Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,589
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    LopezElliana
    Newest Member
    LopezElliana
    Joined

Forecast/storm discussions and part II Manitoba Mauler


Damage In Tolland
 Share

Recommended Posts

That is a great run up this way, Need to see the qpf map, But a couple nice bands

 

Here's the rub and again - speaking from 2 experiences at the end of last season...the models never did quite catch the wiggle NE until the very end but by now the CMC/UK and by dumb luck the GFS had a very good idea while the Euro was still gunslinging.  I do worry about a continued bobble of 25 miles ENE/NE on the stall each run because eventually it'd get even ahead of me here and I'd be watching spiral bands out over the water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the rgem keeps developing new low centers under convection on the east side of the storm. that's why it pulls east

I_nw_r1_EST_2015012600_028.png

 

 

More or less I think it's just delayed consolidation.  I know many will claim feedback and I may be entirely wrong, but I think it's more a case of the pieces taking an additional 6 or so hours to come together before the hook and capture takes place.   This isn't a single run figment, I think the hints/or actual movements have been there on many models all day (aside of the Euro).

 

If it is scoring a coup on this one and holds firm through 12z, I've been totally wrong and am biasing my opinion by getting boned by the Euro a couple of times at the end of last winter on the SW side of similar evolutions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More or less I think it's just delayed consolidation.  I know many will claim feedback and I may be entirely wrong, but I think it's more a case of the pieces taking an additional 6 or so hours to come together before the hook and capture takes place.   This isn't a single run figment, I think the hints/or actual movements have been there on many models all day (aside of the Euro).

 

If it is scoring a coup on this one and holds firm through 12z, I've been totally wrong and am biasing my opinion by getting boned by the Euro a couple of times at the end of last winter on the SW side of similar evolutions.

Problem is there wasn't a similar evolution last winter at all. Yea this may bump east a tad on the Euro but watching spiral bands, dude cmon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problem is there wasn't a similar evolution last winter at all. Yea this may bump east a tad on the Euro but watching spiral bands, dude cmon

 The post below is from NYC met , so remember he is referencing his area

A double barrel low is certainly possible... keep in mind the solutions both the NAM and RGEM are projecting were within the realm of possibilities provided by the ECMWF EPS. 

 

This is more than a convective feedback issue... I've been looking at the initial conditions of the current clipper and it looks like its been moving a little faster than expected. For the best possible phase, we don't want to be moving as quickly so the next shortwave can capture it further west and hence allow for surface cyclogenesis to occur further west. The trends aren't good because it looks like the last 12-18 hour forecasts was a bit too slow with the primary shortwave. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I need to go roofie myself to calm down...not sure why I'm so amped up it's still 24 hours away ...maybe about to drop dead?

 

I want to make one point to you John (Typhoon).   I was a convective feedback junkie in the olds days before they largely stomped out those issues with model fixes.  In the last few years it seems like it's tossed out there whenever we see things we cannot quite explain or have a model outlier that we really want to believe is correct because of common sense, overall model reliability (Euro) etc.

 

But wouldn't convective feedback actually cause the lows to be artificially too far west in this case?  The models that were initially the most west fired convection rapidly right on the coast and actually started to develop a closed low above it all the way up to phantom vorticies at 500mb.  As a result progression was SLOWER...allowing for a further west capture, then the tuck and roll.   Every time I heard the convective feedback stuff today the implication was it would mean the storm should be more west...I'd argue if convective feedback was involved it would have caused an earlier spinnup, faster drop of pressure, an earlier capture/close and subsequently have everything too far west.    

 

^^  Beyond that like I said was down this road when we had similar splits in model camps late last year.  That was my conclusion and I even think Will's after the fact, but I don't remember dates like he does. 

 

We're talking about 4-6 hours difference with that initial NNE to SSW band of showers/storms getting further ENE before the low develops under/near it.  Earlier runs had that spinning up harder, earlier...

 

Those couple of things and the RGEM running the other way when it's usually the model that has me ready to hit a bridge at this point...

 

Again may be totally wrong and it doesn't matter to 90% of the people here, just wanted to point out why I'm so adamant...even if wrong!

 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I need to go roofie myself to calm down...not sure why I'm so amped up it's still 24 hours away ...maybe about to drop dead?

 

I want to make one point to you John (Typhoon).   I was a convective feedback junkie in the olds days before they largely stomped out those issues with model fixes.  In the last few years it seems like it's tossed out there whenever we see things we cannot quite explain or have a model outlier that we really want to believe is correct because of common sense, overall model reliability (Euro) etc.

 

But wouldn't convective feedback actually cause the lows to be artificially too far west in this case?  The models that were initially the most west fired convection rapidly right on the coast and actually started to develop a closed low above it all the way up to phantom vorticies at 500mb.  As a result progression was SLOWER...allowing for a further west capture, then the tuck and roll.   Every time I heard the convective feedback stuff today the implication was it would mean the storm should be more west...I'd argue if convective feedback was involved it would have caused an earlier spinnup, faster drop of pressure, an earlier capture/close and subsequently have everything too far west.    

 

^^  Beyond that like I said was down this road when we had similar splits in model camps late last year.  That was my conclusion and I even think Will's after the fact, but I don't remember dates like he does. 

 

We're talking about 4-6 hours difference with that initial NNE to SSW band of showers/storms getting further ENE before the low develops under/near it.  Earlier runs had that spinning up harder, earlier...

 

Those couple of things and the RGEM running the other way when it's usually the model that has me ready to hit a bridge at this point...

 

Again may be totally wrong and it doesn't matter to 90% of the people here, just wanted to point out why I'm so adamant...even if wrong!

 

 

Well, for NYC's sake here's to hoping you're wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 The post below is from NYC met , so remember he is referencing his area

 

Stay the course Clinch

 

Phil882 is a huge asset, I see his stuff sometimes when I take a look at the other forums.  Exactly - we're talking 4-6 hours faster net...but with the forward speed of system that pushes it almost east of the 70w line before it can get rammed north. 

 

Could all of this be error based like Forky is implying?  Absolutely. 

 

Watch the GFS come in west and everyone will love it over the other two...lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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