Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,606
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    ArlyDude
    Newest Member
    ArlyDude
    Joined

August Disco 2021. Do record dews continue?


Damage In Tolland
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, alex said:

 

39 this morning, so it seems pretty safe to say that this year we'll have had 30s every month of the year. Go 2021!

Another mid-upper 40s morning here.  2007 was our most recent 30s-in-every-month year.  In 1978 (Fort Kent) we had a frost in every month.  32° on 7/31 damaged my pumpkins and smoked the next door neighbor's beans.  Then August had several frosts and a low of 28.  Frost-free period of 44 days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NAM has an all out coastal storm rapidly materialize...some pretty impressive cyclogenesis. I mean I guess there is ulvl support for such a scenario to occur but it also looks like it is phasing energy with the ulvl to our west and s/w energy off the coast (associated with convection) and well maybe the NAM is a bit too overzealous in this instance. However, should a scenario like this evolve we could see two QPF maxes...one just NW of the low and the other tied into where the best dynamics/forcing occurs. 6z euro did seem to give the NAM some backing though... 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Brian5671 said:

3K nam went well west of its 6z run as well.  Even dumps on me here.

I'm not so sure though it's a product of it being more west...I think it's more of how it evolves the low pressure. The 12z run has a much more mature surface low and is pretty much nearly perfect cyclogenesis. So I think the talk of models being "west vs east' is not necessarily correct...it's a matter of how the area of low pressure evolves. 

I am kinda torn on this. Looking at the ulvls the dynamics are quite impressive and support a great deal of ulvl divergence. However, given the stationary front it's more likely you'll see multiple areas of low pressure develop along it. Is it possible the NAM is going crazy with one specific shortwave or low? Very possible. Could it also be heavily influenced by convection? Possible. 

At this juncture I think I'd be less inclined to side with the NAM right now until there is additional (stronger) support. I would think one axis of very heavy rain tied right along where the best dynamics/forcing are...which is east of us. However, that ulvl jet structure is eye opening. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

NAM basically tries to go semi-tropical. It's possible..but looked like classic NAM gone wild when it tries to do that.

Yup... it's been doing it on every run. spinning up little cyclone nodes on the warm retrograding front - pretty clearly diabatic garbage.  But each one then positively feeds back and over rains/QPF...blah blah.  It exhibited this exact same behavior at these same sort of time leads, when this very similar scenario of retro WAR pushing the boundary back took place in June.  It didn't verify very well.  just sayn'

Also, the NAM is too cool on SE side of the post boundary environment, from PHL-BOS on Thursday imho.  If the boundary washes out and is NW when that happens, the I-95 is probably 84/73.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's too bad FSU ( c/o Dr Robert Hart ) doesn't carry the cyclone phase for the NAM solutions.

It would be interesting ... I suspect the mid Atlantic spin up is a diabatic/latent heat release/grid scale feed back monster that would also show up as a quasi-symmetric warm core ( though edged in favor of subtropical of course...), but would be faux in the first place if the low doesn't really exist.

The thing is ...the NAM solution is not IMpossible.  The model doesn't ultimately assess solutions out in time that can't happen- wouldn't be much use as any kind of prognostic tool if that were the case.   Although, LOL, the model doesn't much so for any time beyond 36 hours most of the time but that's another story of reasons. 

Anyway, with deterministic Met ...the objective forecaster considers all solutions.  It's just that the acumen is in deciding which one's are probabilistically better seated, and then tabling the others in lieu of those solutions/blends.  

In this case, I tend to think that the NAM is wrong - but I could be. Haha.    But,  part of the reason is because it has a history of zealous W/neary coastal interface deepening.  I keep thinking back to June when a very similar evolution took place. WAR pushing west, pushed an anticedent/vestigial front back NW, and the NAM kept running these low nodes/QPF bombs along it.  None of which verified. 

 

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...