Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,586
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    23Yankee
    Newest Member
    23Yankee
    Joined

Feb 25-26 Discussion/pbp


Wow

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I want to say their maps tend to be heavily GFS based, its a dirty rumor but one I often see spread around, you can argue based on those at least its true.

yeah if they are basing it off the gfs, then i can certainly see that.  I don't get too worked up over what they forecast since in terms of winter storms here, they often will miss it. i just think based on models as a whole, those props are a bit low. We'll see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think GSP is very wise to be cautious on this storm. I also think it's a mistake to assume because there were temp  busts in recent weeks on CAD events that the same will happen on this storm. This system is totally different -- not a CAD event, it's a dynamic cooling event. I would submit that for every March 1 cutoff low thundersnow bomb that there are 10 events where dynamic cooling did not pan out. I remember multi-contour closed lows that still didn't do the trick with marginal BL temps. This one barely even stays closed off for 3 hours straight. I will be rooting hard for a big event, but to dismiss BL issues out of hand is a huge mistake, imo. When I lived in N.C., I vowed to never be burned by that again. Somebody under a WSW is going to end up with a bunch of rain and slop from this event -- hopefully nobody on this board! :snowing:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just looked at the SREF individual panels.  They are glorious.  More are showing a more tilted/closed off s/w and pulling the heavier precip shield further north.  Several are showing the sfc low centered over S GA then off the GA/SE coast.

 

The more the s/w holds its own and possibly closes off, the farther west the precip will be as the low moves off shore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think GSP is very wise to be cautious on this storm. I also think it's a mistake to assume because there were temp  busts in recent weeks on CAD events that the same will happen on this storm. This system is totally different -- not a CAD event, it's a dynamic cooling event. I would submit that for every March 1 cutoff low thundersnow bomb that there are 10 events where dynamic cooling did not pan out. I remember multi-contour closed lows that still didn't do the trick with marginal BL temps. This one barely even stays closed off for 3 hours straight. I will be rooting hard for a big event, but to dismiss BL issues out of hand is a huge mistake, imo. When I lived in N.C., I vowed to never be burned by that again. Somebody under a WSW is going to end up with a bunch of rain and slop from this event -- hopefully nobody on this board! :snowing:

 

Yeah if GSP is concerned, then I'm concerned a little too.  Maybe I'm being optimistic in thinking we will be ok temp wise.  I think I would be more worried if I were around Greenwood or Newberry.  I'm hoping the NAM is wrong in getting our highs up to 45 before the storm.  Would like to see that trend about 5° cooler for the high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think GSP is very wise to be cautious on this storm. I also think it's a mistake to assume because there were temp  busts in recent weeks on CAD events that the same will happen on this storm. This system is totally different -- not a CAD event, it's a dynamic cooling event. I would submit that for every March 1 cutoff low thundersnow bomb that there are 10 events where dynamic cooling did not pan out. I remember multi-contour closed lows that still didn't do the trick with marginal BL temps. This one barely even stays closed off for 3 hours straight. I will be rooting hard for a big event, but to dismiss BL issues out of hand is a huge mistake, imo. When I lived in N.C., I vowed to never be burned by that again. Somebody under a WSW is going to end up with a bunch of rain and slop from this event -- hopefully nobody on this board! :snowing:

Great point and good to see you post Skip!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to say their maps tend to be heavily GFS based, its a dirty rumor but one I often see spread around, you can argue based on those at least its true.

 

yeah if they are basing it off the gfs, then i can certainly see that.  I don't get too worked up over what they forecast since in terms of winter storms here, they often will miss it. i just think based on models as a whole, those props are a bit low. We'll see.

I think they use a blend of 57 members I don't think it's biased towards the GFS...only one run of the OP and GEFS are used. Also, 5 randomly selected GEFS members...if they are random big dogs in there it would skew it big time I suppose...wonder what the weight for each is?

 

A multi-model ensemble is utilized to create a distribution of values around the WPC accumulation at each grid point. The typical constituency of this ensemble is as follows:

21 NCEP Short-Range Ensemble Forecast (SREF) members

25 ECMWF ensemble members, randomly selected

1 NCEP North American Mesoscale (NAM) 12Z (day) or 00Z (night) operational run

1 NCEP Global Forecast System (GFS) 12Z (day) or 00Z (night) operational run

1 European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) latest operational run

1 Canadian Model (CMC) latest operational run

1 ECMWF latest ensemble mean

1 NCEP Global Ensemble Forecast System (GEFS) latest ensemble mean (6-h SLRs)

5 NCEP GEFS members, randomly selected

___

57 Total members

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is HPC's current thinking. Relativity matches most guidance. 

 

 

 

^^ Wow, that would be extremely nice, Wow.

Still way too much spread off the coast to make me comfortable...that is a LOT of spread.

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...