Harry Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Why again i don't understand why people compare 18z to 00z and such. Should be comparing it to the 12z run. Most times 18z run ( as is 06z ) is off in it's own little world. Only inside of 24hrs does it make sense to compare them and even then we can see differences. I know some wil disagree and that's fine. Again there is always exceptions. Could be this run is a fluke ( has it's own issues ) but we wont know till the others have run. Thus sit back and wait and see what the rest show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Not crippling, but there definitely are some strong convective influences going on there. Probably overdoing it a bit. Same thing happened on the blizzard a few weeks ago too. So are you thinking this is driving too strong of pressure falls? I don't see anything wrong with the depiction of the upper wave--typically too much released latent heat release weakens the wave aloft unrealistically in "convective feedback" events where the models overproduce sub-grid scale convection--I don't see that here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpartyOn Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Cant discount the NAM yet. Lets chill out still 2 more model 00z's to go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundersnow12 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 sfc low in southwest MO on the 0z RUC at 0z tomorrow evening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowstormcanuck Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Why again i don't understand why people compare 18z to 00z and such. Should be comparing it to the 12z run. Most times 18z run ( as is 06z ) is off in it's own little world. Only inside of 24hrs does it make sense to compare them and even then we can see differences. I know some wil disagree and that's fine. Again there is always exceptions. Could be this run is a fluke ( has it's own issues ) but we wont know till the others have run. Thus sit back and wait and see what the rest show. We were discussing this earlier. It only makes sense if you agree with that premise (bolded), which is debatable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Not crippling, but there definitely are some strong convective influences going on there. Probably overdoing it a bit. Same thing happened on the blizzard a few weeks ago too. See 18hrs on this model. Usually when the low points like that ( as i like to say ) that is the general direction it heads for but ala it goes almost due east ( maybe a little ese ) towards the massive QPF bomb in KY. Thus i think the issue starts there. Thats me though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csnavywx Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 So are you thinking this is driving too strong of pressure falls? I don't see anything wrong with the depiction of the upper wave--typically too much released latent heat release weakens the wave aloft unrealistically in "convective feedback" events where the models overproduce sub-grid scale convection--I don't see that here. Yeah the upper wave looks just fine. The big "leap" forward of the SLP between 24 and 30 is probably a bit much. I'm not saying there won't be some convectively driven pressure falls, but I'm not sure it'll be that extreme. NAM can overdo it with that sometimes it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowstormcanuck Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 See 18hrs on this model. Usually when the low points like that ( as i like to say ) that is the general direction it heads for but ala it goes almost due east ( maybe a little ese ) towards the massive QPF bomb in KY. Thus i think the issue starts there. Thats me though. That was my thought as well. The big jump towards that bullseye seemed suspicious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpartyOn Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 So do we toss this run ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowstormcanuck Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 So do we toss this run ? Nope. We put it in the context of the other 0z guidance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Yeah the upper wave looks just fine. The big "leap" forward of the SLP between 24 and 30 is probably a bit much. I'm not saying there won't be some convectively driven pressure falls, but I'm not sure it'll be that extreme. NAM can overdo it with that sometimes it seems. Yeah the jump may be a bit suspicious and now I see what you guys are referencing. I guess this could be overcooked positive "convective feedback" although some jump is not unrealistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afterimage Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 So do we toss this run ? No we consider it with all, unless we are tossing the 18z Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 So do we toss this run ? No. Not yet anyways. See what the others say. However i do think that 18hrs to 24 the low should have headed into sw MO vs central AR. Thats me though.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern_IN_Wx Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 I'm going to ignore the NAM solution. The bulk of guidance does have the H5 shortwave trough taking on a slight negative tilt as it gets into the Mid MS/OH Valleys. IMO dynamics normally win over convective driven pressure falls in this kind of a setup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 I'm going to ignore the NAM solution. The bulk of guidance does have the H5 shortwave trough taking on a slight negative tilt as it gets into the Mid MS/OH Valleys. IMO dynamics normally win over convective driven pressure falls in this kind of a setup. Hmm I don't see one numerical suite that has a negative tilt upper tropospheric wave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpartyOn Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 So could have the 18z been to far NW..? all this craziness with the NAM and the GFS. The European models seem to fairing very well handling the pattern and this system Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyclone77 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 While going through the new NAM it had the look like it was getting ready to crush us after 24hrs, but then the precip shunts quickly east. If that ends up being the case this will be a very tricky forecast to be sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowstormcanuck Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 So could have the 18z been to far NW..? all this craziness with the NAM and the GFS. The European models seem to fairing very well handling the pattern and this system Possibly, but we'll have a better understanding once we see the rest of the 0z suite. NAM looks like it's suffering from some plotting problems. Through 18 I was actually thinking it was going further NW than its 18z run and things kinda fell apart from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerball Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Slightly off topic but that area of precipitation coming out of Illinois into Michigan looks impressive. There's even some lighting and thunder with it. I wouldn't be surprised if it dropped a quick 1-2". It should hold as it migrates ENE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowstormcanuck Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 0z RGEM through 36 looks fairly similar to the 18z. Tought to compare because the intervals don't match up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Look at us all. Like drug addicts waiting for our next fix! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundersnow12 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 a pretty nice looking DGZ here for a time around 12z friday morning looking at fcst soundings off the new NAM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prinsburg_wx Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 0z RGEM through 36 looks fairly similar to the 18z. Tought to compare because the intervals don't match up. looks about the same to me 42hr 18z & 36 00z Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Look at us all. Like drug addicts waiting for our next fix! Yeah it is kinda ridiculous--there are 11 of us sitting in chat too and I am sitting here perusing about 5 threads and the chat at once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmc76 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Look at us all. Like drug addicts waiting for our next fix! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundersnow12 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Yeah it is kinda ridiculous--there are 11 of us sitting in chat too and I am sitting here perusing about 5 threads and the chat at once. going to be busy tomorrow evening following supercells and +SN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toronto blizzard Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 0z RGEM through 36 looks fairly similar to the 18z. Tought to compare because the intervals don't match up. Watched Don pauls forecast tonight and the new microcast model looked pretty good for Toronto, however the mixing did come pretty close but still looked good. Adam stiles of City tv updated the microcast on the 6 p.m show and it showed 6'' for toronto so we look pretty good at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 going to be busy tomorrow evening following supercells and +SN. It is going to be an exciting storm to watch unfold--this forum region will be busy tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magoos0728 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 from mke nws... SUSPECT THERE WILL BE MORE SNOW ISSUES OVER NORTHERN ILLINOIS AND SOUTHERN WISCONSIN THAN WE ARE CURRENTLY FORECASTING AND ADDITIONAL ADJUSTMENTS MAY BE WARRANTED OVERNIGHT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowstormcanuck Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Watched Don pauls forecast tonight and the new microcast model looked pretty good for Toronto, however the mixing did come pretty close but still looked good. Adam stiles of City tv updated the microcast on the 6 p.m show and it showed 6'' for toronto so we look pretty good at this point. You get the 10pm broadcast of WIVB news? Cool. That's a pretty big jump north because when Don showed the microcast at 6pm it still fringed us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.