Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,509
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    joxey
    Newest Member
    joxey
    Joined

February 16-17th Storm II


stormtracker

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 561
  • Created
  • Last Reply

jeez...Ukmet assassinates DC....about 0.60-0.65"

:huh: Wow.  I'm kind of surprised it's holding so consistently the past couple of days (or more?).  It's either going to be great, or off.  From that plot above from Yoda, and recalling what it looked like before, the precip shield definitely punches a lot more SW to NE.  Stronger low, too, I think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm hugging whatever models give me the most precip.

 

I like your call earlier that the northern edge is doing well west of here.  Lexington and Cincy are doing fine right now.  It might be close for some of us up this way, but I think we end up doing ok, especially if we keep our bar set at a reasonable height.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That 850-650 layer is very dry and that is common in arctic air masses. It's going to take more than some light qpf or weak lift to erode the dry air and saturate the column. I think the guidance is picking up on this.

 

it moistens quickly over the next few hours despite the inialization (RAP) looking a lot like that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the issue...IAD sounding as of 12. Look how dry...

http://weather.unisys.com/upper_air/skew/skew_KIAD.gif

 

So I know there's been discussion regarding how well the models truly capture that dry air and account for virga etc. Along those lines, is it reasonable to compare the recent model generated skew-T's to the real radiosonde data and then draw conclusions about how well the dry air has been taken into consideration? i.e. whether the dry air that's present was well-modeled or if it is a "surprise" to the computers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I know there's been discussion regarding how well the models truly capture that dry air and account for virga etc. Along those lines, is it reasonable to compare the recent model generated skew-T's to the real radiosonde data and then draw conclusions about how well the dry air has been taken into consideration? i.e. whether the dry air that's present was well-modeled or if it is a "surprise" to the computers?

Only way to find out is to take initial condition through the column in the real atmosphere and compare to what the model predicted or initialized with. Would have to watch the progression through the day of how well the column moistens versus how the model is doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I know there's been discussion regarding how well the models truly capture that dry air and account for virga etc. Along those lines, is it reasonable to compare the recent model generated skew-T's to the real radiosonde data and then draw conclusions about how well the dry air has been taken into consideration? i.e. whether the dry air that's present was well-modeled or if it is a "surprise" to the computers?

 

It's being initialized well, and it moistens quickly over the next 6 hours...keep in mind that that was a 12z sounding for IAD

 

post-66-0-40818400-1424106377_thumb.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terrain in our area makes things tricky. We can downslope with certain wind directions which at the lower levels can create a drying effect. It's small but can make a difference.

our winds will be from the east and northeast with the retreating high to our north/northeast and storm to our south so no problem there
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...