12Z Model Thread 12/22

[yoda]

96

[Zelocita Weather]

96

Almost exactly like the GFS.

[yoda]

Looks a lil too far east for much of the I-95 corridor

108

[Tiburon]

Why do people always think they are smarter than the model itself when it comes to its surface reflection? If you want to talk about the overall evolution, placement of QPF, even the westward tilt being too steep/shallow, fine, but to act like the model is clueless about the surface reflection and to just say "it doesn't match up" drives me crazy. Just saying look at 5h and using your imagination is not an explanation.

BTW, I'm as glad as anyone to see a trend in the right direction, but there is still no guarantee this pans out. This is still a fairly complex evolution/interaction that needs to take place (this has been stated elsewhere)....minor changes in the initialization and/or evolution of some of the necessary pieces could potentially yield quite a different solution. The ensembles have been screaming from the rooftops there is still a LOT of uncertainty, run after run.....

Ok, allow me to expand my statement. I meant no disrespect. Looking at the evolution of the system, as well as the resultant SLP placement in prior events, it seems as though with an upper air setup as it is that the surface low would normally be a little further to the west.

Agreed on the final event. This is VERY complex, and there are still a lot of things that have to go "just right" for this to happen, and I still doubt this happens according to depiction even IF all of it breaks right. These aren't anomalous events for just any reason--they're anomalous because they usually just don't happen.

[SACRUS]

108 looks like 12z gfs

[NortheastPAWx]

Looks like the phase happens a bit too far east on this run.

[mitchnick]

Looks a lil too far east for much of the I-95 corridor

108

with that closed 5H Low?

I don;t think so

[Hailstorm]

The trough is a bit more neutrally-tilted than negatively-tilted and the H5 flow is a bit progressive.

[yoda]

with that closed 5H Low?

I don;t think so

The h7 map at 108 ON THIS RUN shows that most of the precip would be offshore or a coast grazer

[mitchnick]

The trough is a bit more neutrally-tilted than negatively-tilted and the H5 flow is a bit progressive.

yeah, it probably won't get yanked back this run, but big step towards that this run

[TUweathermanDD]

with that closed 5H Low?

I don;t think so

Agreed Mitch, good call. Nice 12z suite for us so far.

[mitchnick]

The h7 map at 108 ON THIS RUN shows that most of the precip would be offshore or a coast grazer

I swear I was seeing a diff map, maybe an old one in my cache

anyway, its an improvement over 12 hours from 0Z

[yoda]

I swear I was seeing a diff map, maybe an old one in my cache

anyway, its an improvement over 12 hours from 0Z

Very true. Its a good set of runs so far. It will be nice to see the 12z EURO remain where it is

[dtk]

Ok, allow me to expand my statement. I meant no disrespect. Looking at the evolution of the system, as well as the resultant SLP placement in prior events, it seems as though with an upper air setup as it is that the surface low would normally be a little further to the west.

Agreed on the final event. This is VERY complex, and there are still a lot of things that have to go "just right" for this to happen, and I still doubt this happens according to depiction even IF all of it breaks right. These aren't anomalous events for just any reason--they're anomalous because they usually just don't happen.

No disrespect taken. I just want someone to actually explain (and not just throw out "it seems as though"). I'm looking at upper air charts from the GFS at h114 and comparing with the surface low at 120h...it makes perfect sense to me given the model evolution (and the model can certainly sort out equations better and more completely than I can). Even just at first glance I can ascertain where the maximum PVA is occuring at mid levels and see the surface reflection is consistent.

[Guest someguy]

THE 1Z2 GGEM AT 108 HRS IS FURTHER WEST THAN 120 HR AT 0ZZ

AND PRECIP SHIELD IS MUCH BIGGER LARGER BETTR DEVELOPED AND FURTHER WEST THAN THE 0Z

[Clinch Leatherwood]

No disrespect taken. I just want someone to actually explain (and not just throw out "it seems as though"). I'm looking at upper air charts from the GFS at h114 and comparing with the surface low at 120h...it makes perfect sense to me given the model evolution (and the model can certainly sort out equations better and more completely than I can). Even just at first glance I can ascertain where the maximum PVA is occuring at mid levels and see the surface reflection is consistent.

And for that matter I'd largely agree that the GGEM is consistent. We also have to keep this in the backdrop that this is largely/close to the track of the EC ENS which would likely have the most skill in comparison at this range.

Are we viewing this through the eyes of what earlier models had for an epic storm or for what it is as we approach?

I think we are seeing consensus now as the track cone narrows but even with that the track range historically has to be a couple hundred miles as this point which means focusing on the details is an educational exercise but not really fruitful.

Keep in mind these are two models that couldn't forecast the trough snows up here correctly as recently as 36 hours ago. We're expecting too much 100 hours out.

[Tiburon]

No disrespect taken. I just want someone to actually explain (and not just throw out "it seems as though"). I'm looking at upper air charts from the GFS at h114 and comparing with the surface low at 120h...it makes perfect sense to me given the model evolution (and the model can certainly sort out equations better and more completely than I can). Even just at first glance I can ascertain where the maximum PVA is occuring at mid levels and see the surface reflection is consistent.

This is why you have the met degree and the rest of us take cues from you, Dave, Allan, and the rest. Thanks for the explanation, and if you ever get the chance, a tutorial on this concept would be an awesome gift to the amateurs on the board.

[ezweather]

I am totally amazed by the ridging thats forecasted by most of the models.. Great signal for big events.. Its gotta lead to huge trough over the east.. Hence the big storm idea...

By the way, great posts as always and by all the other pros here. Your information is absolutely invaluable and no doubt has kept my meteorology skill set sharp over the past 10 years since I graduated from PSU..

I do think the big storm idea is looking really good. Just amazing, given that we are in a strong La Nina season. I think thats what makes this a heck of a challenge for it to happen. Never a dull moment..

Anyway, definitely very interesting and exciting stuff here.

at 108n hrs look at the 500 mb map

then the surface

IMO the Low is still waaaaaaaaay too far east given that the 500 Low closed and negative SHOULD be capturing it and pulling it back

[vinylfreak89]

dtk et al, any idea why the PVA on the GGEM is so difuse?

[CoastalWx]

From other thread at 126 hours GFS has 939mb?? WTF!

959.

[WeSuck]

959.

Ahh ok, still an extreme deep system

[SACRUS]

From other thread at 126 hours GFS has 939mb?? WTF!

i see 964 at 126

[rainstorm]

it appears to me the gfs shows a nice pattern change at 168 to warmer.

http://moe.met.fsu.edu/cgi-bin/gfstc2.cgi?time=2010122212&field=Sea+Level+Pressure&hour=168hr

when a pattern is in flux isnt that a possible window for a big storm to develop?

[NJwinter23]

it appears to me the gfs shows a nice pattern change at 168 to warmer.

http://moe.met.fsu.e...sure&hour=168hr

when a pattern is in flux isnt that a possible window for a big storm to develop?

This has undoubtedly become the big pattern breaking storm signal...whether thats a hit or just offshore for many of us remains to be seen.

[ohleary]

And for that matter I'd largely agree that the GGEM is consistent. We also have to keep this in the backdrop that this is largely/close to the track of the EC ENS which would likely have the most skill in comparison at this range.

Are we viewing this through the eyes of what earlier models had for an epic storm or for what it is as we approach?

I think we are seeing consensus now as the track cone narrows but even with that the track range historically has to be a couple hundred miles as this point which means focusing on the details is an educational exercise but not really fruitful.

Keep in mind these are two models that couldn't forecast the trough snows up here correctly as recently as 36 hours ago. We're expecting too much 100 hours out.

I have to ask myself, what is more likely to happen, a model locking on to a correct solution 120 hours out and showing that same solution for the next 10 cycles? Or a model in the ballpark at 120 hours, then waffling and trending toward a solution in the next 10 cycles as it gets more information and into it's wheelhouse time-wise? It's not anything about either of the models (or even strictly scientific actually) but I am more comfortable with how the GFS is evolving. I'd rather see waffling this far out, then a trend being established, then what we want as the final solution evolving inside 60 hours, than the what we want as a final solution looking us in the face at 120 hours out.

[A-L-E-X]

959.

What's some of the strongest lows youve seen? March 1993 is the strongest I remember, and the Tax Day noreaster in 4/2007 was probably the next strongest. I think 12/2009 from last year was in the 960s also.

[NJwinter23]

I'm looking at ralieghwx, and i swear to god it says 939. Something must be wrong.

http://raleighwx.ame...6_county126.gif

It also says 1064 H right next to it too

[kpantz]

it appears to me the gfs shows a nice pattern change at 168 to warmer.

http://moe.met.fsu.e...sure&hour=168hr

when a pattern is in flux isnt that a possible window for a big storm to develop?

Haven't seen the NAO forecast, but many of the big ones over the years have occurred when the NAO was increasing (which includes decreasing negativity).

[Kmlwx]

I'm looking at ralieghwx, and i swear to god it says 939. Something must be wrong.

http://raleighwx.ame...6_county126.gif

It's an error look at the high right next to it.

[A-L-E-X]

I'm looking at ralieghwx, and i swear to god it says 939. Something must be wrong.

http://raleighwx.ame...6_county126.gif

It does say 939 on there but it also has a High right next to the Low-- so obviously that's all wrong lol.