Maestrobjwa Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 5 minutes ago, psuhoffman said: You know comparing 12z and 18z that wave dives in across Ontario on 18z vs Michigan at 12z. The further west dive 12z allows it to ride up the east side and phase it. The trajectory 18z presses it east until it's on the east side of the trough which 18z is ots for our purposes then captures and pulls it into New England This is a Nina. And ninas are filled with blocking fails just like that so obviously that's a concern. But we did also have 1996 in a Nina so it doesn't have to go that way. We need that wave to dive in west of us not on top of us though. I think that's a key I was missing or not giving enough importance too. I was looking at earlier parts of the puzzle but that factor could act to slingshot this out and around us if it does dive in on top of us like that. Ugh. Thanks you added one more thing to worry about lol. Wait a minute...could that happen even if we get the earlier parts of the puzzle right?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 3 minutes ago, Maestrobjwa said: Wait a minute...could that happen even if we get the earlier parts of the puzzle right?? Yes but that is moving around each run. Buts it's a new problem. Wasn't even there 48 hours ago. I liked the whole spacing better then. Things getting a bit cramped for my liking with the waves. However if that wave dives down far enough west, say Toledo Ohio vs Lake Erie then it could capture and pull the low north. So it's a double edged sword. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 00z NAM at 42 h5 has shortwave coming in a lil bit stronger and further west into E WA than 18z at hr 48 which was more directed toward NW MT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maestrobjwa Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 2 minutes ago, yoda said: 00z NAM at 42 h5 has shortwave coming in a lil bit stronger and further west into E WA than 18z at hr 48 which was more directed toward NW MT Seems like...given what we've been talking since 18z...any trend stronger and west (and any slower) will be a good thing...lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maestrobjwa Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 10 minutes ago, psuhoffman said: Yes but that is moving around each run. Buts it's a new problem. Wasn't even there 48 hours ago. I liked the whole spacing better then. Things getting a bit cramped for my liking with the waves. However if that wave dives down far enough west, say Toledo Ohio vs Lake Erie then it could capture and pull the low north. So it's a double edged sword. Dang...can it get any more complicated? Lol Sweet mercy!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobalt Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowLover22 Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 1 minute ago, Cobalt said: Completely random but the person who runs that twitter account I know in person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
87storms Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 6 minutes ago, Cobalt said: i like that it was posted at 9pm and not 4pm lol. edit: it was issued at 5pm, but yea...whatever. we're in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormtracker Posted March 8, 2018 Author Share Posted March 8, 2018 I'm going to say this right off the bat...NAM looks pretty damn good at 48 hours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowGolfBro Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 11 minutes ago, stormtracker said: I'm going to say this right off the bat...NAM looks pretty damn good at 48 hours You said it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormtracker Posted March 8, 2018 Author Share Posted March 8, 2018 Just now, SnowGolfBro said: You said it! I dunno so much now tho...i wish the heights were higher over us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nj2va Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 At 72 hours, NAM has a 1004 SLP down near Austin, TX. South of 18z GFS and well south of 12z GFS. Heights a bit lower at 72, too. I’m not really a fan but its the NAM towards the end of the run so there’s that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 The nam would be a fail imo. Compare this to the 12z gfs. It's even significantly worse than 18z. its not even close to what we need Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LP08 Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 That low up NE of Maine is further south at 72 lowering heights Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormtracker Posted March 8, 2018 Author Share Posted March 8, 2018 Just now, nj2va said: At 72 hours, NAM has a 1004 SLP down near Austin, TX. South of 18z GFS and well south of 12z GFS. Heights a bit lower at 72, too. Maybe I’m reading it wrong, but I’m not really a fan but its the NAM towards the end of the run so there’s that. Yeah, started out kinda good, but **** the bed after. Oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jebman Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 Model runs will improve. It will go back and forth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
87storms Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 it's suppressed. way out ahead of the NS. wondering if this could end up being one of those secondary low forms along a stalled front deals. tbd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nj2va Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 2 minutes ago, stormtracker said: Yeah, started out kinda good, but **** the bed after. Oh well. I liked it early...I’ll go with the fact that NAM within 48 hours is better than NAM post 48 hours. Page 15 of the weenie handbook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jandurin Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 I liked it early...I’ll go with the fact that NAM within 48 hours is better than NAM post 48 hours. Page 15 of the weenie handbook.I'll just pretend a gfs with that 48 hour look wouldn't develop that 72 hour look Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowGolfBro Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 Just now, nj2va said: I liked it early...I’ll go with the fact that NAM within 48 hours is better than NAM post 48 hours. Page 15 of the weenie handbook. That's in the weenie handbook, but it also is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTRWx's Thanks Giving Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 1 minute ago, nj2va said: I liked it early...I’ll go with the fact that NAM within 48 hours is better than NAM post 48 hours. Page 15 of the weenie handbook. 3km NAM >> 12km NAM pg 16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ers-wxman1 Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 NAM extrapolated out would be a southern slider OTS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
87storms Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 1 minute ago, nj2va said: I liked it early...I’ll go with the fact that NAM within 48 hours is better than NAM post 48 hours. Page 15 of the weenie handbook. even to a novice, the solution past 48/54 seemed a bit odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 The most important initial hurdle is where and how strong the southern wave ejects. It seems to matter less with the northern stream. We've had better looking NS vorts that did nothing. And worse ones where the southern wave did the work itself. I think some are looking at the wrong thing. The gfs runs that work eject the wave into Colorado and to east from there. The fails eject into Texas which seems to cause it to miss the boat with the NS. It's too far away and they remain separate and that seems to be the issue. Once that window closes it's game over. With both the NS and southern wave working together it amplifies and buckles the flow enough to increase heights in front. But if the southern wave misses that connection in the plains it continues east as a flat wave and the NS continues to dig south behind it which stretches the trough and flattens it making it more positive and at that point the shot at a phase is lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 8 minutes ago, LP08 said: That low up NE of Maine is further south at 72 lowering heights Look at the comparison above. The features north and east of us are the same. Heights are the same at that point. But the southern wave came out too far south and missed its ride with the NS vort coming down. Their out of sync and will remain separate. That means the southern wave won't be amplified enough to gain latitude and the NS will keep diving southeast vs turning east which makes the trough positive tilt and that is what layer squashes and keeps heights lower. They start out the same though at the critical frames. The first problem imo is mostly where that system ejects. It seems pretty obvious that the runs that eject north and sync up with the NS work. The runs that the wave ejects too far south to sync up fail. This wasn't even close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 11 minutes ago, ers-wxman1 said: NAM extrapolated out would be a southern slider OTS. With the low over central Florida...are you sure. Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nj2va Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 Well 3k NAM ejects into northern TX panhandle but eventually jumps down into the Gulf east of Houston by the end of the run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtstack Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 has anybody looked at the analogs for 12z gfs? Just wondering if there are any good ones in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ji Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 1 minute ago, kurtstack said: has anybody looked at the analogs for 12z gfs? Just wondering if there are any good ones in there. Dec 1 2017-March 6 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ji Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 i mean this dosent look that bad right? Normally we would be thrilled with this...lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.