Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,793
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    manaja
    Newest Member
    manaja
    Joined

2012 Winter Banter Thread #2


yoda

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

To some extent I agree maybe it's kind of been like a strong niño but without the active STJ so even worse. I do think in a niño we'd have more ridging over AK and of course it has been a big +EPO. The good February's in a niño usually come from a good pacific so that is going to have to change.

im not an enso expert but outside some oddities it seems like a nina to me--or at least not as much "not a nina" as has been the story from a number of folks. fast flow.. warm to cold to warm etc. it has been fairly wet, sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking that had changed. Did they just add in the three hour times?

i guess you can pull up the 6 hr panel without temps.. but on the mslp_temp one it switches to 12 after 180. looking at 6 hr of 186 there is no precip so at least east of the apps there might not even be any snow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said this several times this winter and it is still a guess since I don't have the science or experience to back it up but I think the Atlantic has to change 1st and lead the way and there are some signs that will happen. The PAC side is a nightmare and no matter what short term changes we get it always wants to snap back into default position with a vortex in the gulf of Alaska and a ridge over the Aleutians.

I've read and heard so many debate the chicken vs egg wrt whether we need the ATL to set up right or the PAC to get it's act in order for us to get a reasonable pattern. I'm with you in that the Atlantic has to lead and improve. Not too many of our good, i.e. big snows were PAC driven. There are some I'm sure but We need -NAO/AO to be in business. All these pseudo/transient looks have to disappear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking that had changed. Did they just add in the three hour times?

The actual truncation occurs at 192h. It was changed from 180h to 192h when we to t574 resolution in July 2010. I'd link the tin, but I'm on my mobile. The information is available from the Ncep/emc webpage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok, guess i was wrong.. but the truncation part is actually meaningless to the point of the post anyway. maybe i've never cycled through 180.. it just looks weird when it jumps from 6 hr precip to 12 hr when you're still cycling through 6 hr panels (180-186).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok, guess i was wrong.. but the truncation part is actually meaningless to the point of the post anyway. maybe i've never cycled through 180.. it just looks weird when it jumps from 6 hr precip to 12 hr when you're still cycling through 6 hr panels (180-186).

I was just providing a clarifying answer. It's possible they still generate low resolution post processed files and graphics after 180h....I don't waste time looking at the deterministic output past 7 days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just providing a clarifying answer. It's possible they still generate low resolution post processed files and graphics after 180h....I don't waste time looking at the deterministic output past 7 days.

http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/GFS/impl.php

If I am reading it right they extended the High Resolution to 192Hr in July of 2010.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.emc.ncep....ov/GFS/impl.php

If I am reading it right they extended the High Resolution to 192Hr in July of 2010.

We did (see my previous post). It's possible that when we made that change in the model itself that something wasn't correspondingly changed with the model output/graphics. (that stuff is out of our control). Though, I just looked at the MAG for the latest GFS, and they are creating higher-res graphics in 3 hourly intervals out to 192....so it's consistent.

Oh how I wish we didn't run the week 2, low resolution deterministic GFS.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You better hope the gfs surface temps are wrong cause 40-50 ain't much of a torch.

In case you didn't read this in the other thread, here is zwyts take on next weeks torch:

too much modified arctic air around and with the fast flow, almost impossible not to get a cold front in a 10 day period....over a shorter period, I guess it is possible...you can still get a long stretch of + departures but there will be 1-day, 2-day periods where you are +5 instead of +23...I think we will see that come to fruition next week...probably only 3 torchy afternoon highs in row at one time before we get a 45-50 Max thrown in there....I envision something loosely like this

61, 68, 64, 48, 46, 57, 74, 59, 43, 40

and probably 1 of those is a cheap midnight max....you still get a 10-day period of +13 to 15 departures but a few days don't feel as torchy

If you wish to continue to talk about how the torch isn't going to be "that much" then you can troll zwyts too while you are at it. His thoughts are realistic and on par with what I have seen from those who are forecasting the torch.

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...