Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

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

February 12-13 Storm IV, Model Discussion


stormtracker

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

18Z NAM looks good, though unfortunately meteorologists may be overly suspect of the NAM, SREF, and RAP nearing the event because of what happened last March 6th, when these models were "trending" better and better prior to the onset of the event.

 

I say "overly suspect" because while we need to keep in mind the typical colder BL bias of these runs -- we want to be wary of "overcorrecting".  I say this because when BL are initially marginal to begin with -- as with the March 6th event -- then there's certainly a better chance of these biases coming back to haunt forecasters.  However, with the antecedent arctic air in place, and cold Bay and Atlantic shelf water temps, one has to ask him/herself if what's being portrayed by the NAM/SREF/RAP is truly too cold.  

 

Along these lines, as I noted on FB, because of the cold air going in and (thus) the fact that our entire region should see a good front-end thump (some more than others obviously), I do not see this as being a case similar to an early season/late season one where the snow total contours are aligned more SSW-NNE, parallel to I-95 or the fall line.  Climatology would favor that being the case when BL temps are suspect, which (again) is not so much the case this time around as compared to where the dry slot gets.  I think the distribution of snow amounts will be more SW-NE oriented instead of SSW-NNE as a result, which is why I'm thinking the latest official forecast amounts east of I-95 might be a bit underdone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18Z NAM looks good, though unfortunately meteorologists may be overly suspect of the NAM, SREF, and RAP nearing the event because of what happened last March 6th, when these models were "trending" better and better prior to the onset of the event.

 

I say "overly suspect" because while we need to keep in mind the typical colder BL bias of these runs -- we want to be wary of "overcorrecting".  I say this because when BL are initially marginal to begin with -- as with the March 6th event -- then there's certainly a better chance of these biases coming back to haunt forecasters.  However, with the antecedent arctic air in place, and cold Bay and Atlantic shelf water temps, one has to ask him/herself if what's being portrayed by the NAM/SREF/RAP is truly too cold.  

 

Along these lines, as I noted on FB, because of the cold air going in and (thus) the fact that our entire region should see a good front-end thump (some more than others obviously), I do not see this as being a case similar to an early season/late season one where the snow total contours are aligned more SSW-NNE, parallel to I-95 or the fall line.  Climatology would favor that being the case when BL temps are suspect, which (again) is not so much the case this time around as compared to where the dry slot gets.  I think the distribution of snow amounts will be more SW-NE oriented instead of SSW-NNE as a result, which is why I'm thinking the latest official forecast amounts east of I-95 might be a bit underdone.

 

 

Brian, I pretty much agree, it's the temps above the ground that warm so there shouldn't be as big a discrepancy between DC and my house as when the flow at the surface is easterly.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Misdiagnosing of stability in March storm was the main culprit. There wasn't any CSI of significance because the CI was wiping it out across VA. When the precipitation isn't a solid shield, that usually means CI is playing a role. CI becomes more likely as lows vertically stack, which also happened last year. This time, that does not occur until well Northeast of the area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Misdiagnosing of stability in March storm was the main culprit. There wasn't any CSI of significance because the CI was wiping it out across VA. When the precipitation isn't a solid shield, that usually means CI is playing a role. CI becomes more likely as lows vertically stack, which also happened last year. This time, that does not occur until well Northeast of the area.

 

I've forced myself to watch the loop of the march debacle to better understand when a lock isn't a lock. When the upper level low approached and the circulation got going near ric it was like the electricity got turned off in the advancing waa precip. Then as the slp got really cranking down in se va we had more problems with crappy thermals and spotty precip. 

 

I can't find any valid reason to expect the advancing waa shield to lose any punch. H5 isn't closed and the source region for moisture originated in the gulf. There are some big differences with the current storm. I know you know all this and a million other things better than me. Just speaking out loud there there really isn't much of a panic button in play with the front end thump. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Misdiagnosing of stability in March storm was the main culprit. There wasn't any CSI of significance because the CI was wiping it out across VA. When the precipitation isn't a solid shield, that usually means CI is playing a role. CI becomes more likely as lows vertically stack, which also happened last year. This time, that does not occur until well Northeast of the area.

Very true.  It wouldn't appear we have that degree of disruption in the pcpn field this go around.

 

I also agree with an earlier post -- CI (convective instability for "upright" convection), which would dominate over CSI, does not appear to be as much of an issue here looking at the cross sections of theta-e/geo momentum/RH/UVV/EPV.  However, given the weakening static stability, even without "folding" theta-e surfaces, the strong horizontal component to the momentum surfaces would certainly support CSI and thus more slantwise convective bands W-NW-N of the 700-500 mb dry slot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do I have this right: In the 12Z runs, the NAM and Euro had huge front-end hits and weaker back-end hits, while the GFS had a weak-ish front end hit but suddenly showed more on the back-end than the other models (or prior GFS runs).  Now the 18Z NAM is ramping up with back-end hit.

 

If I have that right, should we consider the possibility of an emerging consensus on the back-end hit being stronger than initially suspected? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've forced myself to watch the loop of the march debacle to better understand when a lock isn't a lock. When the upper level low approached and the circulation got going near ric it was like the electricity got turned off in the advancing waa precip. Then as the slp got really cranking down in se va we had more problems with crappy thermals and spotty precip. 

 

I can't find any valid reason to expect the advancing waa shield to lose any punch. H5 isn't closed and the source region for moisture originated in the gulf. There are some big differences with the current storm. I know you know all this and a million other things better than me. Just speaking out loud there there really isn't much of a panic button in play with the front end thump.

I agree with you that I do not see anything that could kill the shield right now.

 

Very true.  It wouldn't appear we have that degree of disruption in the pcpn field this go around.

 

I also agree with an earlier post -- CI (convective instability for "upright" convection), which would dominate over CSI, does not appear to be as much of an issue here looking at the cross sections of theta-e/geo momentum/RH/UVV/EPV.  However, given the weakening static stability, even without "folding" theta-e surfaces, the strong horizontal component to the momentum surfaces would certainly support CSI and thus more slantwise convective bands W-NW-N of the 700-500 mb dry slot.

Thanks for verifying with an actual cross section! Much appreciated! I'm mostly interested in the stuff before the dry slot. After looking again, I think the dendritic growth zone is large enough with enough lift that ratios could exceed 10:1. What do you think? It would only happen at max banding and max UVV at say 500mb. Early, my only concern, really, was that the D.G.Z. was too high/shallow that some negative effect to them was possible/riming...but I was grasping there to find a negative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you that I do not see anything that could kill the shield right now.

 

Thanks for verifying with an actual cross section! Much appreciated! I'm mostly interested in the stuff before the dry slot. After looking again, I think the dendritic growth zone is large enough with enough lift that ratios could exceed 10:1. What do you think? It would only happen at max banding and max UVV at say 500mb. Early, my only concern, really, was that the D.G.Z. was too high/shallow that some negative effect to them was possible/riming...but I was grasping there to find a negative.

 

Very good points.  "Flirting" with the dry slot is sort of analogous to flirting with a supermodel.  You can easily get burned, but IF all goes well, it also can result in the night of your life :)  On a more serious level, you *need* to be near it to attain the potential instability aloft, *but* cannot be too far into it (dry slot extending to far down in the atmosphere) where you have no moisture reaching the -10C, which often times is approximated ~700 mb give or take 50 or so mb.  So ideally, you want to see some drying above 700 mb, but not down to or (especially) below 700 mb.  In the absence of CI, as you noted, CSI can play out, and do so (often times) farther w-nw-n of the dry slot where the static stability aloft is still weakening, yet not as much so (certainly not to the degree that would support upright convection).

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...