Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,588
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    LopezElliana
    Newest Member
    LopezElliana
    Joined

Feb 24th threat part deux


Typhoon Tip

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Ukie won't let go of the bigger storm idea...though not as ridiculous as the 12z solution, but easily warning criteria for a pretty large area. GGEM actually came NW and grazes E MA with the main commahead of the coastal portion fo the storm. I wasn't expecting that model to come back a bit. What a weird storm to follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ukie won't let go of the bigger storm idea...though not as ridiculous as the 12z solution, but easily warning criteria for a pretty large area. GGEM actually came NW and grazes E MA with the main commahead of the coastal portion fo the storm. I wasn't expecting that model to come back a bit. What a weird storm to follow.

what a mess. In 3 days This thing has pretty much transitioned into at least 3 different types of storms.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

what a mess. In 3 days This thing has pretty much transitioned into at least 3 different types of storms.

 

 

I think I would just forecast 6 or 7 inches here and hope it works out by the time all the smoke clears Monday morning. But I could see this failing too and give 3" or ending up under some enhanced inverted band aided by upslope NE flow and endup with 10".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I would just forecast 6 or 7 inches here and hope it works out by the time all the smoke clears Monday morning. But I could see this failing too and give 3" or ending up under some enhanced inverted band aided by upslope NE flow and endup with 10".

 

Most of CT probably ends up with a slushy inch or two at best... lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I would just forecast 6 or 7 inches here and hope it works out by the time all the smoke clears Monday morning. But I could see this failing too and give 3" or ending up under some enhanced inverted band aided by upslope NE flow and endup with 10".

we'll see what happens but that mass pike-rte 2 corridor looked so promising not long ago. Now u gotta hope for inverted trof band to give you the goods.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ukie won't let go of the bigger storm idea...though not as ridiculous as the 12z solution, but easily warning criteria for a pretty large area. GGEM actually came NW and grazes E MA with the main commahead of the coastal portion fo the storm. I wasn't expecting that model to come back a bit. What a weird storm to follow.

 

 

There's likely to be a middling storm out of this.  Nothing historic ...or shall we say, histrionic ... 

 

There is malcontent because underpinning all the NAM bashing and whatever, is the fault of the user in really going full into the enormous solutions of previous cycles, and then having to face the reality that they allowed themselves to be fooled. Instead of admitting/acknowledging their role in all this, it is easier to just point fingers and blame.  

 

Fact that matter is, the NAM looked unstable when it was running away with the big QPF numbers, all the while - I even posted that my self.  I think it was point blank that I thought those enormous NAM QPF numbers looked suspicious.  The instability in storm intensity was illustrated run to run, while still maintaining large numbers; that was the reason for the suspicion.  One run would be weak, big numbers.  Next run, stronger, big numbers.  Then, it was barely below 1000mb on one run with still giant numbers.  

 

It's really more like it errored large numbers the whole time, giving kind of an illusion of consistency for 4 cycles.  The first responder posters of each big NAM QPF was always "crushed" this, and "pounded" first, less analysis that might have honed in on the system oddities comparing run to run - but that escaped most.  It really rings louder that users were more interested in seeing giant snow numbers, rather than real model analysis.  If the model was as bad as characterized, here, tonight, there is no way that NCEP would spend the money to run the damn thing 4 times a day.  We can joke about a "government operation", but no.  It wouldn't be run. 

 

I'm really not put out by the NAM's performance on this... Sorry, I'm not.  I took each run with a grain of assault, and tried to defend the model by mentioning that performs bettern when gradients are steeper.  That actually makes sense.

 

Mike (Arnold) and I once shared a few post where we agreed, part of the NAM's problem is that it's like it is too good for the amount of data it is given to process. It needs data point, direct inputs that are even to its grid resolution, and until it gets that, it really can't be tested.  And, it's had good performances in the past where clearly the data sparseness it suffers over the longer haul of its operation curve, were not necessary.  When the gradient is steep, there is less permutation, and the "holes" don't need to be filled.  At even 48 hours out, the llv gradient is not often assessed very well.

 

Anyway, the 00z GFS did come back a small tick compared to 12z; if it comes back the same amount on 06z then it's back onto a high end advisory with warning lolly-pops for a large area, and it would probably be more inline with the Euro. ...UKMET... Then the NAM comes back on board when it is nearer terms and the "holes" are no longer there.       

 

But if the storm misses altogether, nothing was right.   And the NAM still gets the dishonor.  Not fair. 

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...