H2Otown_WX Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I guess all we can say for sure is either the NAM or the GFS is going to get b***h slapped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weatherwiz Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 The difference between H5 on the NAM/GFS is pretty astonishing...as well as at the sfc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OKpowdah Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 every single model website is craaawling lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phishn Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 On 1/11/2011 at 3:43 AM, Typhoon Tip said: <br /><br /><br /> the gfs is not the model we should be using in this scenario<br /> <br /><br /><br />Agreed. I'm concerned about nam and euro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 On 1/11/2011 at 3:52 AM, ETauntonMA said: It's stronger in the upper levles than the 18z run. I don't see why it should be tucked in a bit closer. Well because heights out ahead were a little flatter. If heights are higher, and you have more of the S-curve look in the height lines, you increase diffluence and hence the low will intensify and move more north. Like I said..I don't know if it's right. Personally, I would say the final solution is west of the gfs, jmho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southshorewx Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 On 1/11/2011 at 3:48 AM, Typhoon Tip said: but fails, yea Dec 9 2005 Matt Noyes just used that storm for his wind forcast. That event had 100 + winds. Crazy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nutmegfriar Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 On 1/11/2011 at 3:37 AM, CT Rain said: Did you drink some of Kevin's cranky juice today? lol He said he would send me some acorns if I filled in for him tonight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 On 1/11/2011 at 3:52 AM, weathafella said: Would we get 8+ from NAM? Likely. Would we get it from RGEM? Likely. Would we get it from GFS? Likely. Tis true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weathafella Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Could be worse.....I'm fine with this and especially adjusting it westward some... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baroclinic Zone Posted January 11, 2011 Author Share Posted January 11, 2011 On 1/11/2011 at 3:55 AM, CoastalWx said: Well because heights out ahead were a little flatter. If heights are higher, and you have more of the S-curve look in the height lines, you increase diffluence and hence the low will intensify and move more north. Like I said..I don't know if it's right. Personally, I would say the final solution is west of the gfs, jmho. Ditto. Time for a few hours sleep. Be back at 2am or so to check in on the rest of the 00z suite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weatherwiz Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I will certainly take that QPF graphic and run with it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DomNH Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Well...nervously and tentatively off to bed. Heavy heavy 'rea before I check the models tomorrow morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clinch Leatherwood Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 On 1/11/2011 at 3:53 AM, weatherwiz said: The difference between H5 on the NAM/GFS is pretty astonishing...as well as at the sfc. I posted the 2 day verifications of the NAM/GFS this am. NAM was pretty terrible, GFS was about as good as it gets. So was the UK for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoarfrostHubb Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 GN - weenies crossed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dryslot Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Well, GFS did not give us answers, But it did leave a lot more questions....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confuzzled Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 On 1/11/2011 at 3:53 AM, H2Otown_WX said: I guess all we can say for sure is either the NAM or the GFS is going to get b***h slapped. The RGEM and SREFs don't have as much pcp as the Nam but still considerably more than the GFS and the Euro as well. Everything I am looking at is showing more pcp and further west than the gfs (SREF, NAM, RGEM and even the 12z Euro). Have to wait for the euro tonight now to comment further but the Gfs looks a bit lonely right now... Safest forecast is probably somewhere between the two extremes (Nam/GFS) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confuzzled Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 On 1/11/2011 at 3:58 AM, messenger said: I posted the 2 day verifications of the NAM/GFS this am. NAM was pretty terrible, GFS was about as good as it gets. So was the UK for that matter. That is not a good sign... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2Otown_WX Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Man, this is a tough forecast for western areas, I don't know what to think at this point. As a , I want to believe the GFS is too far east but I also think the NAM is overdoing it...maybe the ECM is a good compromise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clinch Leatherwood Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Here's your 36 hour UK v NAM comparison...pretty close...not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DomNH Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 On 1/11/2011 at 3:57 AM, weatherwiz said: I will certainly take that QPF graphic and run with it If I end up getting 6'' after all this fanfare, I'll be more than a bit perturbed. But I digress, because that's not going to happen. Gahbage in, gahbage out. Goodnight all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dendrite Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Dec 05 did not use the NAM as we know it today. It was just the ETA model with the name "NAM". The NAM switched from ETA to WRF in June 06. So this is not the same NAM that was spitting out model images for Dec 05. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mostman Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Someone explain to me why the maps on twisterdata.com don't have LI on them. I've been drinking - so that might be the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 LOL, over 2,000 wrecks in SC per SC State Troopers. Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clinch Leatherwood Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 On 1/11/2011 at 4:01 AM, dendrite said: Dec 05 did not use the NAM as we know it today. It was just the ETA model with the name "NAM". The NAM switched from ETA to WRF in June 06. So this is not the same NAM that was spitting out model images for Dec 05. Great point. Can all you people get off the NOGAPs site please...it won't load...haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weathafella Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Crazy Uncle UKIE has come in further west and wetter... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DomNH Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 On 1/11/2011 at 4:01 AM, dendrite said: Dec 05 did not use the NAM as we know it today. It was just the ETA model with the name "NAM". The NAM switched from ETA to WRF in June 06. So this is not the same NAM that was spitting out model images for Dec 05. At least the 21z old school ETA is a good crushing though . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cold Miser Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 . . . Allright. Now I'm out. Bed is calling me. If I wake up tomorrow and find that I'm really not in the jackpot forecast area like I was today, I really won't be that upset. Just want to keep winter rolling forward on a positive like we seem to have been doing since after Christmas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tropopause_Fold Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 On 1/11/2011 at 4:01 AM, dendrite said: Dec 05 did not use the NAM as we know it today. It was just the ETA model with the name "NAM". The NAM switched from ETA to WRF in June 06. So this is not the same NAM that was spitting out model images for Dec 05. that's a good point brian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weatherwiz Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 On 1/11/2011 at 3:58 AM, messenger said: I posted the 2 day verifications of the NAM/GFS this am. NAM was pretty terrible, GFS was about as good as it gets. So was the UK for that matter. Wish I would have seen that but I didn;t look. Definitely going to take this into consideration when I do a revision tomorrow morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrisrotary12 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I have a buddy who works for the NWS in North Carolina. He says and i quote " All I can tell you is that the NAM omega fields nailed our snow band today whereas the GFS missed it." good sign for us weenies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.