Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,589
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    LopezElliana
    Newest Member
    LopezElliana
    Joined

FAILDC#


Ji

Recommended Posts

Wow. I kinda like the GFS alot. More often than not the gfs doesn't push precip (and the heaviest band of precip) far enough north and west with this type of setup.

There's no big feature to the n and w to push it south. I'm becoming a believer. The usual line from leesburg through westminster should start getting excited a little. I'm still a doubter for the line from dca-bwi. 0-2" maybe. Hope I'm wrong.

My thinking also. Where is the GFS usually positioned 72 hours out vs. what actually happens?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Wow. I kinda like the GFS alot. More often than not the gfs doesn't push precip (and the heaviest band of precip) far enough north and west with this type of setup.

There's no big feature to the n and w to push it south. I'm becoming a believer. The usual line from leesburg through westminster should start getting excited a little. I'm still a doubter for the line from dca-bwi. 0-2" maybe. Hope I'm wrong.

The surface low looks to be in a perfect location, and the H5, while a little wimpy, is in a good spot, too. There's just not enough cold air to work with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thinking also. Where is the GFS usually positioned 72 hours out vs. what actually happens?

Often I think it under-does the WNW-ward expansion of the precip but can also be too warm. I'm confused at what the GFS does with the low after hour 66 but that could be a weenie delusion on my part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The surface low looks to be in a perfect location, and the H5, while a little wimpy, is in a good spot, too. There's just not enough cold air to work with.

I would think that a less robust vort is what we want. Too wrapped up pumps in more warmer air to override the already marginal cold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would think that a less robust vort is what we want. Too wrapped up pumps in more warmer air to override the already marginal cold.

if it takes a good track -- like the gfs has -- we probably want it stronger in most cases i'd think

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The surface low looks to be in a perfect location, and the H5, while a little wimpy, is in a good spot, too. There's just not enough cold air to work with.

H5 is a bit wimpy. If it could just amp up a little the dynamics could "possibly" overcome the questionable temps. The NAM is probably the more important model now. It's pretty cool to move into Dec with an overall really crappy pattern and STILL have something quite interesting to keep an eye on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if it takes a good track -- like the gfs has -- we probably want it stronger in most cases i'd think

Do you make anything of the low skipping ENE at 72hrs in, after the jump to the coast at hr66? Just in looking at where the most concentrated convective energy is relative to the center progged at 72hrs in, but I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if it takes a good track -- like the gfs has -- we probably want it stronger in most cases i'd think

otoh, a bombing Low would do the trick wrt the lack of cold air

I can see that but like you say, Ian, track needs to be right. i guess my fear is too strong and it goes neg and starts a W move in track.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you make anything of the low skipping ENE at 72hrs in, after the jump to the coast at hr66? Just in looking at where the most concentrated convective energy is relative to the center progged at 72hrs in, but I don't know.

not particularly, tho im not sure i see what you're talking about. it's one run anyway..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does the baroclonic zone along the coast help? IIRC, early season storms when the dif between ocean temps and air temps is pretty big, storms tend to move towards the baroclonic zone before heading north. If this is the case, I'm not worried about the energy @ 500 cutting nw. The GFS solution is probably right as far as track goes IMO either way.

Call me out if I'm talking out of my u know what.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12/5/09 was just as elevation dependent as Oct but climo helped those in lower elevs. IIRC parts of DC that were above 200' saw a little accum while those below(me) got barely a trace. It seemed that the cutoff for the Oct storm was about 400' elev.

Out here it was about 750 feet. The rain/snow line was easily visible. I agree this is going to be another elevation dependent storm. MBY did pretty well with the Oct storm. Looks like we might have another shot this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good. Think that the EC and next run of the GFS will be a little further that way. Unless we have the same luck we had last DEC. But that was totally different setup. I don't see how this ends up suppressed unless it is just weak.

Yeah. There is nothing to suppress it. If anything I think it comes N/W a little more.

Really is a crap setup though. Not a HP to the north to be found. We will see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...