Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,515
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    amirah5
    Newest Member
    amirah5
    Joined

December 26-27 Storm Threat


Baroclinic Zone

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

INITIALIZATION ERRORS IN NUMEROUS DIAGNOSTIC

QUANTITIES...INCLUDING HEIGHT/VORTICITY FIELDS/RH...ARE EVIDENT IN

BOTH THE 12Z NAM/GFS WITH SMALL BUT LIKELY SIGNIFICANT SHORTWAVE

TROUGHS OVER SOUTH DAKOTA/NEBRASKA ALONG WITH

SASKATCHEWAN/MANITOBA...WITH THESE AREAS ALSO NOT PARTICULARLY

RESOLVED OR PREDICTED WELL BY THE 00Z ECMWF. THUS...THE SPECIFIC

PREDICTIONS BY ALL DETERMINISTIC GUIDANCE ARE IN QUESTION...WITH

THE RECOMMENDATION TO FOLLOW CONTINUITY.

ocd-family-guys-buzz-killington-20090605014340917-000.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We just may have to end up nowcasting the crap out of this one :lol:

Like Ryan said though earlier, if an early phase is going to happen at all we are going to find out by tomorrow night, so watching the radar and satellite data if we see signs of phasing occurring tomorrow night than that will definitely be a very good sign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is comical.

This could be the most devastating abuse of weenies to date.

well.... the 12z euro may be different with its handling of things?>

I hope so but do we have confidence that the EC will get it right.

This explains a lot of the jumps we're seeing at h6-h12 the last day or so. I'm betting it may have been going on longer than we thought and was missed or started out small enough that it wasn't noticed.

Nobody text Kev no sense ruining his day.

I'm thinking I'm shifting the .5 line about 20 miles SE of where I thought it would be yesterday based on all of this pending the 12z EC and whether or not it's been hosed too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I didn't really believe the 12z GFS right when it came out, and those messages by HPC do not instill any confidence to change that line of thinking.

Scott (Coastalwx) and I were just discussing on the phone how the jump seemed way too radical. I do think with other guidance inching west so far at 12z, that the west trend is real, but just significantly less than what the GFS is trying to depict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is how do we treat what the euro spits out at 12z??

I don't know.....I guess if it doesn't move all that much then perhaps it's ok. If that jumps 150 miles west, then maybe that is suspect.

The thing is, the gfs made a big jump west, but the west trend could be fact. However, now we don't know how realistic the big jump is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HPC is just trying to cover they're a** for this huge bust that is about to occur.

GFSgate

Put. Down. The. Pipe. Seriously.

The models take a long time to run after their initialization and data assimilation process. By the time they realize something is wrong it is too late to stop, correct whatever issues they have, and re-run.. They are doing exactly what they should - alert the end users of their products that there is a problem and that they should be disregarded. It's happened before and it'll happen again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I didn't really believe the 12z GFS right when it came out, and those messages by HPC do not instill any confidence to change that line of thinking.

Scott (Coastalwx) and I were just discussing on the phone how the jump seemed way too radical. I do think with other guidance inching west so far at 12z, that the west trend is real, but just significantly less than what the GFS is trying to depict.

Among the most reasonable posts in the thread. Stay the course and bump slightly west. And trust the Euro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Put. Down. The. Pipe. Seriously.

The models take a long time to run after their initialization and data assimilation process. By the time they realize something is wrong it is too late to stop, correct whatever issues they have, and re-run.. They are doing exactly what they should - alert the end users of their products that there is a problem and that they should be disregarded. It's happened before and it'll happen again.

Yes but quite often they catch it and adjust pre-model. I'm a little surprised by this and I would love to know how they came across the errors. Was it standard error checking or did someone at NCEP say "what can be causing this seemingly impossible idea of the GFS being stronger than the NAM at this range?"

I'm guessing this mornings GFS had them checking data because the initial message said there were no problems with the 12z NAM. So, they caught this later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...