Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,609
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    NH8550
    Newest Member
    NH8550
    Joined

December Medium/Long Range Discussion


yoda
 Share

Recommended Posts

Cobb data is out for the 0Z GFS run. It is surprisingly bad for east of 81 so I wont post it. If anyone want to look at it. go to this link and change MRB to your closest airport code. I am not trying to add negativity to this thread:

https://meteor.geol.iastate.edu/~ckarsten/cobb/cobb.php?model=gfs&site=kmrb

 

  • Sad 1
  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, clskinsfan said:

Cobb data is out for the 0Z GFS run. It is surprisingly bad for east of 81 so I wont post it. If anyone want to look at it. go to this link and change MRB to your closest airport code. I am not trying to add negativity to this thread:

https://meteor.geol.iastate.edu/~ckarsten/cobb/cobb.php?model=gfs&site=kmrb

 

Looked great for KCHO 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This from MAG5035 in the central PA forum

"Hmm, well at least on the WeatherBell products it appears the op data for the GFS and Euro is 0.25º and 0.1º respectively while their ensembles are both at 0.5º resolution. Without getting into a whole thing on GIS/mapping/degrees to meters conversion, the short answer would be yea the ensembles are run at a lower resolution (higher degree number). The high res Euro at 0.1º would be a bigger resolution difference vs it's ensemble. 

So I guess it could be implied that the lower resolution could flatten mesoscale features and thermal boundaries a bit and that difference could show with coastal low development, especially with how warm the water is off the eastern seaboard. Also, ensembles aren't going to see CAD as well as an op or especially a meso model for that same general reasoning. The higher resolution of the ops might be promoting a more explosive coastal response (and also closer to the coastline) just simply on the premise of modeling a sharper clash of warm vs cold. Given the +SST anomalies present on the eastern seaboard and a fairly respectable cold air air mass being supplied by the Canadian high, it may be wise to lean that direction with trying to blend guidance. 

Ultimately, I'm not sure how much the resolution difference actually plays in the grand scheme of things, as an ensemble is made of individual members that have their own specific conditionals to form a mean within a range of possible outcomes, which pretty much can have a similar effect as lower resolution flattening features out. Thing with ensembles is we're typically looking at them to get a handle on overall larger scale things with these events (QPF fields, pressure/height fields, accumulation probabilities, etc).. especially at this middle range where we don't have our short range or meso models in range quite yet. "

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the 00z runs were pretty much a great run for all of the sub-forum, and being totally serious, the CMC actually had some room for improvement (Yes, it could've been a whole lot better) and the GFS finally got a grip and has a surface reflection more indicative to its 5H progression. There wasn't much of a shift at 5H outside the eventual close off over DE, but that's something that won't be solved until closer to game time. 

CAD sig on both the CMC and GFS were classic for a precursor to a major snow for the Balt/DC megalopolis with the wedge down to SC/N GA. One of the biggest differences between the GFS and CMC was actually the extension of dry air at 7H that lead to the storm cutting off a bit abruptly. The 700mb moisture field was actually a good 1 deviation drier than the GFS as a whole, which would limit some of the total moisture content available for the storm. The + Theta-E advection nose was focused well to the north of the area on the CMC where all other models have it right into the sub-forum. One of the biggest reasonings was the CMC actually led an open 7H depiction until just north of our latitude, so that would cause the heaviest plume to be centered over NJ/NY/PA instead of MD/VA. I'm not too worried about that unless it's a pattern the other models pick up. In any case, both would provide warning criteria snows for much of the area. The deformation axis on the GFS is sublime with a co-located 7H and 85H frontogen placed along I-95 with 7H extension back to the western folks. There's a classic "warm nose" indication at 850mb that we see with bombing cyclones in these parts, and that's actually a good thing because that's an indicator of prime moisture advection into the boundary layer in co-location with the lift. This will be a fun event for many and we haven't even talked about banding yet. Good times ^_^

  • Like 20
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...