Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,564
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Monty
    Newest Member
    Monty
    Joined

Post Christmas Bomb


Damage In Tolland

Recommended Posts

Can't extrapolate that far out, but I don't think it's all that bad for 84 hr NAM.

Hopefully I awake to some nice trends.

I've got to tell you I think we get absolutely crushed based on the NAM. I worry a little about this being a tuck job like some earlier models, but to me with the energy riding down this thing will be a beast.

I think what some are reacting to over there is that it's probably shifted north some.

This would be one of those deals where precip just thunders due north from the atlantic. I'd be worried about ptype issues down my way potentially but geez louise, BEAST

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Can't extrapolate that far out, but I don't think it's all that bad for 84 hr NAM.

Hopefully I awake to some nice trends.

Yeah I think that would get us later in the run...esp eastern areas. It looks like one of the "Wide turn, late hook" scenarios unfolding on the NAM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The baroclinic zone is also closer to the coast as well with low development going on over NC/SC...I would think storm would ride right up along the baroclinic zone. This is one thing I'd definitely watch on the NAM b/c the NAM usually picks up on this feature a bit better than other models.

Great observation Wiz and something that definitley bears watching.

I've been bullish on a NW trend all day and I'm holding to that until the models scream otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously. If you were just comparing the late sfc maps with previous guidance you'd think not much change. I know Ray loves H5, but it took a totally different route aloft to get to the destination.

Brian, I joke about that, but by all means.....indulge us if you pick something up; I suck with H5 analysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL, I thought that as well.

I want to know what the heck happened to the southern vort. It went poof, like Ray's undees.

yeah i know.

seems like it had some minor interaction with the northern stream over the southern great plains and it essentially just shredded it. odd given how all other products have kept that feature so distinct for a lot longer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should probably be 5-day banned for saying this but with what we saw evolve on the NAM from 72-84 HR if this run went out to 90 I would think we would see some pretty rapid cyclogenesis occur between 84 and 90 HR...already have your 850mb low developing and the s/w is beginning to take on a negative tilt. You also have a very nice MLJ streak rounding down the left side of the trough towards the base of it.

Very impressed with the NAM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I think that would get us later in the run...esp eastern areas. It looks like one of the "Wide turn, late hook" scenarios unfolding on the NAM.

Good analogy. I think it'd be a little more severe than the 18z GFS though based on 5h.

What will be very interesting is to see if the EC jumps ship on the timing. Obviously it would appear the entire solution would change if that is the case. Expectations for the "day after tommorrow" may have to be adjusted for some well SW pending the EC, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah i know.

seems like it had some minor interaction with the northern stream over the southern great plains and it essentially just shredded it. odd given how all other products have kept that feature so distinct for a lot longer

Elsewhere it was stated the Van AFB RAOB was not used at 0z. That could well have an effect who knows.

It is interesting that the NAM has sped up to the point it's identical in speed at the surface as the 18z GFS.

Isn't a known bias of the EC to hold back energy in the SW too long?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elsewhere it was stated the Van AFB RAOB was not used at 0z. That could well have an effect who knows.

It is interesting that the NAM has sped up to the point it's identical in speed at the surface as the 18z GFS.

Isn't a known bias of the EC to hold back energy in the SW too long?

it was a bias...i don't know if it still applies or not since all of the upgrades in the last 18 to 24 months.

i'll tell ya what i think its new bias is...microcanes on the eastern seaboard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

based on the NAM?

That the GFS and :

"One of the main model biases with the ECMWF model is that it tends to overdevelop mid-level and upper-level cyclones across the southwestern United States. The reason for this is that the model is not fast enough to move a system out from the desert southwest and actually slows the system down and further develops it in place.

If there's no glaring error evident and the others still stick with this type of faster solution I'll toss the EC but that's just my opinion, that and a nickel will get you nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good analogy. I think it'd be a little more severe than the 18z GFS though based on 5h.

What will be very interesting is to see if the EC jumps ship on the timing. Obviously it would appear the entire solution would change if that is the case. Expectations for the "day after tommorrow" may have to be adjusted for some well SW pending the EC, IMO.

We have a derailment further south for thomas the train..........lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it was a bias...i don't know if it still applies or not since all of the upgrades in the last 18 to 24 months.

i'll tell ya what i think its new bias is...microcanes on the eastern seaboard.

LOL, true.

I'm pretty sure it's still an issue. It quite often has the support of the NAM at least initially which does the same thing. That's why this big shift doesn't surprise me - again so long as we see the CMC and maybe UKMET follow suit I think the EC may jump the other way.

Anyway, back to family and radar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have a derailment further south for thomas the train..........lol

I don't think the NAM was bad for us at all. I think it's likely to be a monster. We've all seen this before as Phil mentioned it's fascinating that despite an entirely different evolution the ground result is similar. That's where John's teleconnections come in.

The NAM to me says Don S FTW. But we're still in the game.

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...