Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,798
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    manaja
    Newest Member
    manaja
    Joined

February Medium/Long Range Thread


stormtracker
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, eduggs said:

I follow that same area for skiing purposes as well, but I don't fully agree with your analysis. The ICON, GFS, and CMC were clustered fairly close together for several days. Only the ECM showed a stronger primary SLP holding on and sending mixing into NVT and NNY. Yesterday the GFS shifted a bit towards the ECM, but the CMC stayed in the southeast (faster 2ndary development) camp. It's a bit difficult to judge since it changes every cycle, but I would say the ICON has adjusted similarly to the GFS. From NW to SE the order has been ECM, GFS, ICON, CMC... with the NAM now the furthest NW as we approach shorter ranges.

I have not noticed the ICON having a "weak" bias relative to the other mid-range models. Certainly it has less of a tendency to amplify minor shortwaves than the NAM. But from what I've seen it's fairly middle of the road in its upper level synoptics and surface reflections. Regardless of its specific biases, it is slightly less accurate than the CMC and UK. It's one of the best mid-range models in the world, but clearly on the 2nd tier.

Gfs is hard to judge because it jumped from being the furthest SE (other than Gem) to way NW then over corrected SE again and has been correcting back NW. icon was consistently SE. not as much as the furthest SE gfs runs but it never adjusted NW until recently.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About 96... the upper low isn't as amplified and isn't digging quite as far south...those things limit the top end potential here...also its late Feb not early January although we have an arctic airmass to work with so not sure that matters too much....

BUT...in terms of the storm type and evolution they are similar in other ways...with a STJ wave timing up with an arctic front above it and a TPV lobe breaking off and diving down behind the wave.  If you look at the surfact map at 114 hours and compare it to the day before 1996 they look very similar.  

Not predicting the same outcome...just identifying similar storm progressions in the past.  Models struggled with the phasing between the waves in that system also but that was 30 years ago so they should do better now you would think.  That might mean catching on at 100 hours instead of 36 hours out.  

  • Like 1
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

×
×
  • Create New...