Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,609
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    NH8550
    Newest Member
    NH8550
    Joined

March 24-25 Potential Bomb Part Deux


earthlight

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 871
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The Canadian is handling the lead vort max very similarly to the NAM. I think this is cause for significant pause given the fact that the Euro ensembles were north and west of the OP last night. Could it be that the 12z/23 OP GFS and 00z/23 OP Euro have the correct idea with this vort max handling? Yes. But it definitely isn't the typical situation where we have the NAM/SREF amplified and nothing else even remotely agreeing with it. 

 

The lead vort max track is so essential and this owes to the positioning of the upper level low/gyre to the north of New England. The wave spacing in between the two features will determine whether or not the positive feedback is favorable for us and we can get this surface low to tuck north and west before being kicked east by the compressed flow. The Euro and GFS do not have sufficient space for the surface low to tuck underneath Long Island. 

 

You can see the NAM and CMC below -- they are extremely similar. I think the CMC may have struggled a bit with the precipitation shield this run...an outcome like it is modeling should eventually yield a less-extreme version of the NAM.

 

post-6-0-49150300-1364061009_thumb.png

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you compare the GFS with the height field you can see why it is farther south and east when compared to the CMC/NAM and SREF members. The upper level low to the north over New England is farther south and compressing the mid level height field. The spacing is so poor and the surface low cannot physically develop to the north and west nearer to the coast. The GFS is definitely an outlier amongst the 12z models so far with the handling of this feature. 

 

post-6-0-40305400-1364061234_thumb.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

seems to me like the GFS/EURO are close with the near-miss/scraper idea at this point, am i correct? I simply put no stock in the NAM after the last storm. The JMA/Canadian are usually too overdone on precip.

The Canadian doesn't have a ton of precip.

About .45" for NYC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Euro is right between the NAM and the GFS at 500 mb. It stays closed off longer than the GFS, but

not as long as the NAM which captures the surface low. I suppose the euro ensembles could be west,

but probably nothing as amped as the NAM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cluster of the slp on almost all the models showing a 980 mb system east of the delmarva is very impressive. The divergence is in the placement of the ULL thats in question. If one wants to see the heaviest axis set up between 195 in cnj and I80 is a 75 mile jog north of the ULL is where one has to hav the models correct

It will gve up the confluence and thats where i thnk the error is. Its not the center has to come north if u move the confluence u grow the precip field. The center prob doesnt come further north. Ur answer is in canada not the atlantic

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...