nj2va Posted January 6, 2019 Author Share Posted January 6, 2019 2 minutes ago, clskinsfan said: Why is the FV3 such a mess? You get hours skipped and 6 hours before some panels come out. It is embarrassing. I think its a TT issue...the link to the NCEP site that Yoda posted has all the panels. Just not as “pretty” as the TT stuff. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Chill Posted January 6, 2019 Share Posted January 6, 2019 10 minutes ago, cbmclean said: I need some weenie education. So in the figure above I see the 540 dm geopotential height line almost completely in Canada. I know that the 540 dm 1000 - 500 thickness line is generally considered the "baseline" rain snow line. So I do not understand why the geopotential height is ever very different from the 1000 - 500 thickness. Isn't 1000 hPa basically the surface? So wouldn't the thickness between 1000 hPa and 500 hPA be about the same as the height of the 500 hPa geopotential surface? I am obviously missing something but I am not sure what. They are mostly separate. Heights are based on pressure in the column and thickness is based on temperature (and density) in the column. The 540 line is generally found where the surface is at freezing. Not exact but close. Its not correlated with the 540 height isobar. It's better practice tonuse soundings or look at temps at various levels instead of using thickness. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maestrobjwa Posted January 6, 2019 Share Posted January 6, 2019 Wanna talk about suggestions for banned terminology? How about "Congrats ______"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Chill Posted January 6, 2019 Share Posted January 6, 2019 10 minutes ago, nj2va said: Wouldn’t take much correction on the GFS for a hit though. No, it really wouldn't. Good enough for an op beyond the range we should be looking at [but we can't help it because we have problems... serious problems] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ji Posted January 6, 2019 Share Posted January 6, 2019 Close... but think that the GFS will be a close miss at 174 with no interaction at all. Nice HP thoughGfs hasn't shown a good fantasy storm for us in years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Chill Posted January 6, 2019 Share Posted January 6, 2019 Sim IR is a good panel to check on phasing. It's obvious on this panel that the gfs has no interest in phasing the streams. Subsidence inbetween the shortwaves 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted January 6, 2019 Share Posted January 6, 2019 00z FV3 also has no interest in the storm chance on the 13th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris78 Posted January 6, 2019 Share Posted January 6, 2019 With an upstairs look like this I would of thought the surface would of been little better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nj2va Posted January 6, 2019 Author Share Posted January 6, 2019 5 minutes ago, Bob Chill said: No, it really wouldn't. Good enough for an op beyond the range we should be looking at [but we can't help it because we have problems... serious problems] I’m happy we’re tracking something within 200 hours that’s not a 384H pattern change. Even if we fail next weekend (which is the likelier outcome at this point), it doesn’t sting as much considering all signs are pointing to multiple chances after that. Who’s starting the thread for it? :ducks: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowstorm5921 Posted January 6, 2019 Share Posted January 6, 2019 Lol. GFS looks awful past day 10 again. Yay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted January 6, 2019 Share Posted January 6, 2019 4 minutes ago, Snowstorm5921 said: Lol. GFS looks awful past day 10 again. Yay 1. The guidance didn't have the trough and threat day 7 a couple days ago either 2. The true flip in the Pacific pattern isn't established until day 13/14. There probably will be a mild period ~day 9-13. That's not a new revelation. Still looks like towards the 20th things should improve 3. What is your deal seriously? And you still never answered my question regarding persistence in banter. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted January 6, 2019 Share Posted January 6, 2019 10 minutes ago, Snowstorm5921 said: Lol. GFS looks awful past day 10 again. Yay Yea this looks awful. Did you take model reading lessons from Chuck? 1 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted January 6, 2019 Share Posted January 6, 2019 Btw what's the date on that gfs fantasy storm? Just wondering. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowstorm5921 Posted January 6, 2019 Share Posted January 6, 2019 3 minutes ago, psuhoffman said: Yea this looks awful. Did you take model reading lessons from Chuck? Lol only 348 hours away 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ji Posted January 6, 2019 Share Posted January 6, 2019 Yea this looks awful. Did you take model reading lessons from Chuck?Lol good luck with that Miller b bro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted January 6, 2019 Share Posted January 6, 2019 Just now, Snowstorm5921 said: Lol only 348 hours away You said it "looks awful past day 10". You were the one that was looking long range. So there was like 2 warm days and you decided it was awful? 4 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AfewUniversesBelowNormal Posted January 6, 2019 Share Posted January 6, 2019 Yeah, models show this, but it's damn warm outside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted January 6, 2019 Share Posted January 6, 2019 1 minute ago, Ji said: 6 minutes ago, psuhoffman said: Yea this looks awful. Did you take model reading lessons from Chuck? Lol good luck with that Miller b bro That was a weird hybrid with an anomalous south h5 cutoff low pass. Kinda like the second feb 2010 storm or the march 2013 storm. Yea I know that one sucked but because of boundary temps. A month earlier and that was a 10" snow. Those have a slightly better chance then a pure miller b where the upper low develops and cuts off later. But this doesn't matter it's all fiction. I was just pointing out he said the gfs looked awful past day 10 when in reality it's a pretty good look there. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbmclean Posted January 6, 2019 Share Posted January 6, 2019 10 minutes ago, Bob Chill said: They are mostly separate. Heights are based on pressure in the column and thickness is based on temperature (and density) in the column. The 540 line is generally found where the surface is at freezing. Not exact but close. Its not correlated with the 540 height isobar. It's better practice tonuse soundings or look at temps at various levels instead of using thickness. But I just don't understand. From the definitions (simplified, as I as I understand them) 500 hPa geopotential height = the height at which the atmospheric pressure is 500 hPa 1000 to 500 hPa thickness = the height difference between the 1000 hPa level and the 500 hPa level Since sea level pressure is about 1000 hPa, I would think that the height at which atmospheric pressure is 500 hPa should be about the same as the height between the 1000 hPa level and the 500 hPa level. For example the pressure at RDU is about 1015 hPa. Let's say my 1000 hPa height is 11 dm, and my 500 hPa height is say 560 dm. So my 1000 - 500 thickness is 560-11 or 549 dm. So yeah, the 1000 - 500 thickness is a little less than the 500 hPa height, because 100 hPa is a little up in the air from the surface. But why don't 1000 - 500 thickness basically follow 500 hPa heights, just with a little negative offset? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ji Posted January 6, 2019 Share Posted January 6, 2019 We need to take advantage of these threats before the real pattern change. A good winter snows in marginal situations....we got a bonus week next week when it was suppose to be an epic torch. If we get to jan 20 still shutout it will be a disaster imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted January 6, 2019 Share Posted January 6, 2019 12 minutes ago, Snowstorm5921 said: Lol only 348 hours away You said after day 10 was awful... so, that doesn't look awful to me 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted January 6, 2019 Share Posted January 6, 2019 Just now, Ji said: We need to take advantage of these threats before the real pattern change. A good winter snows in marginal situations....we got a bonus week next week when it was suppose to be an epic torch. If we get to jan 20 still shutout it will be a disaster imo Why do you like drawing lines in the sand for Mother Nature? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted January 6, 2019 Share Posted January 6, 2019 2 minutes ago, yoda said: You said after day 10 was awful... so, that doesn't look awful to me The only think awful are his posts. In fairness he seems like a troll and that implies he doesn't like snow so maybe it was "awful to him". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted January 6, 2019 Share Posted January 6, 2019 6 minutes ago, psuhoffman said: The only think awful are his posts. In fairness he seems like a troll and that implies he doesn't like snow so maybe it was "awful to him". Well being from KABE (and in Lehigh county PA) it is awful that he misses the snow at 348 lol 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraff Posted January 6, 2019 Share Posted January 6, 2019 1 hour ago, AfewUniversesBelowNormal said: I guess models still haven't factored in Stratosphere warmings. The Northern Hemisphere hasn’t factored in any Chuck warnings either. 1 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted January 6, 2019 Share Posted January 6, 2019 4 minutes ago, yoda said: being from KABE is awful Fixed 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted January 6, 2019 Share Posted January 6, 2019 6 minutes ago, Scraff said: The Northern Hemisphere hasn’t factored in any Chuck warnings either. High hemispheric energies warning 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Chill Posted January 6, 2019 Share Posted January 6, 2019 20 minutes ago, cbmclean said: But I just don't understand. From the definitions (simplified, as I as I understand them) 500 hPa geopotential height = the height at which the atmospheric pressure is 500 hPa 1000 to 500 hPa thickness = the height difference between the 1000 hPa level and the 500 hPa level Since sea level pressure is about 1000 hPa, I would think that the height at which atmospheric pressure is 500 hPa should be about the same as the height between the 1000 hPa level and the 500 hPa level. For example the pressure at RDU is about 1015 hPa. Let's say my 1000 hPa height is 11 dm, and my 500 hPa height is say 560 dm. So my 1000 - 500 thickness is 560-11 or 549 dm. So yeah, the 1000 - 500 thickness is a little less than the 500 hPa height, because 100 hPa is a little up in the air from the surface. But why don't 1000 - 500 thickness basically follow 500 hPa heights, just with a little negative offset? Check this link out. Answers every question you have https://www.weather.gov/source/zhu/ZHU_Training_Page/Miscellaneous/Heights_Thicknesses/thickness_temperature.htm 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbmclean Posted January 6, 2019 Share Posted January 6, 2019 16 minutes ago, Bob Chill said: Check this link out. Answers every question you have https://www.weather.gov/source/zhu/ZHU_Training_Page/Miscellaneous/Heights_Thicknesses/thickness_temperature.htm Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSky Posted January 6, 2019 Share Posted January 6, 2019 Awful looks great count me in 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts