Edge Weather Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 Gives SC and Eastern NC some decent snow between 48 and 60 hrs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 Where did the Vort Energy in the Southern Stream go? Trough is still negative. And that's a negative for a big EC storm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earthlight Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 that'll help bomb it out by dispersing the height contours and lowering the pressure.. I'm worried about the track. It still seems so far east. It's def. a whiff. I'm just interested to see what we might accomplish as far as upper level trends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishIwas Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 What does OTS stand for??? sorry newbie here e Out To Sea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THEREALTOR1 Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 I only compared up to the 60 hr panel on this run vs the 12Z 72 hr run, but it seemed that there was quite a bit of difference on some of the panels between the two runs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edge Weather Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 The southern vortex energy went out of the NAM's 42-48 hr range where it is best. Where did the Vort Energy in the Southern Stream go? Trough is still negative. And that's a negative for a big EC storm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ridingtime Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 Where did the Vort Energy in the Southern Stream go? Trough is still negative. And that's a negative for a big EC storm. I'm pretty we sure we want the trough to go negative and here the trough is positive which is bad for an east coast storm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 It's def. a whiff. I'm just interested to see what we might accomplish as far as upper level trends. completely? I'm not seeing that for parts of the island. Not arguing just trying to build on what I have picked up from you, Tombo and some of the others over the last few days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doorman Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 thanks for the replies Can I ask you guys did anyone have this OTS scenario pegged??? not on a model I mean on a forecast that you know of??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tornadojay Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 It's def. a whiff. I'm just interested to see what we might accomplish as far as upper level trends. there's a ton of energy.. that's for sure.. it's just so sheared out and symetrical... the energy is basically just following the flow pattern, but it's not doing enough to tilt this thing. It's like we need another sharp embedded shortwave in there to help tilt it negative or something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edge Weather Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 Overall not enough, but definitely a much better model run and it really only looses what we need after the 48 hrs that this model was truly intended for. Have to wait and see what might be an interesting GFS run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 I'm pretty we sure we want the trough to go negative and here the trough is positive which is bad for an east coast storm. Oh, yea, you're right. Sorry, my bad. I sometimes get confused and mix the two up. Still learning here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowtrain Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 there's a ton of energy.. that's for sure.. it's just so sheared out and symetrical... the energy is basically just following the flow pattern, but it's not doing enough to tilt this thing. It's like we need another sharp embedded shortwave in there to help tilt it negative or something like that. So the northern stream appears to be running the show here? Is that correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forkyfork Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 15z sref tracks: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ridingtime Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 The positives I take from the NAM is that the right side trough going through Wisconsin and Missouri is a good deal further west. If the southern wave would have been stronger and phased early, I believe that would have allowed for more digging as well and a more west up the coast track. Hopefully people are correct in saying the NAM poorly analyzes the southern stream wave past 48 hours. If it would have kept the southern wave stronger, the phase could have happened better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 So the northern stream appears to be running the show here? Is that correct? That's what I'm thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 The southern vortex energy went out of the NAM's 42-48 hr range where it is best. Very true, but why has it remained so constant with the degenration of the s/w piece of energy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 I'm actually thinking that the GFS looks better than the NAM at this point in time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ridingtime Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 So the northern stream appears to be running the show here? Is that correct? It seems like that. If the southern short wave would not have dissipated, there could have been more northern and southern stream interaction. Hopefully the NAM past 48 hrs just sucks at analyzing the southern stream as some have said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonli18t Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 I'm actually thinking that the GFS looks better than the NAM at this point in time... i don't think anyone would disagree with that, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edge Weather Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 Because this model was designed originally to be run for only 48 hrs and they extended it to 84 hrs. It is best in the 48 hrs range. This is past its best range, that is one of the reasons it loses it. Very true, but why has it remained so constant with the degenration of the s/w piece of energy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ridingtime Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 I'm actually thinking that the GFS looks better than the NAM at this point in time... Let the 0z GFS run first, k? I don't think it's wise to compare a model to another when one has run with newer data while the other has not yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edge Weather Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 Notice how different the 850 low structure is from 66 hrs on this run, versus the previous one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tornadojay Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 So the northern stream appears to be running the show here? Is that correct? oh yea, definitely it's taken over. Once you get to about 60 hours or so and you animate it beyond there, there is shear vorticity essentially circulating around the system, however, the height contours remain pretty constant, so essentially the same amounts of vorticity is advecting to the same area, so there really isn't one particular area in which there is a tremendous amount of vorticity advection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ridingtime Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 Because this model was designed originally to be run for only 48 hrs and they extended it to 84 hrs. It is best in the 48 hrs range. This is past its best range, that is one of the reasons it loses it. Ah good, and I am hopeful that if it would not have lost it, the storm would have been more west. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doorman Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 Cimss Steering Jet Upper Level http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/tropic2/real-time/dlmmain.php?&basin=atlantic&sat=wg8∏=dlm6&zoom=&time= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isotherm Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 The differences at H5 18Z vs 00z NAM are actually quite astounding. Look at the significant shift SW in the entire mean trough position, the much higher heights off the SE US coast and closer in s/w on the 00z run. The ridge in the West is also poking up further NE in Canada. Still too little too late for the surface reflection, but if we're seeing these kinds of major changes at 60 hrs out, we've got a ways to go here. 18Z NAM valid 72 hrs 00z NAM valid 66 hrs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdt Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 there's a ton of energy.. that's for sure.. it's just so sheared out and symetrical... the energy is basically just following the flow pattern, but it's not doing enough to tilt this thing. It's like we need another sharp embedded shortwave in there to help tilt it negative or something like that. Close but no cigar. Definitely need this to sharpen up to give us a better outcome. Is that possible? Sure. Is it likely at this point? Probably not but still worthy of watching the rest of 0z runs and even 12z runs tomorrow before completely throwing in the towel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tombo82685 Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 this has already been mentioned, but the trof is not deep enough and its to wide. Once the storm does phase the front side of the trof where it goes neg titlt is already a good bit off shore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ridingtime Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 this has already been mentioned, but the trof is not deep enough and its to wide. Once the storm does phase the front side of the trof where it goes neg titlt is already a good bit off shore I'm seeing that. Is there anything that can narrow the trof? Earlier phase? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.