Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,617
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    RyRyB
    Newest Member
    RyRyB
    Joined

Winter Storm 1/6 - 1/8, 2017


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 5.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 minute ago, Jon said:

Sorry but this look is garbage. Toss the entire run. The energy won't be elongated like that and the heights are just flat. Wrong.

22757683cd9499927099ee059930041f.gif


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Looks like a noodle...what a disaster. You're right...it just doesn't look realistic. Let's just wait for the global models tonight lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jon said:

Sorry but this look is garbage. Toss the entire run. The energy won't be elongated like that and the heights are just flat. Wrong.

22757683cd9499927099ee059930041f.gif


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It looks like a spear right through the heart of weenies everywhere. :P

Seriously through, I'd toss that in a second. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CaryWx said:

The key item I wanted to see from the NAM tonight is the perturbations of the NS and the wave in the first 48hrs which were somewhat telling imho as Wow pointed out.   That stuff at 66 is likely trash. 

Yep, agreed. The later part of the NAM run is most likely noise, but the first 48h is cause for concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am still learning about various models.  So my understanding is that the NAM is like the GFS except it covers a smaller areas (North America only) at a higher spatial resolution.  I am assuming that a higher resolution model will be more accurate than a lower resolution model.  So why do we use a lower-resolution global model to predict the weather over North America when we have access to a higher resolution regional model?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will say this...the NAM is doing an absolutely AWFUL job right now in the short term.  Does it mean anything?  Heck IDK.... the 6 hour rain totals..  (0z to 6z) so about another 3 hours worth...it has me only getting maybe .30" of rain at most....I am at .85" since 6pm or so....  storm total just over 6"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, cbmclean said:

I am still learning about various models.  So my understanding is that the NAM is like the GFS except it covers a smaller areas (North America only) at a higher spatial resolution.  I am assuming that a higher resolution model will be more accurate than a lower resolution model.  So why do we use a lower-resolution global model to predict the weather over North America when we have access to a higher resolution regional model?

Higher resolution models only run in the short term(12-84 hours) and are mainly looked at to see mesoscale features(position of a locally heavy band of rain or snow for example). NAM only goes out to 84 hours whereas the global models(GFS, Euro, Ukie, CMC) go out to the mid or long range(84-384 hours). As this event gets closer, assuming we still have the event, the NAM and other shorter ranged models will be analyzed more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, deltadog03 said:

I will say this...the NAM is doing an absolutely AWFUL job right now in the short term.  Does it mean anything?  Heck IDK.... the 6 hour rain totals..  (0z to 6z) so about another 3 hours worth...it has me only getting maybe .30" of rain at most....I am at .85" since 6pm or so....  storm total just over 6"

Interesting Chris because I always figured (generally anyway) the NAM had a bias to amp up precip totals too much sometimes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LovingGulfLows said:

Higher resolution models only run in the short term(12-84 hours). NAM only goes out to 84 hours whereas the global models(GFS, Euro, Ukie, CMC) go out to the mid or long range(84-384 hours). As this event gets closer, assuming we still have the event, the NAM and other shorter ranged models will be analyzed more.

Why are higher resolution models not run out as far?  Is it simply a mater of computational resources or are higher res models more unstable as time goes on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SnowGoose69 said:

The NAM has been much better in the last year.  It still has some horrible moments, but its generally more trustworthy now than it was 18 month or 2 years ago.  Its interesting the new parallel NAM though looks exactly like the GFS.

To be honest I have mostly seen the NAM the subject of derision.  So is it more accurate within its domain (short term, North America) than the associated global model (GFS) over the same time frame/spatial extent, or not.  If not, what is the point of even having it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, cbmclean said:

Why are higher resolution models not run out as far?  Is it simply a mater of computational resources or are higher res models more unstable as time goes on?

Computational resources and budget, plus it's not exactly easy to predict mesoscale features 5 days out, so I guess you can say it's both. Higher resolution models need very accurate data and uses that data to simulate atmospheric features in the very short range.

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...