Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,910
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    WichitaChiefSam
    Newest Member
    WichitaChiefSam
    Joined

May 2021 Discussion


weatherwiz
 Share

Recommended Posts

  On 5/18/2021 at 4:25 PM, dendrite said:

HRW-FV3

Pivotal has it too

Expand  

So the new HREF is now more GFS based instead of the old that was NAM based is how I read it?

“All HiresW-FV3 domains are initialized from a 6 h old cycle of the
Global Forecast System (GFS).  Previously the HiresW-NMMB
utilized North American Model (NAM) surface conditions for all
non-Guam domains, and took atmospheric initial conditions from
the Rapid Refresh (RAP) for the CONUS and Puerto Rico domains.”

”The HiresW-FV3 also utilizes a very different set of
physics than the HiresW-NMMB being replaced.  In both models no
parameterized convection is used, but the HiresW-FV3 otherwise
is using GFS-style physics, while the HiresW-NMMB utilized NAM-
style physics.”

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 5/18/2021 at 5:22 PM, powderfreak said:

So the new HREF is now more GFS based instead of the old that was NAM based is how I read it?

“All HiresW-FV3 domains are initialized from a 6 h old cycle of the
Global Forecast System (GFS).  Previously the HiresW-NMMB
utilized North American Model (NAM) surface conditions for all
non-Guam domains, and took atmospheric initial conditions from
the Rapid Refresh (RAP) for the CONUS and Puerto Rico domains.”

”The HiresW-FV3 also utilizes a very different complete piece of shit set of
physics than the HiresW-NMMB being replaced.  In both models no
parameterized convection is used, but the HiresW-FV3 otherwise
is using GFS-style physics in an attempt to embarrass NCEP to go the global stage, while the HiresW-NMMB utilized NAM-
style physics.”

Expand  

Right - so now American technology has NO viable modeling option

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 5/18/2021 at 5:22 PM, powderfreak said:

So the new HREF is now more GFS based instead of the old that was NAM based is how I read it?

“All HiresW-FV3 domains are initialized from a 6 h old cycle of the
Global Forecast System (GFS).  Previously the HiresW-NMMB
utilized North American Model (NAM) surface conditions for all
non-Guam domains, and took atmospheric initial conditions from
the Rapid Refresh (RAP) for the CONUS and Puerto Rico domains.”

”The HiresW-FV3 also utilizes a very different set of
physics than the HiresW-NMMB being replaced.  In both models no
parameterized convection is used, but the HiresW-FV3 otherwise
is using GFS-style physics, while the HiresW-NMMB utilized NAM-
style physics.”

Expand  

I think it just specifically replaces the old WRF NMM model. I don't think the other hi res models changed to a more gfs based physics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 5/18/2021 at 5:19 PM, dendrite said:

A bunch of shoreline stations are 81-83. With WNW flow it may be near legit.

Expand  

Yeah it’s 81 here and their trajectory is lower el from this region.  
 

I mean they may have a warm problem with instrumentation at that particular site but today is not a good day to test that assumption
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 5/18/2021 at 7:46 PM, CT Rain said:

Has a decent look synoptically but very little CAPE as modeled. Will be interesting to see if this changes over time. 

Expand  

Not holding my breath considering it's New England, but I'd bet the CAPE would look better as we get closer on that synoptic look. It would be useful if the flow at sfc was a little more southerly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 5/18/2021 at 7:33 PM, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said:

77/46, can’t beat this. What a large coc stretch we’ve been feeling. We’ll mix in some dewy days over the weekend and but more coc incoming.

Expand  

Early indications say yes. Meh mild up and we're back to it.

Early indications of a cold front pushing through early next week,
  bringing an end to the early summer regime. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 5/18/2021 at 8:23 PM, ORH_wxman said:

Not holding my breath considering it's New England, but I'd bet the CAPE would look better as we get closer on that synoptic look. It would be useful if the flow at sfc was a little more southerly.

Expand  

Definitely. Was surprised when I saw that look to see so little CAPE explicitly modeled. Worth keeping an eye on. 

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...