Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,607
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    ArlyDude
    Newest Member
    ArlyDude
    Joined

Monitoring a potential important TV to East Coastal storm: Jan 17


Typhoon Tip
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

As bad as the NAM is, its still like an ensemble member capable to spotting a trend....I honestly get nervous when I see it super amped this close in, and that is the truth. Who would have thought the OP GFS would lead the amped charge on a coastal?

It's a strange twist of model swapping for sure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

00z EURO still puts down over a foot of snow in ORH country on the narcan map.

Will, what do you make of this? That is not clown algorithm and its usually conservative, but it seems a bit overzealous in this case. The other clown maps are very little... Think it just really likes the antecedent airmass?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Will, what do you make of this? That is not clown algorithm and its usually conservative, but it seems a bit overzealous in this case. The other clown maps are very little... Think it just really likes the antecedent airmass?

Big east flow against the east slopes? I think that is plausible.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

Big east flow against the east slopes? I think that is plausible.

I was speaking more to thermals....the usual clown suspects were relatively reserved, but that usually stingy algorithm saw something it liked. I think it speaks to the ample easterly inflow coupled with strong antecedent airmass.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

Big east flow against the east slopes? I think that is plausible.

Yeah if we're getting a storm into NYC with decent antecedent airmass, then i could see a pretty good thump for ORH and other interior locations...esp N of pike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just went through 7 pages of this thread in deference to other's, thought/opinions/ analysis...  and arriving at the end, I have seen almost 0 analysis at all.   Not one deeper read into the very modeling that is 'triggering' the vitriol.   No history/performance, no bias applications... No comparatives to other guidance, weighting those biases ... back and forth, whereby to synthesize valid, objective - I mean nothing.  And, saying, 'x y z model looks like an inland track,'  only, does not constitute substantive analysis. LOL - we get it that there's not enough sugar in your porridge.

There are lots of reasons to be suspect of this last 12 hours of "unsavory" trends in the guidance.   But I'm not sure writing out in laborious detail - which would be necessary to really convey 'the secrets'  - ...is there an audience available for that objective analysis?   I'll try to keep it brief, an extraordinary difficult undertaking from this particular poster hahaha.  But this is long anyway.

1 .. as I have elaborated in frustrating tenor in the past, there is a tendency in most guidance ( particularly the GFS cluster ...) to modestly, almost insidiously over assess S/W mechanics being relayed off the Pacific ocean, over western Canada.   This is an aspect I have noticed as a kind of "reversal of fortune," ever since the infamous "Boxing Day Storm" of 2010, when a massively under-scoped relay resulted in one of the more fantastic short range corrections in modern technology of the field.  We went from veritably nothing, to a blizzard warning, with < 36 hours leading time for coverage/public awareness.  Curiously ... it was on the charts at D 5...7, but then was lost for enough time that even hardened weinershnitzels had moved on with life.                     Oops.                  

That's my conspiracy rant for the day :)   ... I don't like subtle under the radar, insidious coincidences, and that shift seems connective there. Someone's spiking the Pacific punch, because ultimately ... forecasting is about protecting the public - that's the primary charge/responsibility ..Not entertaining the fringe psychosis of this engagement LOL.  So, over-assess = not getting caught with pants down.  The reversal of fortune is that we no longer get the goose in the "positive" direction; more so... there are subtle back-offs and ever since, overall, why we consummately see extended range systems invariably, damped by processing when handling D7's -->  D4's  -->  D1's

Whether this is done deliberately or not, there is definitely that tendency where the models routinely over-magnify the significance of events out in time. Why does that matter here?

2 .. I was comparing the 00z Euro with the GFS...  The GFS is subtly, perhaps crucially, more amplified with two pieces of key mechanics, set to relay off the Pacific about 30 to 36 hours from now:

image.png.f20b3b94877d95b19f7d5f0648c3e4bf.png 

This is important, because these two features, actually sneakily phase while descending over and through the Rockies, while the backside of them (ridge) bulges some, with the advent of a +PNAP tendency.  That feeds back on a more intense lower TV total wave space.  The GFS then conserves it's own creation, with a stronger initial cyclongenesis that circumstantially curls NW with those climate-ugly paths out in time. 

3 .. the actual phase that was more visible to the eye, is not even relayed off the Pacific as of these annotations above ( 54 hours from 00z's cycle).  The feature comes in;  it, too, may also be suffering from amplitude fixing by the GFS - OR - because it is assessing the lead wave space with these features above, ..that may "blind" itself from seeing the main N/stream wave that is coming on board ~ 72 hours. If these lead features combine and are thus "too strong," they'll resist the more important phasing ... ironically, that was being constructed when this was D7

This is too long even for me.. I think we need to wait until these aspects above are actually a part of the physically materialized sounding, because if there is an over-assessment of their "weight" in the flow ( regardless of whether that is intended or accident), this is a situation where that might backfire and cause a problem. This lead gunk could end up weaker, ...even in the ECMWF.  A weaker lead throws less ridging ahead, feeds back less, and ends up more E, for a later N/stream phase.  

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Typhoon Tip said:

I just went through 7 pages of this thread in deference to other's, thought/opinions/ analysis...  and arriving at the end, I have seen almost 0 analysis at all.   Not one deeper read into the very modeling that is 'triggering' the vitriol.   No history/performance, no bias applications... No comparatives to other guidance, weighting those biases ... back and forth, whereby to synthesize valid, objective - I mean nothing.  And, saying, 'x y z model looks like an inland track,'  only, does not constitute substantive analysis. LOL - we get it that there's not enough sugar in your porridge.

There's are lots of reasons to be suspect of this last 12 hours of "unsavory" trends in the guidance.   But I'm not sure writing out in laborious detail - which would be necessary to really convey 'the secrets'  - ...is there an audience available for that objective analysis?   I'll try to keep it brief, an extraordinary difficult undertaking from this particular poster hahaha.  But this is long anyway.

1 .. as I have elaborated in frustrating tenor in the past, there is a tendency in most guidance ( particularly the GFS cluster ...) to modestly, almost insidiously over assess S/W mechanics being relayed off the Pacific ocean, over western Canada.   This is an aspect I have noticed as a kind of "reversal of fortune," ever since the infamous "Boxing Day Storm" of 2010, when a massively under-scoped relay resulted in one of the more fantastic short range corrections in modern technology of the field.  We went from veritably nothing, to a blizzard warning, with < 36 hours leading time for coverage/public awareness.  Curiously ... it was on the charts at D 5...7, but then was lost for enough time that even hardened weinershnitzels had moved on with life.                     Oops.                  

That's my conspiracy rant for the day :)   ... I don't like subtle under the radar, insidious coincidences, and that shift seems connective there. Someone's spiking the Pacific punch, because ultimately ... forecasting is about protecting the public - that's the primary charge/responsibility ..Not entertaining the fringe psychosis of this engagement LOL.  So, over-assess = not getting caught with pants down.  The reversal of fortune is that we no longer get the goose in the "positive" direction; more so... there are subtle back-offs and ever since, overall, why we consummately see extended range systems invariably, damped by processing when handling D7's -->  D4's  -->  D1's

Whether this is done deliberately or not, there is definitely that tendency where the models routinely over-magnify the significance of events out in time. Why does that matter here?

2 .. I was comparing the 00z Euro with the GFS...  The GFS is subtly, perhaps crucially, more amplified with two pieces of key mechanics, set to relay off the Pacific about 30 to 36 hours from now:

image.png.f20b3b94877d95b19f7d5f0648c3e4bf.png 

This is important, because these two features, actually sneakily phase descending over, through the Rockies, while the backside of them/ridge bulges some, with the advent of +PNAP tendencies.  That feeds back on a more intense lower TV total wave space.  The GFS then conserves it's own creation with those climate-ugly curling paths out in time. 

3 .. the actual phase that was more visible to the eye, is not even relayed off the Pacific as of these annotations above ( 54 hours from 00z's cycle).  The feature comes in;  it, too, may also be suffering from amplitude fixing by the GFS - OR - because it is assessing the lead wave space with these features above, ..that may "blind" itself from seeing the main N/stream wave that is coming on board ~ 72 hours. If these features combine and are thus "too strong," they'll resist phasing..

This is too long even for me.. I think we need to wait until these aspects above are actually a part of the physically materialized sounding, because if there is an over-assessment of their "weight" in the flow ( regardless of whether that is intended or accident), this is a situation where that might backfire and cause a problem. This lead gunk could end up weaker, ...even in the ECMWF.  A weaker lead throws less ridging ahead, feeds back less, and ends up more E, for a later N/stream phase.  

Maybe if you had just been here 2 hours ago it would have solved the damn problem

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
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...