Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,502
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Weathernoob335
    Newest Member
    Weathernoob335
    Joined

Perhaps a Coastal Storm on March 2nd for SNE????


USCAPEWEATHERAF
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, wxsniss said:

Don't think it's just chasing the convective blob here... you can see differences already by 14 hrs, vorticity is spread out more east and so later does not wrap in

Not an unrealistic solution, eSNE widespread 4-8" instead of 8-12"+

It definitely chases the convection once it gets going...it may have started off a tick east, but it gets exacerbated as we go into the run. You can actually see a couple little bullseye of vorticity south of the benchmark by 18 hours.

Regardless, the lack of a compact vortmax is definitely an issue for a really wrapped up solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, wxsniss said:

Don't think it's just chasing the convective blob here... you can see differences already by 14 hrs, vorticity is spread out more east and a so later does not wrap in

Not an unrealistic solution, eSNE widespread 4-8" instead of 8-12"+

The reason it is unreasonable is the vorticity is developed through the convection the model develops offshore.  The vorticity looks to develop due to the convection, not due to the upper level energy within the shortwave.  Water vapor imagery is a great tool to use in this case.  The MO shortwave is phasing in with the Gulf shortwave, you can see this taking place as the shortwave begins to pivot in place.  I will show you an image of what I mean.

 

Image below shows the developing storm system, with the strong baroclinic leaf in the southeast, the dry slot developing to the west of the low is where our disturbance has phased together with the top of the storm now taking shape.

Water vapor imagery March 1st analysis.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, USCAPEWEATHERAF said:

The reason it is unreasonable is the vorticity is developed through the convection the model develops offshore.  The vorticity looks to develop due to the convection, not due to the upper level energy within the shortwave.  Water vapor imagery is a great tool to use in this case.  The MO shortwave is phasing in with the Gulf shortwave, you can see this taking place as the shortwave begins to pivot in place.  I will show you an image of what I mean.

 

Image below shows the developing storm system, with the strong baroclinic leaf in the southeast, the dry slot developing to the west of the low is where our disturbance has phased together with the top of the storm now taking shape.

Water vapor imagery March 1st analysis.jpg

That looks really.....elongated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ORH_wxman said:

The water vapor shot that jimmy posted is actually pretty impressive. Makes it hard to envision a mere scrape.

Will, I think the models are mishandling the phase of the Great Lakes shortwave because the NAM, for instance, is too far east with the shortwave in the southern stream, with this phase between the MO disturbance and the GULF disturbance, this system will grow in size and allow the phased shortwave to slow down and grow in size and intensity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

It definitely chases the convection once it gets going...it may have started off a tick east, but it gets exacerbated as we go into the run. You can actually see a couple little bullseye of vorticity south of the benchmark by 18 hours.

Regardless, the lack of a compact vortmax is definitely an issue for a really wrapped up solution.

Agree, and there is definitely a little chicken-egg feedback going on as you commented. 

3k 12z NAM also has a buckshot diffuse vorticity. Jimmy's shortwave image is actually useful in favor of a more consolidated vortmax, so despite what guidance is showing, that would argue for a more consolidated and tucked low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, WinterWolf said:

Would we put more weight on the GFS currently, or the NAM???   I'd go with the GFS at the moment.  If the GFS goes to a more NAM like solution at 12z...then that's a horse of a different color for sure.  

I would tend to agree with this premise, seeing as the Euro, is a pretty solid model and normally great with with coastals.  The GFS also agrees with it.  Tough to argue against that unholy alliance.  Let's see what the rest of 12z guidance shows though before passing judgement.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, USCAPEWEATHERAF said:

Will, I think the models are mishandling the phase of the Great Lakes shortwave because the NAM, for instance, is too far east with the shortwave in the southern stream, with this phase between the MO disturbance and the GULF disturbance, this system will grow in size and allow the phased shortwave to slow down and grow in size and intensity.

I'm not that concerned with the lakes shortwave....it's really how tucked in the system is against our main shortwave riding up through the TN valley and into the mid-atlantic. The lakes shortwave does interact with it some, and it will affect this system, but much more of the variance is due to how the vorticity is being handled....it's not strong which is giving the models fits on where to focus the conveyors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NAM has been reasonably accurate in the last two garbage systems, and seems entirely plausible. I wish I could feel comfortable ignoring it, because its says I am on the outside looking in.

Box's conservative approach seems to have been quite reasonable.  I'm sure more adjustments will come, but it won't be oversteer. 

What a headache if the GFS/Euro are obstinate.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ORH_wxman said:

I'm not that concerned with the lakes shortwave....it's really how tucked in the system is against our main shortwave riding up through the TN valley and into the mid-atlantic. The lakes shortwave does interact with it some, and it will affect this system, but much more of the variance is due to how the vorticity is being handled....it's not strong which is giving the models fits on where to focus the conveyors.

Will what I believe argues against the premise of a weaker shortwave and low, is that the precipitation shield is beginning to show rotation as it moves northeastward and the amount of energy in the GULF states with lightning everywhere.  Including the energy needed to produce a squall line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The HRRR is really not feeling it. That model mostly sucks but highlights the disconnect between the mesos and globals. I'm going to guess the GFS doesn't go thermonuclear at 12z and cans the warning snows to CON but who knows. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DomNH said:

The HRRR is really not feeling it. That model mostly sucks but highlights the disconnect between the mesos and globals. I'm going to guess the GFS doesn't go thermonuclear at 12z and cans the warning snows to CON but who knows. 

Isn't it a bit early to break that out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DomNH said:

The HRRR is really not feeling it. That model mostly sucks but highlights the disconnect between the mesos and globals. I'm going to guess the GFS doesn't go thermonuclear at 12z and cans the warning snows to CON but who knows. 

I am perhaps one of the few sickos who uses that model a lot within 24hr.... I honestly don't even look at it until about 12 hours before the event... Pretty much worthless at this time frame

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, NeonPeon said:

The NAM has been reasonably accurate in the last two garbage systems, and seems entirely plausible. I wish I could feel comfortable ignoring it, because its says I am on the outside looking in.

Box's conservative approach seems to have been quite reasonable.  I'm sure more adjustments will come, but it won't be oversteer. 

What a headache if the GFS/Euro are obstinate.  

When temps and terrain matter or its a simple clipper, I like the NAM. However, systems still developing, tons of variables and pieces of energy at play, I don't trust it.

 

I was kind of laughing at the high numbers getting thrown around but the flaccid water vapor image makes me think the GFS is on this one. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...