Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

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

Jan 24-26th Something Potential


Chicago Storm
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Hoosier said:

Such confidence for a guy with like 5" of snow on the season.  Just to note, you'll be held personally responsible if it doesn't shift to include mby.

Go big or go home. 90% chance I go home and resume being my grumpy self. 10% chance I'm grumpy 5 days after this event when it all melts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a note on the model discussion. This is not apples to apples but the GFS was hot garbage for the eastern big dog on December 17th. There was a fairly strong block that developed out ahead of it and the GFS was suppression city within the short range. The NAM, UKMET, GEMs, and ECMWF all far outperformed the operational GFS, and GFS v16 did much better than the op.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going to be a lot of precip with this thing if the trough has any degree of amplitude upon reaching the OV/Lakes. Gulf is wide open.

This is a key point here, related to the potential for a swath of significant precip amounts: If the primary wave remains coherent/amped and juiced (with Pacific and Gulf moisture), there is plenty of latent heat release involved. Height rises out ahead of the wave aided by the latent heat release are part of the question of whether we can strike right balance between it and the confluence created by the strong west based -NAO.  

   

 

Can see it frequently on the east coast when there's blocking in play, and for the EC, there's the addition of Atlantic moisture and heating to add into the equation. Have seen it go both ways, but if the wave remains strong and juiced, it's unlikely to be total suppression city , just the location of the max precip swath modulated. If we do get a strong system out of this l, I do unfortunately expect a sharp gradient on the north and south side, inherent to this type of setup plus the likelihood of mesoscale banding due to a strong thermal gradient.

 

For the reasons above, it's not at all surprising to see duds among the 51 member EPS at this range. What's nice is that it's a dispersive ensemble and we can see the various outcomes and glean confidence in or lose confidence in the preferred outcome. The 12z GEFS is mostly duds because it's too non-dispersive of an ensemble system.

 

Edit: And I agree with @A-L-E-K that it is noteworthy for the EPS mean to show that large 6"+ swath at 10:1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, andyhb said:

IIRC didn't some of this get fixed in the most recent update of the GEFS? Or is that still associated with the v16 testing?

The recent GEFS update involved an increase in resolution (35 to 25 km) and in number of ensemble members (20 to 30). It also included the expansion into subseasonal (35 days) and better stochastic/other physics. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IIRC didn't some of this get fixed in the most recent update of the GEFS? Or is that still associated with the v16 testing?

I think it was supposed to be addressed and the size of the GEFS was increased which theoretically helps. However anecdotally it still appears to be too non-dispersive. Since we don't have many big events to go by this winter, the December 17th event I mentioned earlier, GEFS did suffer from being too close to the op.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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