Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,695
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Scinestro
    Newest Member
    Scinestro
    Joined

Weekend Storm Discussion Part II, 2/18-2/19


stormtracker

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 961
  • Created
  • Last Reply

How the convective schemes handle the convection will play a big role in where the models put their lows and that convection may or may not be in the wrong spot. That's the big rub.

Yeah agreed, I will probably give more consideration to the convective environment here the next day, it is going to be crucial. SPC outlooks will also be worth reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference I see, is up in New England. Heights are flatter and more west to even west-northwest flow helping to flatten the height field.

Yeah synoptically slightly different, but also early on w.r.t. convective initiation and the diabatic low along the front. It does influence the early cyclone low development by even a few hours...and in this feedback scenario that 3 hr difference makes a difference on advective processes/shortwave ridge building, etc. I think the latter may be another reason why it looks flatter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've referenced it, so have others, but remember that the move north with the precip in jan 2010 didn't even show until 24 hours out. In fact at 36 hours all models abandoned us. This may end up better than we think.

im not sure if someone mentioned it but this was the top analog storm for last night's 0z gfs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah synoptically slightly different, but also early on w.r.t. convective initiation and the diabatic low along the front. It does influence the early cyclone low development by even a few hours...and in this feedback scenario that 3 hr difference makes a difference on advective processes/shortwave ridge building, etc. I think the latter may be another reason why it looks flatter.

I'm pretty big on latent heat having some effects on the height field, but I think models have a good handle right now. Pretty good guidance agreement, and it's not like convection will force the low 100 miles north. I think where people will nit pick, are the 30-40 mile changes that can happen as a result from things like diabatic heating.latent heat release..all of which will have an effect on downstream ridging. But I think we are converging on a general solution.give or take 30-50 miles on either side of these current solutions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty big on latent heat having some effects on the height field, but I think models have a good handle right now. Pretty good guidance agreement, and it's not like convection will force the low 100 miles north. I think where people will nit pick, are the 30-40 mile changes that can happen as a result from things like diabatic heating.latent heat release..all of which will have an effect on downstream ridging. But I think we are converging on a general solution.give or take 30-50 miles.

In the big scheme of things, I fully agree that they do have a generally good handle on this setup now. Unfortunately the big city lies along the northern edge, so those tiny differences will make huge differences in the final solution given the mild positive feedback here. I personally do believe convective processes and latent processes along the front are the key player here in terms of this GFS solution (also the ECMWF). I am not saying I buy any solution verbatim, but that is likely why you are seeing vastly different solution from the amped NAM to the flatter globals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Split the difference of all the different QPFs and DC gets maybe 0.3-0.4 snow and it's still far and away the best event of the year.

If the QPF is in the .3 range, that strikes me as a low snow total unless it's a lot of mixing or insanely low ratios. Otherwise a lot angst over something that's not much more than an extra heavy dusting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, I had not heard that. If the models were to follow that pattern, we could expect to see the models tank on us this evening and rebound tomorrow

Remember though, that the analog is not saying what the models will predict in a specific order - it's just saying the pattern is similar. That doesn't mean model forecasts on certain runs will follow that pattern from the storm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad the GGEM is back north this run. It was bugging the heck out of me that a typically amped up model was so surpressed. Shouldn't be a surprise that the GFS is a touch sparcer/south with the precip as it usually follows the Euro's lead within the next run or two.

500MB vort interaction still looks screwy this morning.. and still plenty of time for things to work themselves 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...