Jump to content

  • Member Statistics

    17,586
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    LopezElliana
    Newest Member
    LopezElliana
    Joined

Storm next weekend has better teleconnector support than this misery ever did

Typhoon Tip

By Typhoon Tip,
in New England

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
CCPSUSuperstorm2010

CCPSUSuperstorm2010

Posted
Posted

I agree Gibbs. The amplification upstream of the PNA ridge will allow a lot to go right for us this time around then to go wrong given we only need two disturbances to phase rather than worry about the PV vortex and three different shortwave energies. I would venture to say the middle ground of the less amplified GFS and more amplified GGEM would be the 40/70 benchmark track or just east of there. We could also be dealing with a 960mb storm rather than a 974mb storm further southwest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tamarack

tamarack

Posted
Posted

well...qualifying for a KU usually requires a storm to score 4 or 5 on the NESIS scale. Since that scale is driven by population and aerial coverage...if you have smaller aerial coverage (which is likely the case for the upcoming storm) then you would need high impact to high population centers...aka...an I-95 hit...which means a less impressive storm for you guys further inland.

Is this true? The Feb. 2004 Kocin/Uccellini article from AMS only lists 9 storms with 4 or 5, and later data adds Jan. 2005 to that total but neither 2/06 nor 2/07 makes the cut. Maybe one or two of last winter's bombs reached 4, but that would still only make about a dozen. That 2/04 article had 70 listed as Cat. 1 (notable) or higher, and 47 Cat. 2 (Significant) or above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OSUmetstud

OSUmetstud

Posted
Posted

You meant to say southern stream s/w, I hope?

I'm sure he is. I mentioned that for the 00z run last night. I'm not sure why it basically desolves the shortwave between 72 and 96 hours.

I'm going stick around here...offering up my thoughts in the main forum when certain no-nothing mets from the NYC area **** up the model threads isn't worth my time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
weatherwiz

weatherwiz

Posted
Posted

I'm sure he is. I mentioned that for the 00z run last night. I'm not sure why it basically desolves the shortwave between 72 and 96 hours.

I'm going stick around here...offering up my thoughts in the main forum when certain no-nothing mets from the NYC area **** up the model threads isn't worth my time.

Don't even bother with the main side...it's just a disaster. I just head over there to read the thoughts of certain people and that is it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Windcredible!

Mr. Windcredible!

Posted
Posted

Is this true? The Feb. 2004 Kocin/Uccellini article from AMS only lists 9 storms with 4 or 5, and later data adds Jan. 2005 to that total but neither 2/06 nor 2/07 makes the cut. Maybe one or two of last winter's bombs reached 4, but that would still only make about a dozen. That 2/04 article had 70 listed as Cat. 1 (notable) or higher, and 47 Cat. 2 (Significant) or above.

yeah sorry...forget what I said about qualifications for a KU, I clearly haven' t looked at the book recently...but still, the point is that he's right in his assumptions that KU storms are more often than not lackluster events for western portions of SNE...at least in comparison to their performance over the I-95 corridor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Clinch Leatherwood

Clinch Leatherwood

Posted
Posted

You meant to say southern stream s/w, I hope?

No but we are probably talking about the same thing, it will be wrong with the energy coming through at 90 hours that it's now pulling into the Lakes because it's so weak. If history is a guide it will more closely resemble the 0z run and more towards the GGEM with a stronger chunk of energy that's probably actually two distinct lobes diving SE.

The GFS lays an egg because that's not pounding down to help dig the trough. It's probably wrong. BUT AGAIN to what degree? The GFS was wrong with how it handled energy traversing the Dakotas and the net effect will be snow up in Maine from the backlash but it's probably not enough to make a difference for you and I.

To me though, this is a pretty glaring atypical error on the GFS as observed over the last 10-14 days. It could change and be right this time but I really really doubt it.

I'd like a solution that hits the SE 1/3 of New England probably back through Will, through Hartford up into SE NH and SW ME to start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Baroclinic Zone

Baroclinic Zone

Posted
Posted

I'm sure he is. I mentioned that for the 00z run last night. I'm not sure why it basically desolves the shortwave between 72 and 96 hours.

I'm going stick around here...offering up my thoughts in the main forum when certain no-nothing mets from the NYC area **** up the model threads isn't worth my time.

I honestly am at a loss on what to do in there because it's MET's arguing/debating MET's over the merits of one model vs another. It's become counter-productive and is detracting from educated discussion. I think for the most part, all of us here know the strengths and weaknesses/bias of the models and don't get bogged down with those sorts of things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Windcredible!

Mr. Windcredible!

Posted
Posted

Don't even bother with the main side...it's just a disaster. I just head over there to read the thoughts of certain people and that is it.

isn't this why subforums were created...because when weenies from all regions converge in a single model thread it usually turns into chaos? i think each region should have its own individual model thread for each suite, then a general banter thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OSUmetstud

OSUmetstud

Posted
Posted

I honestly am at a loss on what to do in there because it's MET's arguing/debating MET's over the merits of one model vs another. It's become counter-productive and is detracting from educated discussion. I think for the most part, all of us here know the strengths and weaknesses/bias of the models and don't get bogged down with those sorts of things.

I honestly don't like to see idiots who don't know a damn thing about modeling bashing models day in and day out...especially when we have modelers from NCEP on the board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kbosch

Kbosch

Posted
Posted

Don't even bother with the main side...it's just a disaster. I just head over there to read the thoughts of certain people and that is it.

Me too. It's always a nice, civil, relatively logical discussion here. Emotion is mixed in well.

Not to take away from everything but as always thanks to the mets and experts who take their time to contribute in the NE forum. The fascinating and insightful posts are much appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Clinch Leatherwood

Clinch Leatherwood

Posted
Posted

I honestly don't like to see idiots who don't know a damn thing about modeling bashing models day in and day out...especially when we have modelers from NCEP on the board.

Saw your comment on the UKMET over on the disaster thread. I don't remember the event specifically but there was one time in the last 3-4 years where the UKMET tucked a big low in when no other model had it, you thought it was right and it was. I think it did eventually bail for a few runs and came back less extreme but it was all models out at Bermuda vs the UKMET over LI and eventually the storm passed near Cape Cod.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
weatherwiz

weatherwiz

Posted
Posted

isn't this why subforums were created...because when weenies from all regions converge in a single model thread it usually turns into chaos? i think each region should have its own individual model thread for each suite, then a general banter thread.

That's exactly why I thought the subforums were created...there were so many people arguing b/c the model threads would get clogged up with posters from different regions all bickering in one place and you had mid-Atlantic people crying b/c they would get "taken over" from SNE people.

Then all of a sudden they tried to work the main model talk to the main forum again...doesn't make much sense. Just look at our threads where there is a threat, they grow like the magic bean stock.

I am more than happy in just keeping the model talk region wide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
moneypitmike

moneypitmike

Posted
Posted

We couldn't ask for a more perfect that track than that here on the GGEM. Too bad you guys say it has a westward bias.

But yeah it gets that low to like BID by really wrapping it in almost to the 5H low.... A little less robust and your surface low is more out by ACK

I was just looking at the posted maps and thought, I don't want any bias with that.......love it just as it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tavwtby

tavwtby

Posted
Posted

Me too. It's always a nice, civil, relatively logical discussion here. Emotion is mixed in well.

Not to take away from everything but as always thanks to the mets and experts who take their time to contribute in the NE forum. The fascinating and insightful posts are much appreciated.

100% agree

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Damage In Tolland

Damage In Tolland

Posted
Posted

This morning, the AO stood at -4.104. A general slow rise is expected over the next few days.

In terms of the possible weekend event, I still suspect a moderate event is possible for the Middle Atlantic and southern New England states. What is somewhat worrisome is the recent trend among the GFS ensembles to present a broader and broader turn to the north. If that trend has merit, it would not be surprising to see the 12z ECMWF and 12z ECMWF ensemble mean shift eastward.

IMO, as the 12z ensemble suite hasn't come out, my best guess is that a track somewhere between the 0z ECMWF ensemble mean and 0z/6z GFS ensemble means is probably a reasonable idea at this time. The operational 12z GFS is east of that idea. While I don't believe that is the most likely outcome at this time, I don't believe it can be dismissed out of hand given the abnormally high level of uncertainty that is often present during moderate/strong La Niña events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Clinch Leatherwood

Clinch Leatherwood

Posted
Posted

I honestly am at a loss on what to do in there because it's MET's arguing/debating MET's over the merits of one model vs another. It's become counter-productive and is detracting from educated discussion. I think for the most part, all of us here know the strengths and weaknesses/bias of the models and don't get bogged down with those sorts of things.

Here's what I mean...the GFS is probably screwing the pooch on placement of the more northern feature. It SHOULD end up further wsw as it'll be stronger and slower. That changes and entire alignment of the trough.

Now what I'm not sure of is the southern streamer. That got sped up too, will have to see if the EC does the same and did the GGEM? I'm guessing no on the GGEM. If the EC holds back the southern energy a tad we can be fairly certain this is the GFS being the GFS.

On last nights GFS those two systems phase at about 108 hours. We need to see something along those lines again, this system went to shi( because the component to the north is weak and flat. A glaring GFS error the last few weeks. Glaring! I watched it play out with this storm yesterday and it's still playing out with the trought Wednesday. At about the same range a few days ago the GFS was shifting this energy 1/2 the width of PA each run to the west.

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.
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...