Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,587
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    LopezElliana
    Newest Member
    LopezElliana
    Joined

January Banter


mackerel_sky

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 5.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

lol.. no, 5-10 180 pounds. I just don't like heat. I was born and raised in the mtns and until I moved to franklin lived most of my life above 3500ft. So it was only a handful of days we would get above 80. Not too many days above 80 either at my current location.

I would reall love to live in a climate like that! Not looking like much for this event now!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely think this climatological peak for Warm ENSO winters I found in the Wilmington data is legitimate, i.e. the 2nd week of February. The massive winter storm that crushed the southeast in 1973 hit the peak right on the $$...

 

US snow depth in the wake of the storm on February 12th, 1973

 

Every year is different of course, but I just wanted to offer some perspective here. A dataset like this that spans back about a century & a half w/ 58 different +ENSO winters makes this analysis extremely robust, IMO...

If this happens AFTER I leave Columbus... There will be hell to pay. That's the only big snow event many older people remember around here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this happens AFTER I leave Columbus... There will be hell to pay. That's the only big snow event many older people remember around here.

 

& it was done in a winter that for the most part up to mid February was relatively uneventful (aside from one storm that struck NC on January 9-11th) 

February 1973 & December 1989 just go to show as long as the Pacific is blocked up (-EPO/WPO), you can still crank out a big snowstorm in an overrunning event if other parameters are right, despite the fact that the AO/NAO were stoutly positive in both instances

Feb-6-8-1973-Southern-US-Overrunning.gif

 

Dec-19-21-1989-Southern-US-Overrunning.g

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Webber, you go to State, right?

Aren't you both met majors?

I was a met major there, too, until I transferred to Econ. Glad I did as I'm a lot better at econ than I am at physics. LOL. Grad school is tough, though!

Dr. Lackmann was great. I won the class forecasting contest freshman year, which was cool. Gets you an A+!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did you enjoy 213 with yuter?

 

Yeah, she's one of my favorite professors here at State, I found the class to be quite fun & it's actually the last semester she was going to do 213... I personally don't like matlab, but I know I'm going to have to deal w/ it again in the near future. Ugh... Lackmann is really cool as well, got to meet him at freshman orientation last summer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 0z Victoria Secret model shows a nice CAD event at 186 hours. The amount of ZR for Charlotte almost reaches warning criteria. All the precipitation falls with temps in the 28-30 range. It should be noted that the Victoria secret model has a warm bias with events that happen with a 5 in the year.

The 00z LORDS model which has a better verification rate than the ECMWF is showing a fantasy storm around the 252 hour time. A widespread 3-5 inches across majority of the SE with 6-10 across SGA and NFL. Folks can back away from the cliff now because the 12z LORDS run was clearly a fluke run showing no storm after being modeled on the 8 previous LORDS runs at the same 240-264 timeframe. It'll start to move up soon, because according to my analogs, it has done this with several storm in the pass. All the STJ energy from MJO phase 8 caused some problems for the 12z LORDS run that caused some panic among folks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 0z Victoria Secret model shows a nice CAD event at 186 hours. The amount of ZR for Charlotte almost reaches warning criteria. All the precipitation falls with temps in the 28-30 range. It should be noted that the Victoria secret model has a warm bias with events that happen with a 5 in the year.

The 00z LORDS model which has a better verification rate than the ECMWF is showing a fantasy storm around the 252 hour time. A widespread 3-5 inches across majority of the SE with 6-10 across SGA and NFL. Folks can back away from the cliff now because the 12z LORDS run was clearly a fluke run showing no storm after being modeled on the 8 previous LORDS runs at the same 240-264 timeframe. It'll start to move up soon, because according to my analogs, it has done this with several storm in the pass. All the STJ energy from MJO phase 8 caused some problems for the 12z LORDS run that caused some panic among folks.

 

The LORDS model has a significant bias towards suppression during the months of January and April.  In addition, it tends to suppress storms during periods of divided government.  My analogs suggest correcting for this via a 250-500 mile NW shift during months that start with a J, which should put the sweet spot along I-85.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are 19?!!? One hell of a good poster for your age. Where do you learn your stuff from? I wanna be making post like you talking about rossby waves and shi#!

 

I just have an obsession (addiction is a better term tbh) for medium-long range weather forecasting, and I enjoy constructing new spreadsheets, graphs, etc. and reading scientific papers about meteorology are among my favorite hobbies, and that's how I conjure up many of my ideas for analogs, etc. You'll be amazed what reading will do to you, I was finally able to get it through my head last year that it was actually good for me, and of course it's a primary reason why I may come across as very knowledgeable to some...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The LORDS model has a significant bias towards suppression during the months of January and April. In addition, it tends to suppress storms during periods of divided government. My analogs suggest correcting for this via a 250-500 mile NW shift during months that start with a J, which should put the sweet spot along I-85.

Yeah, it consistently kept trying to send the Carolina destroyer or whatever its called in 2000 to Cuba. This suppression bias was also seen during the January 28th snowstorm of last year. The 0z LORDS model that morning wasn't showing more than a dusting for Atlanta which is why they didn't cancel school and did business as usual day because the LORDS had all the answers. Too bad its suppression bias wasn't know quite that well a year ago because we could have easily prevented the disaster in Atlanta last year.

Edit: The name of the storm was Carolina Crusher 2000. A member has the same name which refreshed my memory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YAY!!!! for a Miller A and PERFECT track and no cold air.   EPIC winter...angry.png angry.png angry.png balloon.gif balloon.gif whistle.gif whistle.gif protest.gif protest.gif

 

I've learned to absolutely love you Chris.  You try to hold on as long as you can do a pattern change/storm threats and then in the end.. it's just like "damn the bad luck!"  haha

 

I don't trust any Fab Feb posts.  I don't trust any long range forecasts anymore.  I sure as Hell don't trust any analogs anymore.  It looks like those that said things like "when it gets pushed back, fab march" etc.. are gonna be able to troll on people for ages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YAY!!!! for a Miller A and PERFECT track and no cold air.   EPIC winter...angry.png angry.png angry.png balloon.gif balloon.gif whistle.gif whistle.gif protest.gif protest.gif

yep why is that when we get a perfect track there is no cold air and when we get the cold air there is no storm.  Maybe its called the southeast of which I hate that it does that.  :cry::axe::snowwindow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

desperately need a pattern change before we waste the whole month of January.  we normally at least have some fantasy storms by now.  what ever is happening we need it to stop so we can get some cold air and storms at the same time.  this may have well been october with the boring weather.  :violin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To anyone who might know this: is it safe to assume that the GEFS will be pretty much unchanged when the Para becomes operational? In other words, are the non-operational members (those based on perturbations of initial conditions) going to remain the same? Or are all of the members going to be running at a higher resolution, etc.? Anyone know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To anyone who might know this: is it safe to assume that the GEFS will be pretty much unchanged when the Para becomes operational? In other words, are the non-operational members (those based on perturbations of initial conditions) going to remain the same? Or are all of the members going to be running at a higher resolution, etc.? Anyone know?

 

Here's the full list of changes being issued by NOAA, effective January 14th.

 

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/notification/tin14-46gfs_cca.htm

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.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...