Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

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

November 2019 discussion


weathafella
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, CoastalWx said:

That is GFS based and also depends on MJO tracking.  If you can grab euro AAM, it would help.

That's what sucks about alot of this stuff...all mostly GFS based and it's difficult to get access to anything which uses Euro data. 

AAM seems highly intriguing but quite complex with all the different torques that are at play. But is it the AAM/torques which drive the deviations in the jet stream or is it the deviations in the jet stream which drive the AAM/torques? If it's the later then the models forecasts of it would be almost insignificant b/c if the models are forecasting some deviation in the jet (which ends up being incorrect) it will reflect in AAM/torque forecast. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎11‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 4:09 PM, CoastalWx said:

Maybe we can get a Jspin 0.2”

 

On ‎11‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 4:45 PM, powderfreak said:

But you have to melt that down to get the LE.

 

On ‎11‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 4:58 PM, CoastalWx said:

How does he do that when a dendrite is 0.1”? That’s what I’ll call it. Not enough for 0.2, but solid covering.

Starting this season, I don’t even have to melt the snow down to quantify the liquid.  I’d been wanting to skip the melting and simply do it by density for a while, and just hadn’t gotten around to looking for an appropriate scale or balance.  This off season I finally started looking, and they’ve got 0.01 g resolution scales all over the place now for ~$10 or so.  I’ve got one of those, and it’s great.  Depending on whether it’s dry or wet snow, I just tare my corer or another vessel, and bam, there’s your liquid.  It’s far more accurate and precise than trying to measuring volumes down to 0.01 mL, it’s much faster than dealing with melting the snow down, and there’s the added benefit of not losing any sample in container transfers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, J.Spin said:

 

 

Starting this season, I don’t even have to melt the snow down to quantify the liquid.  I’d been wanting to skip the melting and simply do it by density for a while, and just hadn’t gotten around to looking for an appropriate scale or balance.  This off season I finally started looking, and they’ve got 0.01 g resolution scales all over the place now for ~$10 or so.  I’ve got one of those, and it’s great.  Depending on whether it’s dry or wet snow, I just tare my corer or another vessel, and bam, there’s your liquid.  It’s far more accurate and precise than trying to measuring volumes down to 0.01 mL, it’s much faster than dealing with melting the snow down, and there’s the added benefit of not losing any sample in container transfers.

Wow. That is impressive, and yeah definitely much easier than melting. Good stuff. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, OSUmetstud said:

Thanks, and I'm guessing light winds are important, too? Or not as important as RH? 

Yep. Def helps. But the RH seems to be the biggest factor. Of course around here those stronger W and NW winds help cause the RH to drop so they can be related. 

Scenarios like you explained is where the lower winds can really help. You get rain and then no strong CAA...kind of unusual in the cold season... but the low winds and clearing skies leads to radiational cooling and you fall to like 28/28 and everything freezes with minimal evaporation. Almost like a freezing fog scenario. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everybody's a troll involved in this social media platform in their own inimitable way .. heh. 

Yeah, the idea of a blue bomb is still on the table - if anyone cares for lucid, intellectual discussion on the matter.  

As we covered yesterday, these typically do this in guidance, this behavior where they look +1 to +3 C too warm at this range, but then the guidance' shave fractions of degrees over subsequent run cycles, while establishing an isothermal synoptic profile around the NW-W limbs of the cyclonic evolution.  It can happen any time but it's more typical autumn and sprind behavior.  This is doing exactly that ... whether it parlays into what folks want ( snow ), or falls just short, both circumstances are definitely within realm of possibilities.  But the idea of a cake and glop can't be logically ruled out just yet.  

As we also covered yesterday, the biggest problem right now is the destructive wave interference that is ubiquitous across all guidance types. This is still true in both dependable vs non-dependable fringe guidance types. 

The 12z and 18z operational GFS runs from yesterday, particularly the latter of the two, were placing more of the emphasis on the 2nd wave in the total bag of L/W progression through the E - very similar actually to the 00z Euro interestingly enough.  Then of course the GFS being the GFS, the 00z and 06z have turn-coated on that thinking and abruptly begun favoring the lead "hook low" .. (which frankly looks over done either way, but definitely f's up everything no matter what way one looks at it). 

That all said, I'm not sure I'm willing to hand over the conductor's truncheon to the Euro and let it lead the way from D6/7, either.  Because A  .. this model, far superior to the GFS as it is, is not actually that much better than the GFS at this particular time range ( regardless of y'alls Lord of Flies popularity schemes).  Inside of D 5 ... yes, sure.  

As an aside,  when I was recently making fun of Kevina, I deliberately overly-stated ( solely for the intent of pissing him off and it worked! ) that the GFS schooled the Euro.  To clarify, what actually took place is that both models were abysmal in the D6/7 time lead, regarding an O.C.D. monitoring effort collectively applied to an innocuous piece-of-shit fropa. That was two events ago.  At the time, the Euro was depicting a stem-wound juggernaut bomb just E of the arm of the Cape; meanwhile, the GFS was flat and pancaked-progressive with the flow - it barely cobbling together just a weak low it rocketed utterly inconsequentially seaward across the SW Atlantic Basin WSW of Bermuda. 

That disparity lasted for oh ..a couple three cycles say.  But, at around D5, the GFS suddenly sniffed out the polar/arctic boundary and the wave along it, as it unzipped NW of the area. The model was scheduling our SNE and eastern NE regions to be tortured in a rotted polar warm sector - which of course... the model f'n nails that!  The Euro, however, was lagging in there.  That's when and where the "schooling" ( in the relative sense ) took place, as it was still vestigially trying to hold onto a Kleenex and lotion solution, which it should have abandoned.  It wasn't long after, tho.  By early on the D4 cycles, the Euro caught on and from that point forward, they more than less depicted the same shit from about 60 to 72 hours lead, held serve, and destiny was righteously occurred and the Universe didn't cease to exist because no one got snow.  ( See how that works?)     

I don't think realistically that ordeal would or should really hurt the Euro street cred.  I bet it doesn't really even show up in the verification curves either. It was just an isolated oddity in model performance, one that happened recently and just so by the love of god for the purpose of lambasting Kevin. I would still nod to the Euro as the better prognostic tool in more situations than not, particularly time frames < 5 days.  I do submit in better honesty that the Euro is dicey beyond D5 just as the models all are; I really am not sure if over our quadrature of the World, it really is all that much better than any other guidance types at D7 in a straight up comparison - I don't know.  I don't bother looking because ... just common existentialism with it, I've seen the model dump enough solutions at D7 to know it's just not dependable enough at that range so who cares.  

Which...holy shit.. We're at D7 now.  Anyway, if the models come around to damping out the lead interfering wave, that 2nd one becomes dominant, then the deeper 18z GFS/00z Euro runs have better hope of transpiring.  And then it's layered correction vectoring, because "if" that happens, then we can start figuring for the isothermal sounding to become more 0 C -like as the event nears.  Seeing as few things have to go right ... gotta put the over all odds of satisfaction potential as being higher for blue ballz rather than blue bomb for now.   Who knows.. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

The model is really to help areas that do not have good data across the world. I don’t think you’re going to see a huge difference comparing it to the GFS or European in the United States.

Perhaps a GoFundMe drive can be started to raise funds for a subscription for the forum lol

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, J.Spin said:

 

 

Starting this season, I don’t even have to melt the snow down to quantify the liquid.  I’d been wanting to skip the melting and simply do it by density for a while, and just hadn’t gotten around to looking for an appropriate scale or balance.  This off season I finally started looking, and they’ve got 0.01 g resolution scales all over the place now for ~$10 or so.  I’ve got one of those, and it’s great.  Depending on whether it’s dry or wet snow, I just tare my corer or another vessel, and bam, there’s your liquid.  It’s far more accurate and precise than trying to measuring volumes down to 0.01 mL, it’s much faster than dealing with melting the snow down, and there’s the added benefit of not losing any sample in container transfers.

That’s awesome, I may need to look into that.  I just hated melting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Everybody's a troll involved in this social media platform in their own inimitable way .. heh. 

Yeah, the idea of a blue bomb is still on the table - if anyone cares for lucid, intellectual discussion on the matter.  

As we covered yesterday, these typically do this in guidance, this behavior where they look +1 to +3 C too warm at this range, but then the guidance' shave fractions of degrees over subsequent run cycles, while establishing an isothermal synoptic profile around the NW-W limbs of the cyclonic evolution.  It can happen any time but it's more typical autumn and sprind behavior.  This is doing exactly that ... whether it parlays into what folks want ( snow ), or falls just short, both circumstances are definitely within realm of possibilities.  But the idea of a cake and glop can't be logically ruled out just yet.  

As we also covered yesterday, the biggest problem right now is the destructive wave interference that is ubiquitous across all guidance types. This is still true in both dependable vs non-dependable fringe guidance types. 

The 12z and 18z operational GFS runs from yesterday, particularly the latter of the two, were placing more of the emphasis on the 2nd wave in the total bag of L/W progression through the E - very similar actually to the 00z Euro interestingly enough.  Then of course the GFS being the GFS, the 00z and 06z have turn-coated on that thinking and abruptly begun favoring the lead "hook low" .. (which frankly looks over done either way, but definitely f's up everything no matter what way one looks at it). 

That all said, I'm not sure I'm willing to hand over the conductor's truncheon to the Euro and let it lead the way from D6/7, either.  Because A  .. this model, far superior to the GFS as it is, is not actually that much better than the GFS at this particular time range ( regardless of y'alls Lord of Flies popularity schemes).  Inside of D 5 ... yes, sure.  

As an aside,  when I was recently making fun of Kevina, I deliberately overly-stated ( solely for the intent of pissing him off and it worked! ) that the GFS schooled the Euro.  To clarify, what actually took place is that both models were abysmal in the D6/7 time lead, regarding an O.C.D. monitoring effort collectively applied to an innocuous piece-of-shit fropa. That was two events ago.  At the time, the Euro was depicting a stem-wound juggernaut bomb just E of the arm of the Cape; meanwhile, the GFS was flat and pancaked-progressive with the flow - it barely cobbling together just a weak low it rocketed utterly inconsequentially seaward across the SW Atlantic Basin WSW of Bermuda. 

That disparity lasted for oh ..a couple three cycles say.  But, at around D5, the GFS suddenly sniffed out the polar/arctic boundary and the wave along it, as it unzipped NW of the area. The model was scheduling our SNE and eastern NE regions to be tortured in a rotted polar warm sector - which of course... the model f'n nails that!  The Euro, however, was lagging in there.  That's when and where the "schooling" ( in the relative sense ) took place, as it was still vestigially trying to hold onto a Kleenex and lotion solution, which it should have abandoned.  It wasn't long after, tho.  By early on the D4 cycles, the Euro caught on and from that point forward, they more than less depicted the same shit from about 60 to 72 hours lead, held serve, and destiny was righteously occurred and the Universe didn't cease to exist because no one got snow.  ( See how that works?)     

I don't think realistically that ordeal would or should really hurt the Euro street cred.  I bet it doesn't really even show up in the verification curves either. It was just an isolated oddity in model performance, one that happened recently and just so by the love of god for the purpose of lambasting Kevin. I would still nod to the Euro as the better prognostic tool in more situations than not, particularly time frames < 5 days.  I do submit in better honesty that the Euro is dicey beyond D5 just as the models all are; I really am not sure if over our quadrature of the World, it really is all that much better than any other guidance types at D7 in a straight up comparison - I don't know.  I don't bother looking because ... just common existentialism with it, I've seen the model dump enough solutions at D7 to know it's just not dependable enough at that range so who cares.  

Which...holy shit.. We're at D7 now.  Anyway, if the models come around to damping out the lead interfering wave, that 2nd one becomes dominant, then the deeper 18z GFS/00z Euro runs have better hope of transpiring.  And then it's layered correction vectoring, because "if" that happens, then we can start figuring for the isothermal sounding to become more 0 C -like as the event nears.  Seeing as few things have to go right ... gotta put the over all odds of satisfaction potential as being higher for blue ballz rather than blue bomb for now.   Who knows.. 

Agree on this, and it’s also why I strongly favor the first (day 3/4) wave. This wave appears to have tropical characteristics while off the SE coast. This is key. The quasi-tropical nature of this disturbance early on, means minimal long wave interference to UL ridge amplification induced by the second wave, allowing the coastal disturbance to track up the coast and phase near the BM as it becomes extra-tropical

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is sort of coming out of left field ... but, I'm curious what the stratosphere -tropospheric monitoring is going to unfold like over the next month. 

We are passing mid autumn.  In my research of this subject matter over the years, if there is going to be an earlier season sudden warming event, typically by the last two weeks of November, there are signs in the temperature monitoring, where there are small positive anomaly masses that start popping off in the 5 to 30 hPa sigma levels over upper stratosphere - sort of foreboding warnings that one is nearing, however they are related notwithstanding.   This year, so far, nadda... it is early, so not seeing them empirical to date may be understandable. I am however. a little surprised we are not seeing them at least modeled to do so - the next two weeks will be interesting to monitor.  Particularly because ...

This would seem to be a favorable season for SSW phenomenon.  Both the easterly phase of the QBO, combined with the antecedent solar minimum on-going through the summer months into early autumn should have left a lot of ozone and other atmospheric thermal trapping aerosols intact relative to solar max normals ( which extinguish more of these due to interaction with UV radiation fluxing).   Both the QBO easterly phase, and the solar minimum, correlate with +SSW anomalies.  So, it almost seems intuitive to me - anywho - that we should see an "anxious" column in the stratosphere, and earlier warm nodes in temperature begin to formulate over these next two to three weeks - which is consistent with other active years going back to 1979. 

Everything is really flat. The GEFs modelling at all sigma levels, right out to 240 hours, show zero modulation of warming burst behavior.  Nor are there wind anomalies in the u-component, so there's less retrograde associated with terminating WAA at high latitudes/altitudes - which may be the problem... I think as of Novie 15, in a season such as this, with strong QBO and solar min correlations leading, we really should be seeing more warm nodes but if the circulation of the hemisphere is failing to terminate planetary waves up N, there may not be any way to deliver warmth into the stratosphere's favorable thermal layout - interesting. 

Just to remind folks... Sudden Stratospheric Warming is pretty much exactly what that says... Rather abruptly, a warm plume of air gets detected.  This plume of air usually goes on to do one of two behaviors:   comes in and out of detection as it rotates around the axis of the mean PV at earth curvature altitudes ( ha );   does the same thing, however, begins "down-welling" toward the lower levels/tropopause.  The latter is necessary for correlation with -AO forcing - which is a lengthier explanation on how/why that is the case.  But, there is a time lag of about 20 to 30 days.  If the plume descends in altitude and interacts with the tropopausal depths, that whole process takes a couple of weeks to complete, and as the statistics over the years of monitoring show, -AOs were 21+ days in the making.   If we look at the past years..there are plenty of warm plumes that suddenly materialized, but did not descend in this typical down-welling behavior... So the actual down-welling is important in the total correlation model. 

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...