Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,589
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    LopezElliana
    Newest Member
    LopezElliana
    Joined

NYC Jan 11-12 Miller B Thread


am19psu

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 995
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I would have been alot less confident if the Euro and it's ensembles hadn't come so far northwest on the latest 00z run. The GFS is out on it's own..not counting crazy uncle Ukie...I just wonder what kind of problem it is having here. Could it score the coup here? Sure...but I wouldn't bet my money on it at this moment in time.

We have to stay up for the ensembles lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if having the euro and nam together and the ggem trending towards them means its much more likely the gfs is wrong.

Yes it does....there was one storm somewhere between 2006-2009 though where the GFS was correct with its further east solution but I can't remember which one, might have been 3.2.09

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it does....there was one storm somewhere between 2006-2009 though where the GFS was correct with its further east solution but I can't remember which one, might have been 3.2.09

That was a slight bust for NJ and NYC (more of a bust in NJ)..... I remember the original forecast was for 10-18 inches of snow and it was like 8 inches in NYC..... western LI got the 10-12 inch end of the range but the higher amts verified in eastern suffolk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anybody else see the difference here? Maybe its not that much of the difference...I might be nit-picking

:axe: :axe:

http://www.meteo.psu...EAST_6z/f27.gif

http://www.meteo.psu...EAST_6z/f27.gif

The height field is nearly the same. I still give the edge to the non-hydrostatic meso models. GFS simply wasn't made to simulate such a system. The GFS being on its own really isn't much of a worry to me. The ECMWF is also a global, but it has a much higher horizontal resolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if having the euro and nam together and the ggem trending towards them means its much more likely the gfs is wrong.

The NAM/Euro combo is not a crazy one. I have seen it many times before. WHen you get it, it's usually a good thing! With the GEM included, its a really good thing. Remember the last little event we had? That 2 incher in NYC? Well, the GEM had that close to the coast low vice the rest of the guidance and it was RIGHT. So to have all 3 in tandem, it's pretty much a lock. But I'll eat my words of course probly. LOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The height field is nearly the same. I still give the edge to the non-hydrostatic meso models. GFS simply wasn't made to simulate such a system. The GFS being on its own really isn't much of a worry to me. The ECMWF is also a global, but it has a much higher horizontal resolution.

The NAM seems much tighter with the height field to me over New England, heights are backed much more towards the coast.

The NAM and the other hi-res models just have some type of insane cyclogenesis and upper level process going on...and they will not give up, very steady throughout the entire short term so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the NAM is west. Truth probably lies in the middle hedging closer to the NAM by like a 70/30 ratio. Basically the other consensus of guidance.

So the EURO and its ensembles are about twice as close to the NAM than they are to the GFS, Will?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to bother you with excessive questions, but what is the difference between a hydrostatic and a non-hydrostatic model?

I was a Spanish/French major in college so I don't have the meteorology background but try to follow this stuff reasonably well.

I would explain it, but AMS explains it better, haha.

In short though, non-hydrostatic models are a much more realistic interpretation of the atmosphere--especially with respect to convection and mesoscale atmospheric phenomena that do not follow hydrostatic equilibrium, but they can have major sensitivity issues due to the noise inherent in models. In other words, they can develop nasty feedback issues. This is why the NAM and other non-hydro models, under certain circumstances, can overdevelop a low.

nonhydrostatic model—An atmospheric model in which the hydrostatic approximation is not made, so that the vertical momentum equation is solved.This allows nonhydrostatic models to be used successfully for horizontal scales of the order of 100 m, resolving small-scale mesoscale circulations such as cumulus convection and sea-breeze circulations. In recent years, computer power has made mesoscale weather prediction with nonhydrostatic models feasible, and several such models are in routine use by major meteorological modeling groups and operational centers. See hydrostatic model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NAM/Euro combo is not a crazy one. I have seen it many times before. WHen you get it, it's usually a good thing! With the GEM included, its a really good thing. Remember the last little event we had? That 2 incher in NYC? Well, the GEM had that close to the coast low vice the rest of the guidance and it was RIGHT. So to have all 3 in tandem, it's pretty much a lock. But I'll eat my words of course probly. LOL.

I remember that combo first working out in Jan 1996 ;) The GFS/AVN was the outlier there too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would explain it, but AMS explains it better, haha.

In short though, non-hydrostatic models are a much more realistic interpretation of the atmosphere--especially convection, but they can have major sensitivity issues due to the noise inherent in models. In other words, they can develop nasty feedback issues. This is why the NAM and other non-hydro models, under certain circumstances, can overdevelop a low.

nonhydrostatic model—An atmospheric model in which the hydrostatic approximationis not made, so that the vertical momentum equation is solved.This allows nonhydrostatic models to be used successfully for horizontal scales of the order of 100 m, resolving small-scale mesoscale circulations such as cumulus convection and sea-breeze circulations. In recent years, computer power has made mesoscale weather prediction with nonhydrostatic models feasible, and several such models are in routine use by major meteorological modeling groups and operational centers. See hydrostatic model.

I was going to ask you too, but I had a guess in mind which turned out to be wrong lol-- based on the term "hydrostatic" being used, I had assumed it meant that the model does a better job resolving the finer details of atmosphere/land/sea coupling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to bother you with excessive questions, but what is the difference between a hydrostatic and a non-hydrostatic model?

I was a Spanish/French major in college so I don't have the meteorology background but try to follow this stuff reasonably well.

I was going to ask you too, but I had a guess in mind which turned out to be wrong lol-- based on the term "hydrostatic" being used, I had assumed it meant that the model does a better job resolving the finer details of atmosphere/land/sea coupling.

In short, the GFS and other global models need to "parameterize" both convection and sub-grid scale phenomena while the NAM and non-hydrostatic models can realistically "simulate" those phenomena using the fully discretized Navier-Stokes equations (although sub-grid scale phenomena are still parameterized--think cloud microphysics or cumulus convection). Once again though, noise can be an issue since less aggressive filters are used in the analysis. This is why the NAM can be so unreliable run to run. This is also why global models will remain hydrostatic for a long time to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In short, the GFS and other global models need to "parameterize" both convection and sub-grid scale phenomena while the NAM and non-hydrostatic models can realistically "simulate" those phenomena using the fully discretized Navier-Stokes equations. Once again though, noise can be an issue since less aggressive filters are used in the analysis. This is why the NAM can be so unreliable run to run. This is also why global models will remain hydrostatic for a long time to come.

Is the ECM hydrostatic despite its high resolution?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generally high resolution models such as the ARW/NMM NCEP hi-res and the NAM and ETA are non-hydrostatic. SUNY MM5 is also I believe. Otherwise, most other models are hydrostatic, including the regional GEM and all global models.

Thanks so much for the detailed explanation.

BTW, GFS gives NYC metro 1-3" snowfall from a clipper at Day 5. Looks like a solid nuisance event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The positioning of the upper level height field and shortwave really argues for the surface low to be at least 25-50 miles further west and deeper than the GFS places it...and also argues for a precip shield to develop and expand from Delaware northward through New Jersey into the New York area..and then rapidly intensify. I wonder if some sort of shortwave is escaping northeast, or something along those lines, that might be dampening it's height field. The NAM is definitely tighter and closer to the coast w/ the H5 heights even at 21-24 hours as are most other models.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks so much for the detailed explanation.

BTW, GFS gives NYC metro 1-3" snowfall from a clipper at Day 5. Looks like a solid nuisance event.

The last thing I will say before I go is this--this event will be a NOWcast event by 12/15Z. Tracking that coastal low and its placement will likely point to the eventual model of choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...