Jump to content

  • Member Statistics

    17,608
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    NH8550
    Newest Member
    NH8550
    Joined

Model Mezzanine, the 2nd installment

Typhoon Tip

By Typhoon Tip,
in New England

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
ORH_wxman

ORH_wxman

Posted
Posted

I feel the ukie has been talked about quite a bit lately. That's fine, but personally I could not care less what it shows beyond day 4, given the volatility I have seen from it.

It's done well the last couple systems. But yeah it has an extreme tendency beyond d4 that is more than what other guidance tends to show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ORH_wxman

ORH_wxman

Posted
Posted

Is Friday sneaking up on us for an inch or so, do we see flakes Friday, Monday, Wed to Friday/ that would be sweet. nice strato split, fun times in the crazy house.

We've mentioned Friday a few days ago but it never trended south. It actually trended north but last night maybe a tick back south. Still mostly a CNE/NNE deal. Maybe some flakes down SNE. Still could produce minor accumulations in high terrain...esp N of pike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SnowMan

SnowMan

Posted
Posted

The para is pretty insane, runs a low under SNE that then goes across to CC drops from 6-10 across the majority of SNE which then buries all of NE with 6-10 then immediately reforms another deep coastal burying everyone with another 6-10 ending up with 12-18' totals across the majority of New England with 2 foot lollies in elevations from the Berks White Greens Maine Mountains except at the very coast line where totals are 6-8, pretty wild stuff. That run pretty much nails everyone in this subforum

lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Typhoon Tip

Typhoon Tip

Posted
  • Author
Posted

there's extensive wave contention issues out over the open Pacific.  looking over the last couple cycle's worth of GFS operational runs re the full latitude synoptic evolution at 500mb shows a cornucopia of waves the model's are charged with handling, and their interactions (correctly modeling) is paramount to determinism down stream post relay over N/A. 

 

Firstly, timing and variance therein are going to be more prone to error given to the "flatness" of the flow over all.  There is a tendency to "buckle" the flow, but it is still doing it in a narrow enough corridor (everywhere) to fit squarely inside the latitudes above HA and below Alaska. 

 

The wave dynamics that would (presumably) go on to produce the mid-week most important trough amplitude in the east, was as of 00z's initialization...just leaving Japan's sector.  It's flat and wide open, with a lot of normalized jet velocity arcing its underbelly... As this massive impulse translates quickly across the Basin, another trough ...having smaller spatial dimensions but a bit more actual streak energy, plays catch-up.  This latter feature really amplifies by the time it gets near the longitudes of HA, at the expense of the beloved lead ..which per course -work has been getting negatively influenced (destructive wave interference) do to wave physics.   

 

Par for the tenor of this winter, that destructive interference be seen in model guidance that's preceding an event by 4 to 10 days between Coasts... 

 

But, that 'damping' of the lead mechanics then means that what finally squirts through the western building ridge has had some power stolen from it.  

 

I am noticing the static heights over the SE in between successive waves is not appreciably high; nor are the intramural wind velocities very far above 35 knts.  That means (for me) that as waves propagate E of the MV through the TV and Gulf interface regions .. .they are not getting absorbed by howling winds (shear) and thus dimming their cyclogen capacities... So that is good for storm seeking.  That leaves it up to the maelstrom over the Pacific to deliver the goods...

 

The last couple of runs of most guidance I have seen show that delivery to be shredding ... most likely do to the wave-spacing issues about between HA and Alaska as discussed above.  

 

The implicit argument here is that the Pacific flow isn't necessarily being correctly handled, and could correct either way(s).  Should the second impulse become dominant, than the lead washes out more entirely, and that opens even more uncertainty downstream over mid latitudes/N/A.   If it trends weaker...the leads then comes through the ridge stronger and has more to conserve as it tanks in latitude over eastern America and there you go...  

 

One thing: the general canvas is still supporting more amplitude...I am not sure how that helps (or not) all these affairs, but that is a monster +PNA era at this point, so waves of any strength coming through the west would get a huge steroid injection off of large-scale amplification-feedbacks.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
40/70 Benchmark

40/70 Benchmark

Posted
Posted

there's extensive wave contention issues out over the open Pacific.  looking over the last couple cycle's worth of GFS operational runs re the full latitude synoptic evolution at 500mb shows a cornucopia of waves the model's are charged with handling, and their interactions (correctly modeling) is paramount to determinism down stream post relay over N/A. 

 

Firstly, timing and variance therein are going to be more prone to error given to the "flatness" of the flow over all.  There is a tendency to "buckle" the flow, but it is still doing it in a narrow enough corridor (everywhere) to fit squarely inside the latitudes above HA and below Alaska. 

 

The wave dynamics that would (presumably) go on to produce the mid-week most important trough amplitude in the east, was as of 00z's initialization...just leaving Japan's sector.  It's flat and wide open, with a lot of normalized jet velocity arcing its underbelly... As this massive impulse translates quickly across the Basin, another trough ...having smaller spatial dimensions but a bit more actual streak energy, plays catch-up.  This latter feature really amplifies by the time it gets near the longitudes of HA, at the expense of the beloved lead ..which per course -work has been getting negatively influenced (destructive wave interference) do to wave physics.   

 

Par for the tenor of this winter, that destructive interference be seen in model guidance that's preceding an event by 4 to 10 days between Coasts... 

 

But, that 'damping' of the lead mechanics then means that what finally squirts through the western building ridge has had some power stolen from it.  

 

I am noticing the static heights over the SE in between successive waves is not appreciably high; nor are the intramural wind velocities very far above 35 knts.  That means (for me) that as waves propagate E of the MV through the TV and Gulf interface regions .. .they are not getting absorbed by howling winds (shear) and thus dimming their cyclogen capacities... So that is good for storm seeking.  That leaves it up to the maelstrom over the Pacific to deliver the goods...

 

The last couple of runs of most guidance I have seen show that delivery to be shredding ... most likely do to the wave-spacing issues about between HA and Alaska as discussed above.  

 

The implicit argument here is that the Pacific flow isn't necessarily being correctly handled, and could correct either way(s).  Should the second impulse become dominant, than the lead washes out more entirely, and that opens even more uncertainty downstream over mid latitudes/N/A.   If it trends weaker...the leads then comes through the ridge stronger and has more to conserve as it tanks in latitude over eastern America and there you go...  

 

One thing: the general canvas is still supporting more amplitude...I am not sure how that helps (or not) all these affairs, but that is a monster +PNA era at this point, so waves of any strength coming through the west would get a huge steroid injection off of large-scale amplification-feedbacks.  

We aren't permitted to acknowledge that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ORH_wxman

ORH_wxman

Posted
Posted

We aren't permitted to acknowledge that.

 

Strawman.

 

The question was using this reasoning going forward, not in hindsight. In hindsight, everything in February 2015 went right, but using that to forecast the next few events would have burnt you late that month and in early March. Same this year...there's been a lot of destructive wave interference this year...in hindsight, but who actually knows if that will happen this time. Not sure why that concept is that difficult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
40/70 Benchmark

40/70 Benchmark

Posted
Posted

Strawman.

 

The question was using this reasoning going forward, not in hindsight. In hindsight, everything in February 2015 went right, but using that to forecast the next few events would have burnt you late that month and in early March. Same this year...there's been a lot of destructive wave interference this year...in hindsight, but who actually knows if that will happen this time. Not sure why that concept is that difficult.

I'm not sure why you can't grasp the concept that we have real patterns and atmospheric phenomena that DO in fact become themes of a season.

No one ever said that that should be utilized as a general forecasting method.

Check your reading comp, Kaplin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ORH_wxman

ORH_wxman

Posted
Posted

I'm not sure why you can't grasp the concept that we have real patterns and atmospheric phenomena that DO in fact become themes of a season.

No one ever said that that should be utilized as a general forecasting method.

Check your reading comp, Kaplin.

 

 

I think you need to check yours...because I never said that they didn't. Yet, despite that, you start saying "we're not allowed to discuss that here"...so clearly you didn't read carefully yesterday.

 

 

I merely said that using a "theme" (whatever that actually means...1 month, 2 months?) is a poor way to forecast going forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
40/70 Benchmark

40/70 Benchmark

Posted
Posted

I think you need to check yours...because I never said that they didn't. Yet, despite that, you start saying "we're not allowed to discuss that here"...so clearly you didn't read carefully yesterday.

 

 

I merely said that using a "theme" (whatever that actually means...1 month, 2 months?) is a poor way to forecast going forward.

Cleary a sarcastic reference to the opposition that my musing regarding the issue was met with yesterday.

Not just from you.

Anyway, I agree that is generally a poor forecasting method, but all else being equal, I would and do consider it.

Nothing more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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