snowstormcanuck Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Nice example of the GFS's feedback problem at 60hrs. I love how you get thoroughly rebuffed on a ridiculous claim by two meteorologists, and then don't even bother to acknowledge their posts. I guess that's a sign of true pwnage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wisconsinwx Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Yeah, these storms are called 'panhandle" hooker or "Texas hooker" as they develope on the Texas panhandle than usually move ene from there. Type A hookers are usually the ones that go north of Chicago and Type B usually hit Chicago hard for a frame of reference, the 67 and 79 storms were Type B hookers. Type A the December 2009 storm. Yeah, the Dec '09 storm even went through MKE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago Storm Posted February 22, 2011 Author Share Posted February 22, 2011 Nope, because I thought their points were not important to my point, everybody always says something about snowpack on every storm. Just a general observation. The fact you couldn't understand that is real "pwnage". lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo6899 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 If the GFS has issues early on in the run, does that mean the rest of the run is pretty much invalid. Well usually even if there are no issues its long range as things will change but just curious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowstormcanuck Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Nope, because I thought their points were not important to my point, everybody always says something about snowpack on every storm. Just a general observation. The fact you couldn't understand that is real "pwnage". You're not clever enough to try and weasel your way out of this one. Try contrition next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowstormcanuck Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 lol. Can't discern whether he's a troll or whether he's actually that obtuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago WX Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Nope, because I thought their points were not important to my point, everybody always says something about snowpack on every storm. Just a general observation. The fact you couldn't understand that is real "pwnage". You need new material. The old "GFS sucks no matter what" or "snow pack doesn't matter" has grown stale. You're better than that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Yeah, these storms are called 'panhandle" hooker or "Texas hooker" as they develope on the Texas panhandle than usually move ene from there. Type A hookers are usually the ones that go north of Chicago and Type B usually hit Chicago hard for a frame of reference, the 67 and 79 storms were Type B hookers. Type A the December 2009 storm. Just to clear up a few things--this really bears no resemblance to a true Panhandle Hooker or any of the other major lee cyclogenesis storms such as Colorado Lows and MT/WY lows. Really this is just a low amplitude shortwave ejecting into the plains and de-amplifying as it "merges" with the main belt of westerlies. True Panhandle Hookers "hook" and take a NW curved track as they undergo baroclinic intensification after ejecting into the plains and undergoing a prolonged period of lee side troughing and subsequent southerly advection off the GOM. Typically these are large rossby waves/longwave troughs which then amplify through baroclinic processes as well as strong diabatic effects off the GOM--hence the NW curved "hook". This is "self-development" and/or "positive feedback" cyclogenesis. Typically these storms are the main belt of westerlies--this storm is a cutoff piece of energy re-merging with the main belt of westerlies. There are definite differences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 If the GFS has issues early on in the run, does that mean the rest of the run is pretty much invalid. Well usually even if there are no issues its long range as things will change but just curious Why does the GFS have issues? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowstormcanuck Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Why does the GFS have issues? Looks like there might be a feedback issue at 78 hours where the sfc low gets shunted east along a likely bogus convective maxima of pcpn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo6899 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Why does the GFS have issues? EXTENDED FORECAST DISCUSSION NWS HYDROMETEOROLOGICAL PREDICTION CENTER CAMP SPRINGS MD 156 PM EST MON FEB 21 2011 VALID 12Z THU FEB 24 2011 - 12Z MON FEB 28 2011 ...CONSIDERABLE SOLUTION SPREAD AND RUN-TO-RUN VARIABILITY ARE EVIDENT IN THE SHORTWAVE PATTERN DETAILS AS EARLY AS DAY 4...WITH THE 12Z GFS/CANADIAN MAINTAINING A SUBSTANTIALLY MORE SOUTHERN TRACK WITH A CYCLONE APPROACHING THE APPALACHIANS... WHICH APPEARS AT LEAST IN PART INFLUENCED BY CONVECTIVE GRID-SCALE FEEDBACK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowstormcanuck Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Your kidding right? Spelling "you're" as "your" (which you do frequently) doesn't help your cause in the being obtuse department. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago Storm Posted February 22, 2011 Author Share Posted February 22, 2011 Looks like there might be a feedback issue at 78 hours where the sfc low gets shunted east along a likely bogus convective maxima of pcpn? Which is exactly the same issue the 12/18z runs had. Grid scale feedback FTL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebo Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Nope, because I thought their points were not important to my point, everybody always says something about snowpack on every storm. Just a general observation. The fact you couldn't understand that is real "pwnage". You said Ah, I had been waiting for somebody to comment on the "snow cover" factor. It never gets old. And me and B_I both said that it is a factor. So it is important, when you say it never gets old implying that it means 0 when it doesn't mean 0 at all. Just sayin.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mnweather Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Just to clear up a few things--this really bears no resemblance to a true Panhandle Hooker or any of the other major lee cyclogenesis storms such as Colorado Lows and MT/WY lows. Really this is just a low amplitude shortwave ejecting into the plains and de-amplifying as it "merges" with the main belt of westerlies. True Panhandle Hookers "hook" and take a NW curved track as they undergo baroclinic intensification after ejecting into the plains and undergoing a prolonged period of lee side troughing and subsequent southerly advection off the GOM. Typically these are large rossby waves/longwave troughs which then amplify through baroclinic processes as well as strong diabatic effects off the GOM--hence the NW curved "hook". This is "self-development" and/or "positive feedback" cyclogenesis. Typically these storms are the main belt of westerlies--this storm is a cutoff piece of energy re-merging with the main belt of westerlies. There are definite differences. Baro, how often do Colorado lows and panhandle hooks happen? I don't think we have had any up here this way yet this winter or for awhile for that matter. Are they more common in spring and fall and why has there been what seems like so few? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moneyman Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 72 HR GEM: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mnweather Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Spelling "you're" as "your" (which you do frequently) doesn't help your cause in the being obtuse department. LOL! Who cares? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Just to clear up a few things--this really bears no resemblance to a true Panhandle Hooker or any of the other major lee cyclogenesis storms such as Colorado Lows and MT/WY lows. Really this is just a low amplitude shortwave ejecting into the plains and de-amplifying as it "merges" with the main belt of westerlies. True Panhandle Hookers "hook" and take a NW curved track as they undergo baroclinic intensification after ejecting into the plains and undergoing a prolonged period of lee side troughing and subsequent southerly advection off the GOM. Typically these are large rossby waves/longwave troughs which then amplify through baroclinic processes as well as strong diabatic effects off the GOM--hence the NW curved "hook". This is "self-development" and/or "positive feedback" cyclogenesis. Typically these storms are the main belt of westerlies--this storm is a cutoff piece of energy re-merging with the main belt of westerlies. There are definite differences. That storm he mentioned was not a Panhandle Hooker either. It traveled across S.CO and popped out at the KS/OK line. There is northern Panhandle storms ( the ones up by Amarillo ) and then the southern ones via El Paso. The Dec 09 event did not even make it into Texas at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AppsRunner Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 GGEM still south... 84hr low in Western VA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moneyman Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Both of you, shut up, no one cares about your little fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 EXTENDED FORECAST DISCUSSION NWS HYDROMETEOROLOGICAL PREDICTION CENTER CAMP SPRINGS MD 156 PM EST MON FEB 21 2011 VALID 12Z THU FEB 24 2011 - 12Z MON FEB 28 2011 ...CONSIDERABLE SOLUTION SPREAD AND RUN-TO-RUN VARIABILITY ARE EVIDENT IN THE SHORTWAVE PATTERN DETAILS AS EARLY AS DAY 4...WITH THE 12Z GFS/CANADIAN MAINTAINING A SUBSTANTIALLY MORE SOUTHERN TRACK WITH A CYCLONE APPROACHING THE APPALACHIANS... WHICH APPEARS AT LEAST IN PART INFLUENCED BY CONVECTIVE GRID-SCALE FEEDBACK Interesting discussion. Convective feedback certainly can happen in a negative manner regarding the models--but convection can also realistically alter the synoptic environment. Groundhog Blizzard was a classic example of convection altering the surface pressure falls and the track of the low. Deep convection can also realistically weaken a weak upper disturbance through latent heat release and warming of the upper troposphere. The NAM did this with the groundhog blizzard where it was developing spurious convection and releasing a motherlode of unrealistic latent heat which then resulted in a weak and unrealistic flat track. The old GFS was famous for "convective qpf bombs" and negative feedback to the dynamic fields--but the new GFS is much better with this. While this could very well be convective feedback--it could also very well be the GFS simply having differing initial conditions or simply modeling it differently--or it could be realistic with convection "driving" the greatest surface pressure falls farther E. What does this all mean? Convection can realistically alter the synoptic environment--and it can also unrealistically feed back to the model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebo Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Both of you, shut up, no one cares about your little fight. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowstormcanuck Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 LOL.......like your spelling is a symbolism of perfection all the time. Give me a break man. I am sorry you got the wrong idea, sorrrrrryyyyyyyyy!!! wow!!! lol @ the irony. I'm don't think I'm perfect. Far from it. However, reading your posts, and the style in which you post, I'm often left with the impression that you fancy yourself as God's infallible gift to meteorology. I've said it to you 1000 times. Post less in absolutes. Post less in the condescending and conceited manner in which you do. Your style is fine when you're learned, but you don't have the knowledge (neither do I) to back it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyclone77 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Both of you, shut up, no one cares about your little fight. LMAO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Baro, how often do Colorado lows and panhandle hooks happen? I don't think we have had any up here this way yet this winter or for awhile for that matter. Are they more common in spring and fall and why has there been what seems like so few? Depends on the patterns. We haven't had many this winter--I want to say zero Panhandle Hookers and maybe one Colorado Low. Colorado Lows are also far more typical than Panhandle Hookers. Gulf Lows are of course even more rare in the plains. The Halloween 1991 blizzard was the de facto standard for Gulf Lows in the plains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Baro, how often do Colorado lows and panhandle hooks happen? I don't think we have had any up here this way yet this winter or for awhile for that matter. Are they more common in spring and fall and why has there been what seems like so few? This storm that just passed was a CO low of sorts. the Blizzard was a Texas low. Baro can probably explain better why it did not take the "typical" CO low track up into WI. In short it had to do with blocking in southern Canada etc. Thats the cheapened version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoosier Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Despite my pessimism, I'm still watching this with some interest. We might end up being more rain than not but we're not gonna torch with these depictions unless the surface low shifts substantially farther north. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebo Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Despite my pessimism, I'm still watching this with some interest. We might end up being more rain than not but we're not gonna torch with these depictions unless the surface low shifts substantially farther north. Yeah LAF 33-40 with rain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 This storm that just passed was a CO low of sorts. the Blizzard was a Texas low. Baro can probably explain better why it did not take the "typical" CO low track up into WI. In short it had to do with blocking in southern Canada etc. Thats the cheapened version. Yeah agreed. A partial CO low--perhaps a hybrid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago Storm Posted February 22, 2011 Author Share Posted February 22, 2011 For sh*ts and giggles(not so much this time), the gaps has a C. Missouri to NE. Ohio track. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.