Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

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

February 19-20 Potential Bomb Part II


earthlight

Recommended Posts

The 18z NAM is even less impressive with the storm at hour 51 than the 12z NAM was at 57.The 18z NAM has an open 1008 mb low while the 12z NAM had a closed 1004 mb low.

I don't think minor fluctuations in the strength and sharpness of the southern stream shortwave/vorticity max and the corresponding surface low center while it's in the deep south will have much impact on our eventual weather. Right now the key is the location of/and interaction with the northern stream shortwave.

It looks a little slower or further west on the 18z NAM. I'd like to see it much further west. Or, possibly much further east and faster as a plan B (which might allow more of a north/south orientation to the height field along the coast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 863
  • Created
  • Last Reply

It looks a little slower or further west on the 18z NAM. I'd like to see it much further west. Or, possibly much further east and faster as a plan B (which might allow more of a north/south orientation to the height field along the coast.

Yeah, the phase appears to be missed again, and there was less northern stream interaction with the southern vort than the 12z run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there are tons of shortwave interactions taking place and I'm noticing the energy is really not consolidating into one condensed piece of energy.. It can make all the difference in the world in terms of the ultimate result of the strength and track of the storm.

I think you have to have at least some phasing to make this work well for us... The more the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm trying to total up in my head (not counting ensembles) how many times the operational models in the past two days have given us measurable precip of over .25. i think in all of the runs put together, it's less than five times. oz GFS last night, 12z GFS today...i don't think the Euro has ever shown this storm giving us more than .25. i'm beginning to wonder if this thing is a done deal at this point, unless the 0z runs bounce back with more than just one model showing a decent hit... Recall with other big ones, at least the Euro had the storm, then lost it, only to bring it back again. This time i don't remember that happening this go around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol it's time to face the facts that this storm has been trending away from a snowstorm since the first run that showed one

HPC basically said that the NAM and ECMWF are handling the northern stream wrong given the current placement of water vapor. IMHO, this is throwing off everything downstream. More weight should be put into the GFS right now and wait a little longer to see if the ECMWF corrects itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol it's time to face the facts that this storm has been trending away from a snowstorm since the first run that showed one

It might not look good now, but you'd be shocked how quickly things can change once the models have a better handle on all of the shortwaves and their potential interaction. You definitely cannot give up hope on this one yet, as bleak as it looks now and the fact that you are only a few days away. I really do think this solution has a chance to change on a dime. I'm not saying it will, but it has potential to.. no doubt about it.. It's a complicated pattern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then dont post here, post in the banter thread. We are having a model discussion on a interesting situation in which nothing is set in stone yet.

Yes, exactly.. we all gotta keep the faith in here. This is by no means a done deal yet.

If we were to pull this one off, it'd be a pretty interesting case study.. It's not the type of 500 mb pattern you'd look at and jump up and down... but if you look through the KU storms, you'd be surprised to see some rather odd looking 500 patterns and what we've been able to turn out from them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would ordinarily say it is odd that the northern stream energy (several impulses) that all of them fail to push south and result in a phase that would tug the low further north and prevent it from escaping east. Problem is we really don't have any strong ridging out west to facilitate this process and the flow remains progressive. The only hope would be the block, but not very impressed with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HPC basically said that the NAM and ECMWF are handling the northern stream wrong given the current placement of water vapor. IMHO, this is throwing off everything downstream. More weight should be put into the GFS right now and wait a little longer to see if the ECMWF corrects itself.

I know...there is a slight shot at something....hey, in December 2010 the "model initialization errors" weren't true and was just a model trending towards the extreme, albeit actual, scenario ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other real problem is the best and strongest northern stream feature is poorly timed with the sw. The sw is slow to eject, essentially missing the party, this also is another product of weak ridging out west. If our two features remain separate this will not work out for our area as I have been saying. The saving grace is that there are several northern stream impulses, we need one of them to phase. Overall this setup at H5 is not one I would look at and jump for joy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It might not look good now, but you'd be shocked how quickly things can change once the models have a better handle on all of the shortwaves and their potential interaction. You definitely cannot give up hope on this one yet, as bleak as it looks now and the fact that you are only a few days away. I really do think this solution has a chance to change on a dime. I'm not saying it will, but it has potential to.. no doubt about it.. It's a complicated pattern.

I agree. We've seen it many times before in the runup to big storms how sudden changes in the handling of shortwaves in Canada can drastically alter the modeled synoptic pattern. The polarity of recent ensembles, especially yesterday, suggests that a sudden change is still possible as well. Many of the individual members were/have been boom or bust. That suggests that there is some possibility of a strong wave interaction, which would likely result in a strong coastal storm. But if the waves do not phase, they will completely interfere. The threshold might be quite sudden.

I currently favor an out to sea solution, but the southern stream wave is poised to send a large, moist storm our way if the polar jet cooperates in any meaningful way. We have a major ingredient in place and this is not thread the needle. Any medium sized errors in the handling of the shortwaves in the northern stream could really change things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then dont post here, post in the banter thread. We are having a model discussion on a interesting situation in which nothing is set in stone yet.

+1

esp considering there will be a couple shortwaves interacting with one another and one coming from a sparse data collecting area. once the northern disturbance makes its way over the border, guidance will become more accurate. at the moment, sure its looking S and E but alittle tick here or there by any shortwave can mean alot downstream. i dunno, just my untrained eye telling me this is far from over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, exactly.. we all gotta keep the faith in here. This is by no means a done deal yet.

If we were to pull this one off, it'd be a pretty interesting case study.. It's not the type of 500 mb pattern you'd look at and jump up and down... but if you look through the KU storms, you'd be surprised to see some rather odd looking 500 patterns and what we've been able to turn out from them.

It would actually be a far more interesting case study if NYC goes snow-less this month, along with way above temps, coming on the heels of an exceptionally mild November, December, and January already in the bank. This is especially noteworthy given the many cold and snowy outlooks, repeated pattern change busts, and generally poor LR forecasts. This winter should be studied for that -- why were so many so wrong so often, especially given the consistency and level of the mild pattern? There's your interesting case study.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. We've seen it many times before in the runup to big storms how sudden changes in the handling of shortwaves in Canada can drastically alter the modeled synoptic pattern. The polarity of recent ensembles, especially yesterday, suggests that a sudden change is still possible as well. Many of the individual members were/have been boom or bust. That suggests that there is some possibility of a strong wave interaction, which would likely result in a strong coastal storm. But if the waves do not phase, they will completely interfere. The threshold might be quite sudden.

I currently favor an out to sea solution, but the southern stream wave is poised to send a large, moist storm our way if the polar jet cooperates in any meaningful way. We have a major ingredient in place and this is not thread the needle. Any medium sized errors in the handling of the shortwaves in the northern stream could really change things.

Agreed. But at least ordinarily you could argue there are features present and apparent at H5 that argue against the model's depiction of the event. I can't really say at this time that there is anything present to support more cooperation from the northern stream. Like what has been stated a progressive pattern with weak ridging should allow the northern stream energy to progress east in this fast flow and miss the phase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know...there is a slight shot at something....hey, in December 2010 the "model initialization errors" weren't true and was just a model trending towards the extreme, albeit actual, scenario ;)

Not true, their were initialization errors from more than source, especially one in the important data poor NW. Those errors or bad data turned out to be a non factor. It was the latent heat transfer from the relatively moist Ohio vally and south east that ended up pumping up the heights along the east coast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love everything about this run. Stronger southern vort, faster northern stream. TBH, to me, if this played out as depicted at H5, we would get a snowstorm up here. Love this run.

Also, wanted to say thanks for tornadojay for his analysis today. Very level-headed. There are so many variables to work out, still, just 3 days away. Models will continue jogging around until those play out.

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...