Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,606
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    ArlyDude
    Newest Member
    ArlyDude
    Joined

February 8-12 model Discussion II


Isopycnic

Recommended Posts

Keep in mind that is 6 hour totals between hour 66 and 72 and it doesn't show the totals between hours 60 and 66. I wish I knew why the makers of the uk only give 6 hour totals through 48 hours but then only show 6 hour totals for hours 60 and 72. It's just stupid.

Oh, dang. I forgot about this and, therefore, underdid ATL-AHN on the UKMET. I had said ~1.5" based on hours 66-72. However, I'm confident that based on the hour 60 maps (such as 700 mb RH, qpf) that there'd be about that much in addition just for hours 60-66. Therefore, I've decied to up the 12Z UKMET ATL-AHN amount from 1.5" to 3.0"

So, here is the corrected summary for 12Z:

NAM: 4"

UKMET: 3" rough est.

Euro: 2.5"

JMA: 1.5"

GGEM: 1"

GFS: 0"

Avg.: 2"

Based on this higher UKMET amount, I've decided to go with the following for ATL (even higher than what I said earlier this afternoon):

None: 15%

Trace: 15%

0.1-1" 20%

1.1-2" 20%

2.1-4" 20%

4.1"+ 10%

I'd now go with ~2" for ATL-AHN if a gun were pointed at my head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Oh, dang. I forgot about this and, therefore, underdid ATL-AHN on the UKMET. I had said ~1.5" based on hours 66-72. However, I'm confident that based on the hour 60 maps (such as 700 mb RH, qpf) that there'd be about that much in addition just for hours 60-66. Therefore, I've decied to up the 12Z UKMET ATL-AHN amount from 1.5" to 3.0"

So, here is the corrected summary for 12Z:

NAM: 4"

UKMET: 3" rough est.

Euro: 2.5"

JMA: 1.5"

GGEM: 1"

GFS: 0"

Avg.: 2"

Based on this higher UKMET amount, I've decided to go with the following for ATL (even higher than what I said earlier this afternoon):

None: 15%

Trace: 15%

0.1-1" 20%

1.1-2" 20%

2.1-4" 20%

4.1"+ 10%

I'd now go with ~2" for ATL-AHN if a gun were pointed at my head.

Why not factor in the GFS ensembles? Pretty much all show >.10" QPF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely.... hopefully its a trend and not a joke. To my quick glance sref may be a tad more moist as well.

While the SREF is nothing to be excited about I was sure at 9z it had nothing. Can't recall though and since StormVista's SREF maps are all screwed up I can't check (sorry to lazy to google).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not factor in the GFS ensembles? Pretty much all show >.10" QPF.

I think your idea has merit, especially due to the gfs being such a dry outlier. However, based on past storm experiences with ensemble mean qpf for storms only a few days away, I've gotten the impression that they tend to be less reliable vs. the respective operational in general that close to the event. Therefore, I usually stick to only the straight operational qpf for these types of analyses as opposed to either substituting or averaging in the ensemble mean with the operational. Also, keep in mind that the past several op. gfs runs have had no qpf. So, it isn't as if just this one op. gfs had nothing. So, I feel the op. gfs' zero qpf deserves to be in the mix especially since it isn't the worst model in the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think your idea has merit, espcially due to the gfs being such a dry outlier. However, based on past storm experiences with ensemble mean qpf for storms only a few days away, I've gotten the impression that they tend to be less reliable in general that close to the event. Therefore, I usually stick to only the straight operational qpf for these types of analyses as opposed to either substituting or averaging in the ensemble mean with the operational. Also, keep in mind that the past several op. gfs runs have had no qpf. So, it isn't as if just this one op. gfs had nothing. So, I feel the op. gfs' zero qpf deserves to be in the mix especially since it isn't the worst model in the world.

Alrighty then...but I wasn't really referring to ensemble mean but looking at each member panel as ALL of them show >.10" QPF.

But...I see your point. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This system kind of reminds me of the Christmas storm to a certain degree, in terms of QPF amounts leading up to the storm. It may b wishful thinking, but were we not seeing issues with amounts 3 days before and then the models started catching back on? Didn't our "awesome" (tongue in cheek)?American models play catchup with forecasted totals, even during the storm? Lastly, I THINK we have a much colder look this go round? Thanks for any input!

Yes you are correct but the lack of qpf on models for that storm was due to the lack of a phase on the models 2-3 days out. With this storm we have no phase so qpf won't be increasing like in that storm. I say .1-.35 qpf for most

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Cheez got an update on the Euro Ensembles? I know they usually come out around this time right? Or is it usually closer to 4 that they come out?

12Z Euro ens mean a little wetter vs. 0Z Euro ens. mean fwiw:

CLT: ~0.15" 12Z vs. ~0.10" 0Z

ATL-AHN: ~0.20" 12Z vs. ~0.10" 0Z

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, the models keep showing this strung out, multi low set up, i keep wondering if they are going to consolidate them into one primary low, if that happened we would have a much more organized storm with more qpf. Notice 3 main areas of lift on the NAM.

I see you pretty much answered the question I had. The NAM seems to be trending that low in the panhandle stronger...if it keeps it up could we be in business with them being consolidated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see you pretty much answered the question I had. The NAM seems to be trending that low in the panhandle stronger...if it keeps it up could we be in business with them being consolidated?

I wonder if we are trending back towards the consolidated low the models had days ago.

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...