Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,611
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    NH8550
    Newest Member
    NH8550
    Joined

March 20th-22nd Suppressed, Fish, Not Coming Threat


Rjay

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, EastonSN+ said:

Just looked at all the models. All go due east after forming hence our lack of precip. 

Just did see GEFS. 8 numbers get appreciable precip in. 

Not impossible but at some point we want to see at least 1 model hit us.

ding ding 12z euro lol

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
34 minutes ago, doncat said:

0.60" line up to about si by Thurs am on euro.

Big improvement from 48 hrs ago. The favorable upper divergence and UL closing off leave room for a closer to BM track adjustment next few days with 2nd low.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Euro to me looked really close to a big solution. It almost had a 3 SLP scenario. Need that first piece to come North so that it doesn’t push the baroclinic zone offshore. It’s too bad that we’ve sort of lost that miller B look from a few days ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, allgame830 said:

Can you post an image of the EPS members I am having an issue locating it? I can only see the mean SLP placement. Thanks 

Spend your own money and stop begging every board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RDRY said:

I know it's off-topic, but what in the heck is the Euro cooking up for next weekend?

Looks like the grand finally. 

Mixed for me on that. Tree fell on house 2 storms ago from all the snow and lost power 10 inches. 9.5 inches in the last storm. 

If this one is another 6 to 12 may be for mercy :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm familiar with Monte Carlo simulations and ensemble approaches to gauging sensitivity, but not in meteorology, so I have a couple of questions.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but in a situation like this, we want the ensemble mean (as defined by either the low pressure track or the axis of most snowfall) to "lean" NW of the actual operational mean (and want the control, the low resolution run within the ensemble, to mimic the actual high resolution op run, so that we know there are no errors being introduced due to resolution issues), which would indicate that the actual track and snowfall are more likely than not to be NW of the actual op output.  And we probably don't want that "lean" to be due to a few large outliers, which would skew the mean too much.  In this case, to me, the max snowfall axis from about Trenton to Asbury Park appears to be significantly NW of the max snowfall axis on the op, which runs more from Wilmington to Toms River, indicating that it's likely the op is too far to the SE.  Do I have that right?  

Also, given we're doing a bunch of runs with initial condition perturbations in the ensembles, one would expect the absolute amounts of snow along the max axis to be moderately to significantly less than for the op (as many runs are well away from the mean/center), but we'd also the expect a spread of snowfall amounts that is likely well beyond the actual precip shield we're likely to see in reality, such that one should not use that spread to estimate where the precip will extend to.  I think some do that thinking, hey, the ensemble mean shows 2" all the way up to location x, when that's only because of the variance in the data about that mean.  

Thanks in advance for any input...

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...