Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    19,042
    Total Members
    49,013
    Most Online
    loganboehmewx
    Newest Member
    loganboehmewx
    Joined

December 16-17, 2020 Winter Storm Obs/Nowcasting


WxUSAF

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
8 minutes ago, North Balti Zen said:

I thought a few pages back it got the thumbs down. Ok up your way along the MD/PA border west for a bit?

It’s the only guidance that shows me all snow.  But that’s simply because it can’t pick up on mid level warm layers. Never has. Although I guess this is the new GFS lol. But I find it suspect that EVERY other nwp is wrong on that warm layer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

It’s the only guidance that shows me all snow.  But that’s simply because it can’t pick up on mid level warm layers. Never has. Although I guess this is the new GFS lol. But I find it suspect that EVERY other nwp is wrong on that warm layer. 

          It's the "new" GFS, but it has the old physics, so I suspect that its inability to capture mid-level warm layers remains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Zdudswx said:

Yea, sadly there’s just not enough cold air locked in place. Early December bay temps are always against us. If it were mid January we all would cash in. 

Definitely...this was just a bit too early! I'm about to go look at the long range pattern prospects for comfort...lol Current AO forecast is just the Tylenol we need after this headache! :weenie:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, high risk said:

          It's the "new" GFS, but it has the old physics, so I suspect that its inability to capture mid-level warm layers remains.

I’m not doubting it but I thought they changed the core when they upgraded to the FV3 version.  Being non hydrostatic v the old GFS you would think the physics have to be different. Yet it has some of the same weaknesses from what I’ve see so far. Makes me wonder if there is something in the methodology or data assimilation of NCEP behind it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, losetoa6 said:

Thanks. I'm not really on social media other than here lol. 

Mby forecast is for 8"-14" total storm . I feel 75% confident 

I'm gonna go more conservative and reduce my totals from yesterday. I'll say 6-10 with 12 being max potential. Unfortunately I think the mix period last longer and hurts chances for 12+. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, HighStakes said:

I'm gonna go more conservative and reduce my totals from yesterday. I'll say 6-10 with 12 being max potential. Unfortunately I think the mix period last longer and hurts chances for 12+. 

Thinking the same for me here. 6-10 instead it 10-16 like I was thinking 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

I’m not doubting it but I thought they changed the core when they upgraded to the FV3 version.  Being non hydrostatic v the old GFS you would think the physics have to be different. Yet it has some of the same weaknesses from what I’ve see so far. Makes me wonder if there is something in the methodology or data assimilation of NCEP behind it. 

       As you noted, the core was changed, but most of the actual physics (except for the microphysics) were retained.    I think that the PBL scheme plays a role in these warm layer cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...