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

Just now, Quasievil said:

Right, I almost think we're outside of its useful range.

We're getting real close to op only range. By this time tomorrow, ens won't add much to the discussion because they will definitely move lock step with the ops and the resolution of the ops will provide superior detail. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
3 minutes ago, ers-wxman1 said:

This could very well be a much stronger system then currently simulated and models are having a hard time resolving the pieces. 

Can you provide any previous examples where this has been an issue?  The first of the two Feb 2010 massive storms, perhaps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, eurojosh said:

Can you provide any previous examples where this has been an issue?  The first of the two Feb 2010 massive storms, perhaps?

Feb 12-13 2014

track problems, waffling intensities for days then produced very heavy snow totals. I was deployed outside Baltimore and forecast amounts were increased several times during the event. Dynamic storm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Bob Chill said:

I disagree with cranky about "little value". The ops are showing the envelope to work inside of. That is very valuable. The only thing to NOT do is make a definitive decision that one is more correct over the other. 

Yup.  No one should be making a forecast as of yet so he would be right in that sense.  All the models are doing are showing possibilities at this stage.  GEFS especially.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Thanatos_I_Am said:

GEFS Low locations. Pictures may be out of order... sorry for that. Bottom one first, then top one.

 

IMG_3662.PNG

Except for perhaps the low centers in southern VA and a couple in NC (which look the farthest west though farther south too), appears to me that all the other lows are a tad east of the 12Z GFS ops, for what that might be worth.  Though overall they are a bit west of the previous GEFS cycle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ers-wxman1 said:

Feb 12-13 2014

track problems, waffling intensities for days then produced very heavy snow totals. I was deployed outside Baltimore and forecast amounts were increased several times during the event. Dynamic storm.

Believe the GFS was also late to the party with the precip amounts on that too (compared to other guidance)...it finally jumped on board very close to when that event started.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Quasievil said:

Really agree with @crankywxguy here:

 

 

Capture.JPG

This sounds logical and reads well on something like Twitter but is just not accurate.  Anyone that's been paying any attention at all to NWP advancements over the last 20 years knows that model data is absolutely useful in the >84h timeframe even in a complex or dynamic environment.  Maybe not to the twitterverse but to mets, forecasters and seasoned hobbyists, definitely.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, das said:

This sounds logical and reads well on something like Twitter but is just not accurate.  Anyone that's been paying any attention at all to NWP advancements over the last 20 years knows that model data is absolutely useful in the >84h timeframe.  Maybe not to the twitterverse but to mets, forecasters and seasoned hobbyists, definitely.  

I agree, in theory, on how the models are different on several key factors which will determine the real outcome. I'm not referring to the rest of his statements. I should've been clearer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the IAD Cobb for the 12Z GFS:

170314/0000Z  84  10005KT  29.4F  SNOW   20:1| 2.7|| 0.00|| 0.00|| 0.133   20:1|  2.7|| 0.00|| 0.00|| 0.13  100|  0|  0
----------------------------------------------+----++-----+-------------++--------------++-------------++-----------+---+---
170314/0300Z  87  09009KT  27.9F  SNOW   10:1| 2.1|| 0.00|| 0.00|| 0.204   14:1|  4.8|| 0.00|| 0.00|| 0.34  100|  0|  0
170314/0600Z  90  05009KT  27.4F  SNOW   12:1| 5.0|| 0.00|| 0.00|| 0.420   13:1|  9.7|| 0.00|| 0.00|| 0.76  100|  0|  0
170314/0900Z  93  35009KT  27.8F  SNOW   16:1| 5.4|| 0.00|| 0.00|| 0.333   14:1| 15.2|| 0.00|| 0.00|| 1.09  100|  0|  0
170314/1200Z  96  33009KT  27.8F  FZDZ    0:1| 0.0|| 0.00|| 0.10|| 0.100   14:1| 15.2|| 0.00|| 0.10|| 1.19    0|  0|100
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, yoda said:

So that is good news for us re snowfall then, correct?  And I gather that they are slightly further east of the GFS SLP location?

I would assume that's good for snow, but didn't look that close. Only one member near the GFS that I see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, yoda said:

Wow... those are some high probsm, especially for teh 12"+ one... 20-30% is pretty high this far out as a percentage chance

Those may be the best looking ensemble probabilities I've ever seen!

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...