Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,609
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    NH8550
    Newest Member
    NH8550
    Joined

February 16-17th Storm II


stormtracker

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 561
  • Created
  • Last Reply

So...officially NAM'd finally, it would appear!  I know those snow maps are not necessarily the greatest, but the fact that the northern extent of more significant amounts moved farther north I'd think is a good sign.  That said, as was mentioned above, precip amounts might be more useful.  Now...can the RGEM, GFS, Ukie, GGEM, and Euro continue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The low is a touch north and a bit more dynamic looking coming up from the south. Main thing is it's wetter and heavy bands further north.

Amazing this storm is coming with such a ridiculous air mass in place. Coldest storm since the start of pd2(2003)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The low is a touch north and a bit more dynamic looking coming up from the south. Main thing is it's wetter and heavy bands further north.

 

 

Stronger storm but about the same track. By 9z when it's off of the NC coast it's 1k vs 1008 with 18z run. It was stronger early on too. Good stuff.

 

Thanks.  This is what I was wondering as well.  Similar track and placement, but notably stronger with a wider (and wetter) precipitation field.  Good point about the heavy bands farther north too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll agree to disagree ;-).

 

i'll give you this -- while technically all modeled QPF is an estimate of liquid that reaches the ground -- we're a long way away from getting an accurate specification/simulation of cloud microphysics, our current parameterizations are pretty simplified when you start considering how complicated the processes really are. A model won't print out "QPF" until the column can support it reaching the ground (purely model talk)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'll give you this -- while technically all modeled QPF is an estimate of liquid that reaches the ground -- we're a long way away from getting an accurate specification/simulation of cloud microphysics, our current parameterizations are pretty simplified when you start considering how complicated the processes really are. A model won't print out "QPF" until the column can support it reaching the ground...

Thanks for the explanation it's helpful. Final thought is if the model initializes the BL condition wrong and it's drier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the explanation it's helpful. Final thought is if the model initializes the BL condition wrong and it's drier.

 

always a good point -- if you're BL is initialized wrong, don't expect your model to get QPF right (sometimes I fall into the trap of explaining things in a "perfect model" sense). 

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...