yoda Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 I think what we can take from this for right now is that it has trended westward from the 18z and the upper levels look much better. Onto the 00z GFS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherX Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 Looks like the "enforcer" northern stream vort is dropping in at 72 hours and will make this interesting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhineasC Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 Two low pressure areas at 72HR. That seems to be the biggest difference from the much more consolidated Euro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchnick Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 yeah, there's a high likelihood there will be two Lows off the coast as this map depicts, highly likely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pojrzsho Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 AT 72 LI, NE snowing......again there was NOTHING at 78 18z.......bottom line, Euro, 12z winner, NAM 0z trend way west. Game on!! GFS most likely west also, IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
am19psu Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 There is a pretty clear convective feedback issue here. With the consolidated vort max over the TN Valley and the vorticity generation east of HSE, latent heat release is contaminating. If you get rid of that, this is a fantastic run for everyone. I wouldn't worry about the sfc on the T+72 NAM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EasternUSWX Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 Kind looks like 0Z Euro from last night 0Z Euro 11/16 0Z NAM 12/17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pojrzsho Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 There is a pretty clear convective feedback issue here. With the consolidated vort max over the TN Valley and the vorticity generation east of HSE, latent heat release is contaminating. If you get rid of that, this is a fantastic run for everyone. I wouldn't worry about the sfc on the T+72 NAM. Great point! At 84 thing bombs out for Maine, there was nothing close to any bomb at 18z. i was bummed like many this morning...but hoping again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wthrmn654 Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 its a miss for some but a hit for others? say north of dc has better chance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Srain Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 There is a pretty clear convective feedback issue here. With the consolidated vort max over the TN Valley and the vorticity generation east of HSE, latent heat release is contaminating. If you get rid of that, this is a fantastic run for everyone. I wouldn't worry about the sfc on the T+72 NAM. It's clear the lack of data was a factor. WV Imagery suggested a stronger feature over the Pacific. Good run folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
am19psu Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 It's clear the lack of data was a factor. WV Imagery suggested a stronger feature over the Pacific. Good run folks. Yup, that's the major takeaway. Much stronger vort max moving through the flow, more divergence aloft, quicker to go negative tilt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbsfreeenergy Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 There is a pretty clear convective feedback issue here. With the consolidated vort max over the TN Valley and the vorticity generation east of HSE, latent heat release is contaminating. If you get rid of that, this is a fantastic run for everyone. I wouldn't worry about the sfc on the T+72 NAM. nice phase job on UA..thats all i was looking for 3 distinct pieces at 48hrs...gulf, MCI, MSP...I will take my chances with that UA setup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dtk Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 Use the halfway point. It generally works. For the old NGM, that would give it about 24 hr. lol This is way too arbitrary ...I mean, do you only trust the EC model out to 120h since they only run it to 240? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Analog96 Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 This is way too arbitrary ...I mean, do you only trust the EC model out to 120h since they only run it to 240? Pretty much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitchel Volk Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 A slight trend towards the west; I would only look up to the 60hr NAM after that the NAM is not very good. At 60 hours the 500 Vort max is starting to intensify and if you put the storm about 75-100 west you probility get the real forecast. I still think that there ia a decent chance PHL to BOS will get a snowstorm possibly a blizzard. Lets see how the GFS and ECMWF handles the new data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dtk Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 Pretty much. But that's just crazy...so because the GFS is run to 384 hours, and the EC is run out to 240 hours... the GFS has a longer "useful" lead time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Analog96 Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 But that's just crazy...so because the GFS is run to 384 hours, and the EC is run out to 240 hours... the GFS has a longer "useful" lead time? If you account for biases and get used to it, it probably does. But you have to account for ALL the biases and apart from the S & E bias, we can't be 100% sure of the new biases since the upgrade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
am19psu Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 Let's wait to have this discussion until after the potential snowstorm, guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confuzzled Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 As others are saying, the NAM has shifted westward a little and the Low appears to be stronger than the 18z (see above comparison). Good sign so far Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SACRUS Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 48 Hour RGEM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhineasC Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 RGEM looks very progressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ridingtime Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 RGEM looks very progressive. I never understood this term, progressive means what...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitchel Volk Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 Yes it does, and progressive means the it just clips along like a more zonal flow would produce, decreasing the hours of snow or rain. This is a simple explanation of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Analog96 Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 Yes it does, and progressive means the it just clips along like a more zonal flow would produce, decreasing the hours of snow or rain. This is a simple explanation of it. Yeah, but it also usually means out to sea, because it continues East and does not cut into the block. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhineasC Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 I never understood this term, progressive means what...? Just means it goes zooming on by and never really blows up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocoAko Posted December 17, 2010 Author Share Posted December 17, 2010 00Z GFS at 12 hours is deeper with the shortwave over the SW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJHurricane Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 There is a pretty clear convective feedback issue here. With the consolidated vort max over the TN Valley and the vorticity generation east of HSE, latent heat release is contaminating. If you get rid of that, this is a fantastic run for everyone. I wouldn't worry about the sfc on the T+72 NAM. does the NAM suffer convective feedback issues to such a degree normally? I always thought that was more pronounced on the GFS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Analog96 Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 does the NAM suffer convective feedback issues to such a degree normally? I always thought that was more pronounced on the GFS. It should be more pronounced on a higher-resolution model, like the NAM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
am19psu Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 It should be more pronounced on a higher-resolution model, like the NAM. That and the NMM is not the best parametrization core available. Re: the GFS, and this me relying on my tropical background, the GFS upgrade in July greatly decreased the amount of convective feedback in that model. After the upgrade, I hardly ever saw it in the tropics this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 It should be more pronounced on a higher-resolution model, like the NAM. No, this isn't true. Convective feedback is an issue with lower resolution models and result due to the more general convective parameterizations used in the model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.