OUGrad05 Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 for wednesday, yea, i'd give it one more day and a couple more runs before deciding on heading. as for tonight's cell near Seminole, OK, I have seen better rotation in the last few frames, looking more straight-line. but that being said, the last shot is looking a bit more promising near Bowlegs, OK. it's interesting to learn grlevel3 2.0 on these cells tonight though (won it over at the MN Skywarn Workshop over the weekend). . Is 2.0 supporting dual pole? I can't get the upgrade to work on my box, I may have to buy it again...I bought 1.0 years ago and for some reason just can't get the update to work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Marusak Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Is 2.0 supporting dual pole? I can't get the upgrade to work on my box, I may have to buy it again...I bought 1.0 years ago and for some reason just can't get the update to work yep, got the dual-pol going right now. but the software does take a bit getting used to in order to switch tilts and such. how old is your comp that you're running yours on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OUGrad05 Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 yep, got the dual-pol going right now. but the software does take a bit getting used to in order to switch tilts and such. how old is your comp that you're running yours on? About 15 mos old. Shouldn't be a hardware issue. I run GR3 and GR2 with no issues. But this updated version I haven't been able to make work. Any suggestions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Marusak Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 About 15 mos old. Shouldn't be a hardware issue. I run GR3 and GR2 with no issues. But this updated version I haven't been able to make work. Any suggestions? i know they just put out an updated version just a bit ago (2.11). and that's what I have running attm, on a 5+ year old Vista desktop. but one thing to keep in mind when installing 2.x, it's a purely windows-based program, with a different programming architecture than 1.x. so you can't necessarily install it over an older version. btw, tvs now between bowlegs and wawoka. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OUGrad05 Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 yep, got the dual-pol going right now. but the software does take a bit getting used to in order to switch tilts and such. how old is your comp that you're running yours on? Ok, uninstalled the GR3 completely, installedt he 2.0 and its working on the demo mode. How do I get the dual pol stuff to work? I guess I'm going ot have to buy it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocoAko Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 yep, got the dual-pol going right now. but the software does take a bit getting used to in order to switch tilts and such. how old is your comp that you're running yours on? This is going to sound stupid but I am also using GRLevel3 2.0 and can't figure out how to close any tabs and the ability to show storm attributes is grayed out. Is that only available for L2 data or am I missing something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Marusak Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 the dual-pol should work aok in demo mode. it's under the ZDR/CC/KDP/HCA options. but yea, you'll probably have to spring for the upgrade if you still have your receipt on the older version. but that being said, the cell i think spun itself out near wewoka, and i think it went straight-line again on the south side of the cell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Marusak Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 This is going to sound stupid but I am also using GRLevel3 2.0 and can't figure out how to close any tabs and the ability to show storm attributes is grayed out. Is that only available for L2 data or am I missing something? there shouldn't be any tabs on version 2.x, unless i screwed up the install, which i don't think i did. but the storm attributes is aok on mine. but there is an option for GPS integration that is greyed out (because i don't have GPS on my desktop). i'll see if there's anything different when I install it onto my win8 laptop tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMo Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 For Wed..... Looking at the thermodynamics on the... 00z NAM.... looks like the warm sector is farther north in MO, but the western edge (and front) is a bit farther southeast than the 12z run. Also showing convection throughout the day like previous runs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyhb Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 NAM still being stubbornly persistent with that anafront position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Marusak Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 it is. and given what happened last week with a similar-looking system, i don't necessarily think it'll act too differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebo Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 it is. and given what happened last week with a similar-looking system, i don't necessarily think it'll act too differently. Except that the cold air mass is different this time around, the density and magnitude are both weaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMo Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 it is. and given what happened last week with a similar-looking system, i don't necessarily think it'll act too differently. There isn't a mega cap in the warm sector. Both the Euro/NAM are actually showing a lot of warm sector development. Moisture is also not an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Marusak Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Except that the cold air mass is different this time around, the density and magnitude are both weaker. true, so that means it'll be much less likely for quarter-sized hail at 26 and 20 degrees in eastern Nebraska. but looking at the shape of the system itself, it does look fairly similar. so some ana-frontal precip is likely. just not as convective an airmass aloft in the cold sector as was last week. this time the convection will be closer to the proper side of the system, if all goes as modeled. i don't think we'll see a setup like that storm from last week for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewxmann Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 I don't think the front makes it NW of OKC on Wed, tbh. I can't see the GFS even being close to correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebo Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 I don't think the front makes it NW of OKC on Wed, tbh. I can't see the GFS even being close to correct. So all of a sudden the NAM is the gospel? I would be very leery of making the leap of faith upon one NAM run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyhb Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 I don't think the front makes it NW of OKC on Wed, tbh. I can't see the GFS even being close to correct. Yeah, I'm going to wait for the other guidance to come in before I make a call like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago Storm Posted April 16, 2013 Author Share Posted April 16, 2013 So all of a sudden the NAM is the gospel? I would be very leery of making the leap of faith upon one NAM run. You do realize the NAM is similar to the ECMWF... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebo Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 You do realize the NAM is similar to the ECMWF... Some what but no where near to this extent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tornadotony Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 The biggest day is going to be Thursday by far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyhb Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 While we're on this, this is the 12z Euro 2m temps. 00z NAM 2m temps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OKpowdah Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Except that the cold air mass is different this time around, the density and magnitude are both weaker. Yeah, I think it was Jason who brought that up earlier. The density current is much weaker than last time. Really good point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tornadotony Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 While we're on this, this is the 12z Euro 2m temps. 00z NAM 2m temps. I'd trend toward the NAM. Cold air is denser than warm air, and physics wins in the atmosphere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyhb Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 I'd trend toward the NAM. Cold air is denser than warm air, and physics wins in the atmosphere. I am becoming more concerned about this and also the upper trough axis lagging behind, which would not enable the type of cyclogenesis that the GFS is suggesting particularly. Although I'll also note the 00z GFS sticking to its solution with the more classic cyclogenesis situation on Wednesday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewxmann Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 So all of a sudden the NAM is the gospel? I would be very leery of making the leap of faith upon one NAM run. The NAM's been pretty consistent, and if anything has been slightly trending south with the frontal position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brettjrob Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 I am becoming more concerned about this and also the upper trough axis lagging behind, which would not enable the type of cyclogenesis that the GFS is suggesting particularly. Although I'll also note the 00z GFS sticking to its solution with the more classic cyclogenesis situation on Wednesday. I'm concerned too, but Tony's rationale leaves a bit to be desired. I guess every single time there's a significant thermal boundary involved in a setup, we'll have to keep in mind that cold air is denser, so expect it to get shoved to Brownsville or Miami by the day of. Honestly, gun to my head, I imagine the NAM is closer to reality than the GFS. But even if we get a 20% GFS/80% NAM compromise, I don't understand how it's the death knell for a significant threat. The Red River Valley has looked quite impressive all along, and still does, even on the NAM (barring a couple unrelated caveats). I guess it's possible the front ends up running from Abilene to Ft. Smith, in which case this really is an epic bust. But right now there's not much indication of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMo Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Although I'll also note the 00z GFS sticking to its solution with the more classic cyclogenesis situation on Wednesday. I see that, strange we are this close and it's still sticking with that solution.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocoAko Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 I'm concerned too, but Tony's rationale leaves a bit to be desired. I guess every single time there's a significant thermal boundary involved in a setup, we'll have to keep in mind that cold air is denser, so expect it to get shoved to Brownsville or Miami by the day of. Yeah, didn't really follow that line of thought either. The models know that cold air is denser than warm air. Now if you want to make the argument that the models are under-doing the coldness of the airmass (for lack of better phrasing) and so you're expecting a further south surge, that's one thing. But I don't understand the assumption that because cold air is denser than warm air the front is going to inevitably surge southward... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 I find it very difficult to believe the front is shunted into SW OK with a wave ejecting into NE Colorado without a substantial arctic air mass in place. That is just my humble opinion, however, and this will likely end up somewhere in the middle of the GFS and ECMWF. That said, I am having trouble, given the synoptic setup, figuring out why the front would end up in SW Oklahoma as depicted by the NAM. Two possible ways would be extensive low cloud cover which would inhibit diabatic heating...and a southern ejection of the lead anomaly...which would setup the lee low much farther S. The 00z NAM depiction looks very suspect and has an unusual position of the lee low. I have seen much weirder things happen before, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMo Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 I find it very difficult to believe the front is shunted into SW OK with a wave ejecting into NE Colorado without a substantial arctic air mass in place. That is just my humble opinion, however, and this will likely end up somewhere in the middle of the GFS and ECMWF. That said, I am having trouble, given the synoptic setup, figuring out why the front would end up in SW Oklahoma as depicted by the NAM. Two possible ways would be extensive low cloud cover which would inhibit diabatic heating...and a southern ejection of the lead anomaly...which would setup the lee low much farther S. The 00z NAM depiction looks very suspect and has an unusual position of the lee low. I'm sure the NAM generation of precip Wed morning doesn't help the NW progress of the front either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.