Jump to content
  • Welcome to American Weather

    Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Sign in to follow this  
Typhoon Tip

August dawgs are barking ... but it looks like the month may split

Recommended Posts

Just now, Typhoon Tip said:

So I wouldn't dispute those details... but, I also don't think the present technology is sophisticated enough to handled these slow moving, high PWAT with convective tendency, ordeals.

With non-focused synoptic gradients that would otherwise damp noise, noise drives the result set. 

The models don't really normalize noise too well... even the Euro, with it superior normalization system couldn't really do the trick for overnight.

It may be picking and choosing a little... but the NAM gave this region of interior SNE some 2 to 3" for the system (again, negating 'wanting' to fail it for a moment) on whole and that's what happened. Balancing what happened, overall, with the preceding fairness... heh - 

I just...sorry, I don't think model eval around here is very fair and objective much of the time - But... stands to reason. There's no rules in a public forum.    We certainly are not sending any of this content through any kind of formal refereeing/peer review process... are we? ha -

Don't worry ... I'll be beady-eyed enraged come December when the NAM has solid consistency for seven straight cycles for a massive winter strike only to whiff.  Meanwhile, the other guidance types ... they were whiffy all along...but curiously, did throw a couple of runs that nodded in the NAM's favor -

The problem was, and I think we all know this....guidance does not handle widespread heavy rain setups well in the warm season. You have no good widespread advection processes, strong jet, or good s/w forcing to help drive these processes like we do in the winter. So, you’re at the mercy of models trying to model convection and subsequent offshoots of this, like low level jets etc. The NAM defintely did not handle that well yesterday. It did handle the nyc convection, but when I see another blob of +RA north of that blob of convection...it’s defintely a little suspicious.  However, I saw forecasters on air speaking of it as if it were verbatim. I understand you have to communicate something to the public, but it also conveys a false sense of confidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

The problem was, and I think we all know this....guidance does not handle widespread heavy rain setups well in the warm season. You have no good widespread advection processes, strong jet, or good s/w forcing to help drive these processes like we do in the winter. So, you’re at the mercy of models trying to model convection and subsequent offshoots of this, like low level jets etc. The NAM defintely did not handle that well yesterday. It did handle the nyc convection, but when I see another blob of +RA north of that blob of convection...it’s defintely a little suspicious.  However, I saw forecasters on air speaking of it as if it were verbatim. I understand you have to communicate something to the public, but it also conveys a false sense of confidence.

But isn't that what happened?  We had +RA here in interior SNE... north of NYC activity - again...I repeat, 2-3" fell here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

But isn't that what happened?  We had +RA here in interior SNE... north of NYC activity - again...I repeat, 2-3" fell here.

 

Last night. I meant yesterday morning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

Last night. I meant yesterday morning. 

Yeah...but my point originally was... in this situation, timing and placement should be given in terms of expected error - ...

If doing so, the models were fine. 

Seems there's difficulty keeping the former in mind - but whatever... To each his own.

The NAM did okay all things considered.. just imho -

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, dendrite said:

Pushing noon and my peak solar for the day is 91 W/m2. It's sometimes higher than that in winter with 4" of snow caked onto the sensor. :axe:

I was just nerdly hyper focusing on the hi res vis imagery loop and it really appears the mid and high level is < 50 % of that puke up there at this point.

Particularly down this way..  3,000 foot thick saturated inversion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Yeah...but my point originally was... in this situation, timing and placement should be given in terms of expected error - ...

If doing so, the models were fine. 

Seems there's difficulty keeping the former in mind - but whatever... To each his own.

The NAM did okay all things considered.. just imho -

But two different processes and features created the rain. That’s a rather large timing error(more than 12hrs in a 24 hr forecast)  and I think it was incorrect in what created the rain. That’s all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

But two different processes and features created the rain. That’s a rather large timing error(more than 12hrs in a 24 hr forecast)  and I think it was incorrect in what created the rain. That’s all. 

Right - I think we're arguing disparate points here.

I've already ceded to that notion about the incorrectness - my point was/is ... it's fine given the parameters handled.  Euro was atrocious last night - it seems your protecting a bad opinion about the NAM here and I honestly am not defending the NAM?  I don't care that you are whomever said the NAM was bad whenever - don't think you have to protect that opinion. 

If that's kinda sorta 'in a way' what's between the text in this conversation - don't worry, I'm not impugning anyone's bad opinion about matters.  I just said, it gets a pass - ... I was being kinda sorta 'in a way' sardonic earlier when I first mentioned it and so it's not gospel.

I will say, though, that a lot of modeling grief is inappropriate as a general rule, regardless of target ridicule. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Right - I think we're arguing disparate points here.

I've already ceded to that notion about the incorrectness - my point was/is ... it's fine given the parameters handled.  Euro was atrocious last night - it seems your protecting a bad opinion about the NAM here and I honestly am not defending the NAM?  I don't care that you are whomever said the NAM was bad whenever - don't think you have to protect that opinion. 

If that's kinda sorta 'in a way' what's between the text in this conversation - don't worry, I'm not impugning anyone's bad opinion about matters.  I just said, it gets a pass - ... I was being kinda sorta 'in a way' sardonic earlier when I first mentioned it and so it's not gospel.

I will say, though, that a lot of modeling grief is inappropriate as a general rule, regardless of target ridicule. 

Well I think we all know model biases and when to cut it some slack. Like missing a deformation band by 30-50 miles. That can happen and is well within modeling error. I guess my point is, it played into the hands of guidance being too “wet” when there is the potential for convection to screw around with the advection processes. People went verbatim with it, and there were caution flags.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seen it all now... cold air damming at 588 dm heights ... I mean, 78 at ALB, 76 out at P-town on the Cape... 68 in N Middlesex Co, 572 thickness, 588 heights...

This is some f'n weird atmospheric phenomenon, period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HIPPYVALLEY said:

How much rain did you get?

less than a tenth of an inch forecast up to 2 for Saturday alone

possible to likely down ours last night and today

it wasn't even that big an area that got soaked (parts of se new england)

we don't need it but I planned around it, just a terrible forecast...when I saw some rain in ct yesterday and the vast majority out in pa/nj and the other blob that skirted the south coast then saw the nearly motionless radar

 

then the back tracking in the box discussion about models too far north blah blah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, codfishsnowman said:

less than a tenth of an inch forecast up to 2 for Saturday alone

possible to likely down ours last night and today

it wasn't even that big an area that got soaked (parts of se new england)

we don't need it but I planned around it, just a terrible forecast...when I saw some rain in ct yesterday and the vast majority out in pa/nj and the other blob that skirted the south coast then saw the nearly motionless radar

 

then the back tracking in the box discussion about models too far north blah blah

What?  Greenfield got almost 3" and you got .10" ?    Weird. I thought all of I-91 corridor got smoked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's like Stephen King's "The Mist" here right now. Near zero visibility fog outside, meanwhile inside, a moth is fluttering around in the lampshade and a spider is crawling on the wall. Current temperature is 60° F.

We never mixed out today. Cloudy, coolish, with periods of light drizzle and fog. A fine Sunday in August.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×