Jump to content

  • Member Statistics

    17,508
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    joxey
    Newest Member
    joxey
    Joined

February 12-13 Storm, Part III: Trilogy ends and then Obs thread soon!

stormtracker

By stormtracker,
in Mid Atlantic

Recommended Posts

Bob Chill

Bob Chill

Posted
Posted

This is no mar 2013 but the expanding death thump reminds me of that.. but that one mainly showed up in big fashion the night prior. Of course it failed.

I've been thinking about that. Refresh my memory. I've tried hard to forget. The Mar storm wasn't juiced from lp out of the gulf right? Mostly ns vort driven right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
usedtobe

usedtobe

Posted
Posted

QPF? Yeah. General idea of the storm, higher, IMO.

I don't know about  the 1.75 on the high res version but think we see more than 1.00 and might see 1.25 though I'm not sure it will be distributed the same as the model has forecast it.  I still don't know what to make of the differences in tracks between the models.  I suspect that the Euro is too far west but wouldn't be surprised to see both u.S. models jog west at 06Z. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ian

Ian

Posted
Posted

I've been thinking about that. Refresh my memory. I've tried hard to forget. The Mar storm wasn't juiced from lp out of the gulf right? Mostly ns vort driven right?

Yeah, it was a monster closed 500 low that dove in out of the Dakotas.

 

Recency bias sucks here since almost every storm busted recently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dtk

dtk

Posted
Posted

anyone know if the additional drops gets into all the models worldwide or just ncep stuff?

They get sent over the GTS so they get used by all the operational centers. 

 

By the way, we now have two comprehensive studies showing that these have minimal impact in both a mean, statistical sense and for individual, targeted events for current, state of the art DA/NWP systems.  As Ian said in other posts, more data is obviously better (particularly the wind profiles we get from drops)....but it is really hard to justify the cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gymengineer

gymengineer

Posted
Posted

This is no mar 2013 but the expanding death thump reminds me of that.. but that one mainly showed up in big fashion the night prior. Of course it failed.

I think what a lot forget though about before 3/13 were the tortured analyses of the boundary layer. 3/13 was not a slam dunk by any stretch, and the relentless posting of skew-T's over 2 days for winter storm confirmed that. Almost everyone went glass half full because the 0Z runs got better, but the Euro was still not the bomb the other models showed.

It was a completely marginal situation that everyone went optimistic for.... Not a good comparison to this storm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
clskinsfan

clskinsfan

Posted
Posted

They get sent over the GTS so they get used by all the operational centers. 

 

By the way, we now have two comprehensive studies showing that these have minimal impact in both a mean, statistical sense and for individual, targeted events for current, state of the art DA/NWP systems.  As Ian said in other posts, more data is obviously better (particularly the wind profiles we get from drops)....but it is really hard to justify the cost.

 

You would think it is a relatively old technology compared to the satellites we have up there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mitchnick

mitchnick

Posted
Posted

They get sent over the GTS so they get used by all the operational centers. 

 

By the way, we now have two comprehensive studies showing that these have minimal impact in both a mean, statistical sense and for individual, targeted events for current, state of the art DA/NWP systems.  As Ian said in other posts, more data is obviously better (particularly the wind profiles we get from drops)....but it is really hard to justify the cost.

thx for the info

so tell us the truth....did you feed the NAM to DT right before run time?....come on, you can tell us

Link to comment
Share on other sites
usedtobe

usedtobe

Posted
Posted

I don't understand, everyone gets a WWW and Calvert gets a WWA?  I guess there will be a lot of mixing there/rain so that keeps totals incredibly low?  Cause if you go off the 00z NAM, calvert gets a lot of QPF.  Am I right with this?  Will only 3-5 inches predicted off of  1.2-1.5 QPF, must mean they will be above freezing very quickly.  Im just trying to understand this better, thats all.

I'm sure they were spooked by how quickly the 18Z GfS warmed the 850 temps.     This is the type of storm where there could be a big different north to south across the county.  If the NAM is right, we'll end up with warning criteria snow, if the GFS is right we won't. It's not worth worrying about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dtk

dtk

Posted
Posted

You will be happy...I believe the SREF uses the GFS for boundary conditions...it doesn't have its own assimilation system.

It uses multiple sets of initial conditions (one batch GFS, one batch NAM, one batch RAP), with perturbations on top of that....and I believe it actually uses GEFS (not GFS) boundary conditions.  Since it is offset by 3 hours, the 21z SREF is effectively initialized from the 18z cycles (though again with perturbed "ICs")

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SLPressure

SLPressure

Posted
Posted

I give the 0z NAM a credibility level of 3 out of 10

Does that translate to a 30% chance of verification or is that not what you are saying?

Just trying to assess the weight of the NAM after all the bashing it takes (not that it doesn't deserve it?) and we are now supposedly within it's "wheelhouse".

And so I ask because as one of the most respected voices on this forum, your opinion is highly regarded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Deck Pic

Deck Pic

Posted
Posted

I think what a lot forget though about before 3/13 were the tortured analyses of the boundary layer. 3/13 was not a slam dunk by any stretch, and the relentless posting of skew-T's over 2 days for winter storm confirmed that. Almost everyone went glass half full because the 0Z runs got better, but the Euro was still not the bomb the other models showed.

It was a completely marginal situation that everyone went optimistic for.... Not a good comparison to this storm.

 

agreed...I posted about it before...it was in the low 50s the day before...when the precip started we were 41/34.....and it was march!....Was just talking with Orhwxman and he thinks low level warmth may be overdone...that sleet/ice might be more common than rain with this storm if we flip from snow

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bob Chill

Bob Chill

Posted
Posted

Yeah, it was a monster closed 500 low that dove in out of the Dakotas.

Recency bias sucks here since almost every storm busted recently.

True on that. One thing in the back of my mind here is the majority of storms since Nov wirh gulf moisture transport have trended wetter at short leads or overperformed. Not saying I think that is the case here but I'm encouraged for possible upside on the front end. We'll see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vinylfreak89

vinylfreak89

Posted
Posted

I don't buy the weak CCB from the NAM... nor do I buy the weaker H5... nevertheless... still an awesome run... I think there is upside potential from the CCB....and I think models were missing it. CCB was being squashed by convection earlier in the day... that is gone on the 0Z NAM... telling what the rest of the suite brings... 0Z brought back some of the CCB potential at the very end.

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.
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...