Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

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

Model Mayhem VI


Typhoon Tip

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
8 minutes ago, JC-CT said:

Yeah, I mean, I'd be more concerned if other models started showing CMC-like solutions where we don't get enough wave spacing.

Lots of L's  running around on the model maps heading into next week.  I'm certainly not discounting something screwing up the track and intensity as currently modeled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Chrisrotary12 said:

The 12z GFS is a bit odd in that it never really goes boom.  It's 40 hrs of 0.25-0.5" per hour snows.  

Whereas the 06z GFS was our typical big system in that its 18 hours of 0.75-1.0" per hour snows.

Two different solutions.  Nearly the same result.

I wouldn't care if the GFS was doing this at d3...nevermind d6. When I see that H7 track and H5 it's enough to make me giddy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Paragon said:

Yes, but the great thing is when all the major players line up, you just know it's going to happen.  The only thing that could have been better with that storm was a benchmark track and it slowing down or even stalling and then doing a loop.

 

yes but details can get you like March 2001.  These storms are cousins - both had big lead times but a shift put the coast out of it in 2001.  93 was perfect for me at SUNY Binghamton.  30+ inches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Chrisrotary12 said:

The 12z GFS is a bit odd in that it never really goes boom.  It's 40 hrs of 0.25-0.5" per hour snows.  

Whereas the 06z GFS was our typical big system in that its 18 hours of 0.75-1.0" per hour snows.

Two different solutions.  Nearly the same result.

 The 12z  would it be a weenie dream.  I would sacrifice intensity for two days of continuous snow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, cleetussnow said:

yes but details can get you like March 2001.  These storms are cousins - both had big lead times but a shift put the coast out of it in 2001.  93 was perfect for me at SUNY Binghamton.  30+ inches.

Yup, we just barely missed out on the heavier totals in March 2001.  That's why analogs don't equate to identical snowfall patterns, they are just a guide.

I've experienced four 20+ snowstorms and they were in February 1983, January 1996, February 2003 and the big one January 2016....three out of four were moderate el ninos or stronger.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, cleetussnow said:

yes but details can get you like March 2001. 

We do not speak about that storm, ever.

Please confine yourself to modest attire, and beat yourself with reeds as an act of penance. I will sense when you have been cleansed.

Thank you in advance for re-devoting yourself to piety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The next 2 weeks could be pretty amazing if things happened to break right. The deeper modeled trough for the Tuesday system is really helping created a semi-permanent low height anomaly in SE Canada and we have multiple shortwaves go underneath it. GFS isn't the only guidance showing this either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Zeus said:

We do not speak about that storm, ever.

Please confine yourself to modest attire, and beat yourself with reeds as an act of penance. I will sense when you have been cleansed.

Thank you in advance for re-devoting yourself to piety.

I agree and don't generally like to speak about '93 either because it suggests a comparison to something.  that is one storm that I don't think I'll see again so leave it. But I like Tip's mass planetary field description/comparison anyway.  I mean what other kind of storms offer such lead times?  only lucky dart throws for nickel and dimers work out. 

We don't know what we have next week so even thinking about the ultra outliers is too loaded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welp ... as we discussed hours ago... 

and it's either the beginning of model black-out time, or... just a blip. 

Or, a trend beginning toward nothing at all

Or, just something less... 

Or, a pattern of quick hitters ...seems the model hints at that with those follow-up waves. 

Or, some combination of all these... 
Or ............................... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Typhoon Tip said:

Welp ... as we discussed hours ago... 

and it's either the beginning of model black-out time, or... just a blip. 

Or, a trend beginning toward nothing at all

Or, just something less... 

Or, a pattern of quick hitters ...seems the model hints at that with those follow-up waves. 

Or, some combination of all these... 
Or ............................... 

You forgot Armageddon 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never actually done an interval comparison between model cycles with the GGEM, but I just did for that thing next week. 

Holy schit no wonder.  Is this always what that thing does?   It's so fercocked one doesn't know where to begin - I don't know which mass-field/sector to blame; none of them have much continuity if at all.  It's like the only reason it has a system mid week on this 12z guidance, when the 00z did as well...is some kind of random luck it's so bad.  

Just look at the far E Pacific south of the Alaska.  ...Look at the EPO domain space for that matter... From like 84 hours on there is virtually no comparison between the 00z and 12z runs. In fact, the EPO region is almost 180 degrees out of phase between the 00z and 12z out around 132 hours or so..  It's really rather extraordinary that it caries troughing along the east at all, let alone anything that matches.

i wonder if the GGEM folk know this?  ...or maybe this is just one cycle where its sucktitude really just out does its self -

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...