Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,515
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    wigl5l6k
    Newest Member
    wigl5l6k
    Joined

March 2-3 Disco, Part III


stormtracker

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

GFS stops the bleeding, at least a little.

I'm not sure what bleeding there is supposed to be when the world's best model and 2nd best and 3rd best (GFS and GGEM in some order) show a snowstorm of the exact size we are expecting...6-10" for most.  Were people really cliff diving over the hi-res NAM?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18z RGEM at DCA is 19mm snow and 3mm sleet

 

19 mm = 1.9 cm = ~ 0.75".  Figure a 11-13 to 1 ratio during the snow, and you've got your 8-10".  The RGEM and ECMWF have been rock solid of late, and are getting support from the 18Z GFS.  I didn't see any 12Z UKMet data, but it sure does look like the NAM is on an island by itself..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what bleeding there is supposed to be when the world's best model and 2nd best and 3rd best (GFS and GGEM in some order) show a snowstorm of the exact size we are expecting...6-10" for most.  Were people really cliff diving over the hi-res NAM?

 

That, and the "regular" operational NAM.  But I agree with what you're saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely someone in this thread has kept stats on whether these modeled storms do in fact take a jog north (or not) when we're within 12 hours of the actual event.

 

So I actually kinda have been tracking the various model's results with each of the last six storms/potential storms.

 

For the RGEM, NAM, GFS, GGEM and EC group, and Inside the 36hr window, the REGM has typically been best at catching a significant "warm surprise" (when one takes place) and or better at identifying sharp snow/no snow accumulation gradients on the south/warm rain-snow transition zone.

 

Inside of 24 hours my notes (only four storms) found that the NAM, RGEM, GFS, and especially GGEM/EC, remained unrealistically persistent. The H-many-R and RAP have actually done impressively well. At least with thermal profile, RADAR trends, and total measured snow. I don't know, however, if the snow accumulation differences might be attributed to one set of model images (NAM, RGEM, GFS, etc) being based on a strict 10:1 ratio and the other set (HR+ and RAP) being based on a more flexible ratio. I don't even know if either set of models attempts to account for changing ratios for that matter...   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 mm = 1.9 cm = ~ 0.75".  Figure a 11-13 to 1 ratio during the snow, and you've got your 8-10".  The RGEM and ECMWF have been rock solid of late, and are getting support from the 18Z GFS.  I didn't see any 12Z UKMet data, but it sure does look like the NAM is on an island by itself..

 

12z UKMET was around ~20mm of snow -- http://meteocentre.com/models/get_mgram.php?stn=Washington&mod=ukmet&run=12&var=std〈=en&map=us

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes and it's GD pathetic

 

That's very true.  Yet it's still nagging and disconcerting that the NAM (and yeah, the hi-res) is adamant with the sharp cut-off and somewhat lesser amounts.  It seem similar to what the GFS was doing for the Feb. 12-13 storm in some ways...not the same scenario, I know, but in terms of every other piece of guidance saying something different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...