The Jan 31 Potential: Stormtracker Failure or 'Tracker Trouncing

[stormtracker]

16 minutes ago, Buddy1987 said:

Might want to hold that thought.. 45 looking nice comparing it to 6z with flow backing and heights rising.

[Weather Will]

1pm , ULL looks too positively tilted.

[bncho]

ok NAM, wtf is this? why is the low on the other side of the planet?

[Lucy Pull]

9 minutes ago, Lucy Pull said:

A few positives and negatives. Should be west from 6z IMO but east of 0z.

higher height rise in front, more amplified western ridge, but ULL not pushing as far west before swinging. 

ULL not pushing as far west before swinging might outweigh any of the positives this run. Not consolidating energy west.

[Weather Will]

4pm, too progressive, lows far east of coast.

[jayyy]

ok NAM, wtf is this? why is the low on the other side of the planet?

This doing the double barrel shit the Canadian was doing last night?

[Buddy1987]

2 minutes ago, stormtracker said:

Man.. that was ROUGH after HR 54 or so... not how we are wanting to start the day. I really thought with the height rises we could be looking at something. That thing is moving faster than the asteroid in Armageddon.

[mappy]

2 minutes ago, stormtracker said:

It’s like you know what you’re talking about 

[Maestrobjwa]

3 minutes ago, bncho said:

ok NAM, wtf is this? why is the low on the other side of the planet?

Aside from the NAM being the NAM...there's something odd about the way the models are showing this. I mean they're doing weird things with a low that you don't see in winter storms--I mean maybe a met can chime in here. Think they might be missing something? Like does this fit anything (be it a hit or a miss) that has happened in our climo before?

[H2O]

There's a reason you let a run go thru and then see what it does.  Unless you know what you are looking at.  Only a few do.  

[bncho]

Just now, Maestrobjwa said:

Aside from the NAM being the NAM...there's something odd about the way the models are showing this. I mean they're doing weird things with a low that you don't see in winter storms--I mean maybe a met can chime in here. Think they might be missing something?

Convective feedback issues? Mentioned this somewhere else, but maybe it's treating that low like a tropical storm or something like that?

[Scraff]

Good thing it’s just the crappy NAM in its non-useful range. 

[jayyy]

Odd run. If the flow is truly that fast, not even Hampton roads is gonna cash in.

[Ji]

remember NAM is only a thunderstorms and thermal model. Disregard everything else lol

[Paleocene]

Here is my pro forecaster analysis of what I want the NAM to look like instead of what it looked like. Move that trough west 100 miles, and tilt it neg.

[Zeus]

Just now, H2O said:

There's a reason you let a run go thru and then see what it does.  Unless you know what you are looking at.  Only a few do.  

[jayyy]

Here is my pro forecaster analysis of what I want the NAM to look like instead of what it looked like. Move that trough west 100 miles, and tilt it neg.

That kicker in the dakotas probably isn’t helping our cause, right?

[Paleocene]

Just now, jayyy said:

That kicker in the dakotas probably isn’t helping our cause, right?

I generally have no idea what I'm talking about but I have noticed that on recent runs and I want it to go away 

[Weather Will]

ULL did not tilt negative and is too far south.  I guess if it started out further west it gives it more time to go negative.

[mappy]

3 minutes ago, bncho said:

Convective feedback issues? Mentioned this somewhere else, but maybe it's treating that low like a tropical storm or something like that?

Weenie rational 101

[jayyy]

I generally have no idea what I'm talking about but I have noticed that on recent runs and I want it to go away 

Same. To me, it seems like the western ridge’s axis isn’t quite right and is being impacted by it. We want to see it taller and more N-S. Almost points NW to SE on this frame. Trough doesn’t dig and turn negative fast enough and OOS she goes. If that ridge was a bit more pronounced and better orientated, the ULL could dig further west. I may be super wrong though

[bncho]

2 minutes ago, mappy said:

Weenie rational 101

It's also the NAM at hour 75 

[baltosquid]

2 minutes ago, Paleocene said:

I generally have no idea what I'm talking about but I have noticed that on recent runs and I want it to go away 

We definitely want it to go away. Good thing is the timeframe that shows up is further out and much less trustworthy as far as the NAM goes. The lobe not extending and stalling as far west is more concerning and can fail for us all on its own, though.

[Lucy Pull]

1 minute ago, jayyy said:

That kicker in the dakotas probably isn’t helping our cause, right?

No it’s not. I think youd want that further west to pump heights higher into the backside of our storms trough. Seems like its starting to fold the ridge over in its current position.
 

Or you speed that up substantially and phase it into the backside of the trough. Could get a tug west from that.
 

not at a good spot as depicted.

[Paleocene]

Just now, baltosquid said:

We definitely want it to go away. Good thing is the timeframe that shows up is further out and much less trustworthy as far as the NAM goes. The lobe not extending and stalling as far west is more concerning and can fail for us all on its own, though.

Yes, that is my main concern, that lobe is plummeting south from a position too far east. it will swing down and maybe go neutral/neg, but too late for most of us. except the shoreline and the fishies

[mitchnick]

If you run this 500mb vort prog in motion you can see around the Great Lakes the trough pushing a ridge overtop that's shoving our system SE. I think this is fairly representative of all the models.

https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/models/?model=namconus&region=us&pkg=z500_vort&runtime=2026012812&fh=1

 

[Kevin Reilly]

8 minutes ago, Maestrobjwa said:

Aside from the NAM being the NAM...there's something odd about the way the models are showing this. I mean they're doing weird things with a low that you don't see in winter storms--I mean maybe a met can chime in here. Think they might be missing something? Like does this fit anything (be it a hit or a miss) that has happened in our climo before?

It’s chasing another low out to sea the real storm is closer to the coast happened February 2010.

 

It’s the kicker central Canada to Dakotas knocking everything east and allowing a progressive flow to establish and block northward movement. 

[stormtracker]

1 minute ago, mitchnick said:

If you run this 500mb vort prog in motion you can see around the Great Lakes the trough pushing a ridge overtop that's shoving our system SE. I think this is fairly representative of all the models.

https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/models/?model=namconus&region=us&pkg=z500_vort&runtime=2026012812&fh=1

 

Yeah that’s gonna be a problem. Even down south.  I still think it’s the place to be tho.  But it’s always something….smoother way to fail.  

[Maestrobjwa]

2 minutes ago, Kevin Reilly said:

It’s chasing another low out to sea the real storm is closer to the coast happened February 2010.

 

It’s the kicker central Canada to Dakotas knocking everything east and allowing a progressive flow to establish and block northward movement. 

What part of February 2010?

[Buddy1987]

Still a night and day difference, at least with heights, comparing FV3 to NAM at 12Z. FV3 also kinked a good bit further north and west by hr 60.