Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,608
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    NH8550
    Newest Member
    NH8550
    Joined

Do We have one More in Us?


Damage In Tolland

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Congrats Phil and James on the 06 gfs blizzard.  Congrats me on cirrus.

 

Zoinks.

We are going to need this to take a more NNE track then the ENE one it is taking when it gets around the BM, lol, Just looked at the 0z GGEM, That would work as the low gets captured and tug back NW, What a bomb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are going to need this to take a more NNE track then the ENE one it is taking when it gets around the BM, lol, Just looked at the 0z GGEM, That would work as the low gets captured and tug back NW, What a bomb

 

Can you say "understatement"?  :)

 

After this winter, I'm not getting myself sucked into any excitement until 24 hours out.  This is WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY to far out there to have me do anything but follow the bouncing ball.

 

30.3/21 sn--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyways, another run...another solution. 5-6 days out is still an eternity.  Still a real nice signal. I'd rather not be jackpotted at this stage.

 

Sure, but you certainly want to move closer to the center of the goalposts run by run from here out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, but you certainly want to move closer to the center of the goalposts run by run from here out.

 

We aren't too far from a really nice solution. I don't mind seeing the solutions shown this far out in time. The day 4 timeframe is when we started seeing some jumps in models north or south since Feb. Obviously, most jumped south..lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We aren't too far from a really nice solution. I don't mind seeing the solutions shown this far out in time. The day 4 timeframe is when we started seeing some jumps in models north or south since Feb. Obviously, most jumped south..lol.

 

If this one looks like it might become a sure hit, I'm calling dibs on starting a thread. I'll even do a full write-up full of Fyre and Brymmstoen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitely looks like convective feedback issues on the 00z CMC. Similar to the 12z ECMWF it spontaneously develops of a 500 hPa vorticity maxima from an MCS that develops off the southeast coast. Be very weary of these types of solutions since global models like the CMC and ECMWF are within the "no mans land" resolution wise when it comes to resolving convective features. We still need convective parameterization to resolve convection properly, yet we are getting to the point where the resolution in the models is high enough that we can resolve some convection without the need of parameterizations. Thus in some cases, convection gets over accounted for by the parameterization and you get the simulation overproducing precipitation, leading to positive feedback (more height falls, stronger trough, more forcing for lift ect.)

 

 

BINGO!

I realize I'm pages behind ...but Meteorology strikes the board.

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...