Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,601
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    ArlyDude
    Newest Member
    ArlyDude
    Joined

March 13/14th Storm Thread (Storm Mode)


psuhoffman

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Ok, let's set some ground rules.  This thread is a storm mode thread.  I've instructed mods (regular and forum mods) to be pretty strict and brutal in keep the discussion on topic  If you see your posts disappearing, take it as a hint and shape up.   From here on out, banter goes in the banter thread.  Now let's bring this one home.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except for the obvious issues with the western extent of the track it was a very good run. One thing I would like to point out is that it looks as if the GFS took a pretty big step IMO on moving towards a capture. Drops the northern portion of the trough somewhat deeper and speeds that up somewhat from the 06Z run. We now see less separation between the surface low and the strong closed low at 500's. Implications of seeing a capture at this point with this setup would probably be to slow the low down and/or back it up somewhat. Depending on if this were to happen and where the placement of this would occur could mean somewhat big implications towards totals for a portion of the east where this occurred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may have been mentioned already so apologies if this is redundant here.  But it seems like we're leaning toward hoping for the SS wave to do it for us almost completely; not that we've "given up" on hoping for an all-out phase monster, but the trend has certainly been to keep the NS and SS more separated.  In that event, would we want as much separation as possible (i.e., slower NS) and let the southern system hammer us...or do we actually need some NS influence in there too?  The CMC apparently showed one of the worst case scenarios of things being "too separated"...and we get gapped.  But it tended to scoot the SS out more as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok I am a little behind here, working and all...but back to the discussion about mixing on the GFS, this setup, at least the way the GFS evolves it, reminds me a bit of January 22 1987.  In that case there was a very heavy blast of WAA precip out ahead of the system and by the time the warming got in everyone had 10"+ and then dryslotted.  Some places inland got a bit more snow and ended up around 15 but everyone was happy.  THat would be an ideal way this could go down IF it takes the GFS track.  As for the GGEM, it headed that way last night and it went further on its OTS idea today so hopefully we don't see any support for that within the ensembles or the other ops.  The GGEM picked up on this first and gets cred but that doesn't mean I would weight it over all others if its the outlier here.  It is prone to crap solutions sometimes.  Hopefully this is one.  If the other guidance holds I wouldn't worry about it too much.  Instead of phasing and capturing the coastal it actually uses the primary low as a kicker and pushes the coastal OTS.  I don't think so but we have been screwed over in weirder ways before.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, showmethesnow said:

Except for the obvious issues with the western extent of the track it was a very good run. One thing I would like to point out is that it looks as if the GFS took a pretty big step IMO on moving towards a capture. Drops the northern portion of the trough somewhat deeper and speeds that up somewhat from the 06Z run. We now see less separation between the surface low and the strong closed low at 500's. Implications of seeing a capture at this point with this setup would probably be to slow the low down and/or back it up somewhat. Depending on if this were to happen and where the placement of this would occur could mean somewhat big implications towards totals for a portion of the east where this occurred.

Yea the GFS and GGEM moved in completely opposite directions this run.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BaltimoreWxGuy said:

Canadian tends to be Southeast A lot. For whatever reason. It was however, the first to realize this potential, albeit it was more rain at first 

Like I said above, the GGEM deserves credit this winter for sniffing out some general ideas first.  One was the coastal around Jan 22.  It was rain for us, I had a little slop mixed in, but the other globals all had a cutter when the GGEM nailed it would get blocked and forced up the coast.  It also sniffed out the collapse of the pattern in February first, and it was the first to see SUnday as squashed in favor of this storm Tuesday.  But all of that said it has crappy verification scores for a reason.  And it is prone to go off on a tangent way more then the others.  The GFS has some pretty obvious flaws but once inside 100 hours its rarely totally out to lunch sitting in the cheap seats.  Yea it can be off on some details, and its nowhere near the euro, but its more common to see the GGEM having some just stupid wrong solution inside 100 hours then the GFS.  If the other globals stay the course I wouldn't worry much about the GGEM.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Always in Zugzwang said:

This may have been mentioned already so apologies if this is redundant here.  But it seems like we're leaning toward hoping for the SS wave to do it for us almost completely; not that we've "given up" on hoping for an all-out phase monster, but the trend has certainly been to keep the NS and SS more separated.  In that event, would we want as much separation as possible (i.e., slower NS) and let the southern system hammer us...or do we actually need some NS influence in there too?  The CMC apparently showed one of the worst case scenarios of things being "too separated"...and we get gapped.  But it tended to scoot the SS out more as well.

At this point with this setup I myself would prefer the dominate southern solution with minimal influence from the NS. But seeing the 500's close off and close the gap to the surface low make me question if we might possibly be talking  a scenario that PSU were talking about earlier where we can get the benefit of the southern low for the most part untainted by the NS stream and then cash in on the effects of phasing and capture just a little bit above our latitude that could possible stall the storm or even draw it back. At this point though the setup probably argues for seeing that happen farther north if it does happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, WinterWxLuvr said:

The GGEM is the scenario that I wrote about yesterday as my biggest concern.  Low to the west, weak low in the east, and basically nothing in between.

Yes. It is the same scenario I was referring to earlier in the week as well. And is the reason I hate this type of setup for our area. People to the east could still do well though depending on where the coastal forms.

And the UK being where it is is encouraging. As normally the Euro follow suite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, yoda said:

Wrong map Bob.. but your analysis of the run is spot on and I agree strongly

It's the board cache or something. I'm definitely linking the right panels. I'm even opening the panel in a new window and refreshing before copying the link. Drives me nuts and I can't post any attachments because I can't clear my attachment folder. Words is all I gotz right now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bob Chill said:

It's the board cache or something. I'm definitely linking the right panels. I'm even opening the panel in a new window and refreshing before copying the link. Drives me nuts and I can't post any attachments because I can't clear my attachment folder. Words is all I gotz right now. 

I understand :)

I believe your analysis is spot on re the UKIE... it looks pretty close to the GFS in strength/location...

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...