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ATL-AHN estimated snow for 12Z Tue runs (vs. yesterday at 12Z):

CMC: 4" (vs. 1" )

JMA: 3.5" (vs.1.5")

UKMET: 2.5" (vs. ~3")

Euro: 2.5" (vs. 2.5")

NAM: 2" (vs. 4")

GFS: 1" (vs. 0")

Avg: 2.6" (vs. 2")

So, the consensus is ~30% wetter than yesterday. The CMC, JMA, and GFS are wetter while the NAM is drier. UKMET is ~same.

Based on this, I've decided to raise my best guess for KATL and vicinity back up to 2" from the 1" of late yesterday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12Z WRF ensemble members on bufkit. Here is total snow accumulations based off of 10:1 ratios. This is through 48hrs.

KGWO:2.8/4.3/4.1/4.5/3.3/1.6/3.8/3.6/3.5/4.5/4.0/4.9/4.4/4.0/3.0/4.5

KMEM:2.9/3.8/3.3/3.7/2.0/1.1/1.7/2.0/2.9/3.7/3.4/4.2/4.1/2.0/2.0/3.1

KBHM:2.0/2.1/3.1/2.4/3.3/1.1/1.7/1.9/2.7/3.1/2.8/1.9/2.7/2.4/2.1/1.9

KATL:3.3/2.6/2.7/2.6/3.0/.5/2.6/1.1/2.6/1.7/4.0/2.4/1.1/1.7/1.4/1.0

KCAE:1.5/.7/2.6/2.6/1.2/0/1.5/1.3/2.5/2.9/3.3/2.0/.7/1.5/.3/1.8

KBNA:1.7/2.1/1.4/2.0/1.1/.7/.8/.8/2.5/3.0/1.9/2.3/1.5/1.4/.9/1.9

KRDU:.4/.6/1.0/.6/.9/0/.4/0/2.9/2.3/2.8/2.8/4.7/2.7/4.1/2.9

KHSV:2.1/2.6/3.3/3.2/2.2/.1/1.4/1.4/3.1/3.1/3.5/4.5/3.3/1.9/3.8/2.5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GSP doesnt seem too thrilled with prospects for ne ga and the upstate (up to an inch) - i would love for them to be a bit low lol. waiting on ffc to put out their update for comparison

you'd think that the models would start showing some general consensus on the qpf SOON since this event is for tomorrow night

Lol.. Gsp has rain/snow even at 3000ft up here.

lol - we must have seen their update and posted at the same time. whats scary is that gsp is pretty good so that low amount gets my attention

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As if on cue, the 18z NAM at 12 hours shows slightly less suppression from the Lakes system than at 12z. (Not a lot, but you can see the 522 line touching the ND/Minn border at 12z and it's 30-40 miles NE of that on the 18z). Splitting hairs? Maybe.

now is a good time to start comparing the RUC against the previous runs of NAM, GFS and others. Already, at 18 hours the RUC is substantially further north over Tex, Ark and Ok with the 7h RH field and has a tighter look at 5H. Another thing I'm noticed if you loop the 5H, the northern lakes stream may not have as much squelching or supression effect if it gets out of the way or doesn't drop as far south as the other models showed. Its a little too early to say that, but keep an eye on it, b/c thats what the RUC is showing in its later hours, more separation in the flow, which allows the southern stream to be stronger. It even still cuts off some 5H energy over ne Colo, and nw Kansas, and develops a closed 7H as well in Oklahoma...all indicative of a much more substantial system than the NAM GFS are showing, and to some degree the others as well. In the end, it stil may not mean much for NC esp the lee areas, but then again each tick north is a step toward getting an inch, versus flurries. It would also bode much better than the GFS shows for sure, somewhat along the lines of the WRF. Its these kind of little changes that can mean a big difference to some areas.

post-38-0-73542900-1297193200.gif

post-38-0-62466500-1297193227.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ATL-AHN estimated snow for 12Z Tue runs (vs. yesterday at 12Z):

CMC: 4" (vs. 1" )

JMA: 3.5" (vs.1.5")

UKMET: 2.5" (vs. ~3")

Euro: 2.5" (vs. 2.5")

NAM: 2" (vs. 4")

GFS: 1" (vs. 0")

Avg: 2.6" (vs. 2")

So, the consensus is ~30% wetter than yesterday. The CMC, JMA, and GFS are wetter while the NAM is drier. UKMET is ~same.

Based on this, I've decided to raise my best guess for KATL and vicinity back up to 2" from the 1" of late yesterday.

Add to this list- 15Z SREF 2.5-3"

WSI RPM 3"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12z GFS ensemble is in a different world than the operational run. Looking like the Canadian. GFS OP could not only be out to lunch but off the planet. Might be time to start lumping it in the JMA/No Gaps group. :gun_bandana:

Yes, the gfs op. could be, especially because it has gotten wetter and is the driest of the operational models. OTOH, the gfs ens. could also be out to lunch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...