Bob Chill Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 this was a great run and now play into the GFS bias, a blend of the Euro/GGEM and GFS camps would work out really well now. Do you find this type of run to run variance troubling? We are getting fairly close to the event and there is a good bit of divergence on what is happening @ H5. If this really does end up being a Miller A system then the models should start to build on some consensus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhineasC Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Am I looking at the right maps? Temps don't seem any warmer than I'd expect with a monster low heading up the coast. Yeah, coastal and southern sections will mix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAPE Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 For you. lol...yeah yeah....but surface temps are the issue not 850s...which are marginal even with the offshore track. that high wayyyyyyyyy too far offshore. low level temps are gonna warm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhineasC Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Yes temps are the obvious concern now. Even the GFS looks warm for how far OTS it is. Without any blocking I don't see where the cold is coming from on this storm. May work out for inland areas though. DC would be fine in this setup. Stop posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usedtobe Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 The gFS certainly remains an outlier on the very eastern edge of any envelope of solutions. It probably will look markedly different on the 18Z run. It looked to me like in the 1st 84 hrs it trended towards the euro solution before veering off on its own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interstate Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 The problem is the temps are marginable with this run. If you bring it closer to the coast... the temps are going to be too warm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midlo Snow Maker Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 reorts just went way up let me head to the nyc phily forum jma gfs together for now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swiscaster Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 I was worried until the GFS brought back the Miller A, I still believe this even will be farther east than the Euro and GGEM. Euro and GGEM are rarely ever a winning combo. I would still be worried that it appears no reliable model shows a snowstorm for our area, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pojrzsho Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Am I looking at the right maps? Temps don't seem any warmer than I'd expect with a monster low heading up the coast. Yeah, coastal and southern sections will mix. I may be looking at this wrong, but if that low was close enough to give heavy precip (say the "blues") to say DC, IF that rn/sn line moved west with it it would be rain for many. Again, just according to this GFS run at 102 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAPE Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 The problem is the temps are marginable with this run. If you bring it closer to the coast... the temps are going to be too warm. yes MARGINAL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dtk Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Do you find this type of run to run variance troubling? We are getting fairly close to the event and there is a good bit of divergence on what is happening @ H5. If this really does end up being a Miller A system then the models should start to build on some consensus. Troubling in what sense? The run to run variance is indicative of the huge error growth (ensembles anyone?) associated with this type of development, and associated extreme sensitivity to small perturbations in the initial conditions. There isn't always a magical lead time where something becomes "finitely" predictable...each event has its own unique set of issues/characteristics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanVA Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 The problem is the temps are marginable with this run. If you bring it closer to the coast... the temps are going to be too warm. No, again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quasievil Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 The problem is the temps are marginable with this run. If you bring it closer to the coast... the temps are going to be too warm. You're worrying about something which is really irrelevant right now. Find the track and we'll "worry" about temps later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhineasC Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 This has been the worst bit of model analysis I have ever seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr No Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 To me this is a great run. Still want the GFS S&E now as the season (and usual model) trend is to nudge things a bit north over time. We should be thrilled at the potential the models show compared to this snow hole crap we've been dealing with so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 What's concerning is it seems like if the coastal did move closer it would be rain for many....since even the precip on the coast light as it is is falling as rain at 102 yes and no, a west track would also come with a more amplified system and more dynamics involved in the CCB. This would create a colder profile to the west of the low track. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pojrzsho Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Troubling in what sense? The run to run variance is indicative of the huge error growth (ensembles anyone?) associated with this type of development, and associated extreme sensitivity to small perturbations in the initial conditions. There isn't always a magical lead time where something becomes "finitely" predictable...each event has its own unique set of issues/characteristics. That's a really good point. Are you saying based on the information fed into the 12Z GFS run at 12 1/22, the solution shown is possibly viable? Obviously realizing there are other models and factors involved Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dtk Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 yes and no, a west track would also come with a more amplified system and more dynamics involved in the CCB. This would create a colder profile to the west of the low track. Exactly, a more westward track would imply many different things in terms of development....you simply can't translate everything associated (temps/qpf) with the storm linearly westward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhineasC Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 That's a really good point. Are you saying based on the information fed into the 12Z GFS run at 12 1/22, the solution shown is possibly viable? Obviously realizing there are other models and factors involved If the model spits it out with no errors it is physically possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yeoman Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 That's a really good point. Are you saying based on the information fed into the 12Z GFS run at 12 1/22, the solution shown is possibly viable? Obviously realizing there are other models and factors involved I thought it was common sense for weather enthusiasts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhineasC Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Just reading through here...would it be possible to have a met explain what is going on as far as temp concerns? I know that a couple were talking about it last night in the Philly thread about even with a good track this could still be rain for their area...could a met explain why? Go ask in the Pittsburgh forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Exactly, a more westward track would imply many different things in terms of development....you simply can't translate everything associated (temps/qpf) with the storm linearly westward. This should be added to a list of "tips for weenies" because I have a feeling many do just that, shift a storm west/east and impose the exact same profile to the storm without realizing that the move west or east would be in response to a different development process to the storm and the dynamics would be different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pojrzsho Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 This has been the worst bit of model analysis I have ever seen. Not blowing smoke Phin, but I think you are one of the most level headed non met poster we have here. What is encouraging to you about this run? My stated concern is it seems like we could be dealing w a situation that's either kinda warm with little precip (like this run showed) or too warm with a lot of precip Is this crazy to think this way? I sincerely want to know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Chill Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Troubling in what sense? The run to run variance is indicative of the huge error growth (ensembles anyone?) associated with this type of development, and associated extreme sensitivity to small perturbations in the initial conditions. There isn't always a magical lead time where something becomes "finitely" predictable...each event has its own unique set of issues/characteristics. Touble in the sense of feeling confident in making a forecast based on the data available. We are only 3-4 days away now. I totally understand how difficult it is for ANY model to nail a complicated system. I was directing my post to psuhoffman because ufortunately for him, he will be responsible for any bad outcome of this strom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelScott Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Just reading through here...would it be possible to have a met explain what is going on as far as temp concerns? I know that a couple were talking about it last night in the Philly thread about even with a good track this could still be rain for their area...could a met explain why? Not a met, but to my understanding the real problem is that we don't have strong blocking to keep the high pressure that will be across New England on Sunday/Monday in place for the storm. You probably won't have many problems in Pittsburgh, and the track would have to come very far inland for you to be worried about temps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dtk Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 That's a really good point. Are you saying based on the information fed into the 12Z GFS run at 12 1/22, the solution shown is possibly viable? Obviously realizing there are other models and factors involved Possible? Sure....(most of) the operational global models are good enough nowadays that you need to take all of their guidance seriously within the 3-5 day period (in terms of synoptic scale development). You still shouldn't take NWP output verbatim, however....it's only guidance (and subject to approximations, parameterizations, finite differencing of actual equations, etc.). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tcutter Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Go ask in the Pittsburgh forum. maybe he feels the mets here are more knowledgeable or more likely to answer a question???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paweatherguy1 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Go ask in the Pittsburgh forum. Ok, then just asking, could you explain your thoughts on why you think dc will stay snow in the setup? I'm truly confused by the ten different viewpoints in here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhineasC Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Not blowing smoke Phin, but I think you are one of the most level headed non met poster we have here. What is encouraging to you about this run? My stated concern is it seems like we could be dealing w a situation that's either kinda warm with little precip (like this run showed) or too warm with a lot of precip Is this crazy to think this way? I sincerely want to know As others have said, the mechanism that would bring this closer to the coast would probably change the temp profiles. It might look warm because we have no precip. Look what happens in SNE. It is warm but then temps crash as the heavy precip rolls in. The models can pick that up to an extent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pojrzsho Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 I thought it was common sense for weather enthusiasts. It may be....but I've seen some long term folks that add a lot of "throw it out" mentality posts that says otherwise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.