Jump to content

  • Member Statistics

    17,606
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    ArlyDude
    Newest Member
    ArlyDude
    Joined

#PD3Attempt#13since2003 -Tracking the threat of the Presidents day storm Feb 15-16 2016

Ji

By Ji,
in Mid Atlantic

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
mdsnowlover

mdsnowlover

Posted
Posted

The GFS used to struggle with CAD relative to the NAM because of its coarse resolution, but its resolution has improved since. 

 

I think the NAM is best used as an ensemble component.  

 

Wish it didn't come out first because its wild swings cause worry when there shouldn't be any and cause hope ... 

gfs has been improved along with new super computer by cray, running super fast, new proicessors

Link to comment
Share on other sites
schinz

schinz

Posted
Posted

every model did a good job on the blizzard. It was like throwing a softball to a steroid barry bonds

 

Maybe for our area, but the NAM was one of the first models to see the eventual northern extent of heavy snow....I remember it well, because everyone was throwing it out because it was the NAM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bob Chill

Bob Chill

Posted
Posted

With the ever increasing resolution of the global models, we really don't need a meso model beyond 48 hours. RGEM is a good example of a very useful short range model. 

 

I'm not sure how useful the RAP and HRRR are. They seem ok sometimes but do some weird things run over run. Especially in the second half of their forecast period. 

 

With the new euro running .0625 grid spacing it may become the best model through 48 hours. Hard to say.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WeSuck

WeSuck

Posted
Posted

Eventually, a new modeling system with a unified dynamical core to be used across all scales. This means the GFS, GEFS, SREF and others will likely be scrapped over time as well. It will take years to implement though.

This is very interesting. Perhaps getting a better model to compete with Dr. NO. basically, enjoy your nammings now

Link to comment
Share on other sites
paulythegun

paulythegun

Posted
Posted

My, my, my how short the memory of some is.

 

The NAM did a damn fine job with the blizzard.  Intentional negativity isn't the same as objectivity.

Not to re-fight this but.....NAM was terrible with the blizzard. It had a changeover to sleet (then drizzle) in DC. It also had a changeover to rain in Richmond. NAM's thing is to plop down a big juicy batch of precip somewhere, haphazardly. Sometimes it aligns (locally) with conditions on the ground and people declare it the winner. But in reality, NAM was almost 200 miles north with the precip for the blizzard while other models were 20 miles too far south.

 

That being said: all hail NAM. I'm hugging it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BTRWx

BTRWx

Posted
Posted

The GFS used to struggle with CAD relative to the NAM because of its coarse resolution, but its resolution has improved since. 

 

I think the NAM is best used as an ensemble component.  

 

Wish it didn't come out first because its wild swings cause worry when there shouldn't be any and cause hope ... 

True, but NAM res is still much higher

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stormtracker

stormtracker

Posted
Posted

Yes. NCEP will more than likely be phasing it out over the next year or so.

Thanks.  I remember when the NAM was the go to model for short range, lol.    But it's so bad now, especially beyond a certain time period.  When it's vastly different than everything else, that's usually a red flag.   I want it to be right more than anybody...I love snow...but I'm also realistic.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
high risk

high risk

Posted
Posted

   The one thing with the HRRR (and to some extent the RAP too) is that it's really tuned to be a warm-season convective model.    The assimilation of the radar reflectivity data really responds best to the high-reflectivity convective systems and isn't as great in snow events.   One plus, though, is that the upcoming HRRR upgrade starts to use the hybrid data assimilation which will definitely help improve the background synoptic fields from which the model discerns the mesoscale details, and the ensemble component of the RAP data assimilation (it's already in there) will be given more weight.   This will make the RAP and HRRR better winter models.

 

With the ever increasing resolution of the global models, we really don't need a meso model beyond 48 hours. RGEM is a good example of a very useful short range model. 

 

I'm not sure how useful the RAP and HRRR are. They seem ok sometimes but do some weird things run over run. Especially in the second half of their forecast period. 

 

With the new euro running .0625 grid spacing it may become the best model through 48 hours. Hard to say.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
high risk

high risk

Posted
Posted

   also remember that at close ranges, the GFS kept wanting the put the max QPF someone close to the Potomac, while the NAM correctly put in along the I-81 corridor.     As others have noted, though, the NAM did overdo the northwest advance of the changeover line.

 

 

for your area yes, but for the northern edge of the precip shield the globals struggled mightily while the NAM nailed it

Link to comment
Share on other sites
so_whats_happening

so_whats_happening

Posted
Posted

The inland solutions (GFS, EURO) have the initial high establish a cold wedge, but a very strong W-E oriented 700 mb flow boots the high out fast.  The southerly winds and warm rain then flush the low level cold air out fast east of I-81.

 

Just got a chance to check this out and see what your saying. thanks for the input

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.
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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