Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,605
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    ArlyDude
    Newest Member
    ArlyDude
    Joined

Jan 20-22 Threat Potential Part 2


am19psu

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 992
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Those maps are so frustrating. They are literally 5x the size of my computer screen and I still can't make out what it's saying.

Yeah they are horrific--worse than difax charts. Since it is the CMC though--I am usually in no hurry to see it anyways. I just wait for it to come out on Ewall for the GGEM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gfs time...lets see if we get a flip flop. Since nam went amplified, does gfs go less amplification

I doubt it. GFS has been consistent with every major synoptic feature and has made small but subtle trackable changes without flip-flops. It either holds serve or continues to drop the hammer with that dynamic trop with small ticks N of the surface low.

The GFS is so good for this very reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gotta run to bed, but if you use the heights on the east coast as an indicator..this run could come in a hair south and east. That being said the shortwave coming in from the northern stream is stronger on this run. We shall see...I will be dreaming of a 988mb NAM-like snow bomb. Later dudes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess is the GFS cold bias is coming into play on the 2nd storm, hence why it suppresses everything out to sea, because it erroneously drops the high way too far into the U.S. as opposed to the Euro and GEM, the GFS almost always plunges arctic highs too southerly and not enough easterly in the medium to long rage....I would not totally discount its scenario but generally when the GEM/Euro agree at this range and the GFS does not its usually wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess is the GFS cold bias is coming into play on the 2nd storm, hence why it suppresses everything out to sea, because it erroneously drops the high way too far into the U.S. as opposed to the Euro and GEM....I would not totally discount its scenario but generally when the GEM/Euro agree at this range and the GFS does not its usually wrong.

Definitely something brewing in the Gulf Tuesday on the 6z GFS but is suppressed verbatim. I think that's a major storm threat for the area, and probably the next one to track after Friday's Nor'easter. Interesting that the models have now trended to bringing in a big cold shot early in the weekend, but then saving the true arctic air for after a clipper goes through. Certainly looks incredibly cold by Sunday, great airmass in place with the disturbance brewing down South:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitely something brewing in the Gulf Tuesday on the 6z GFS but is suppressed verbatim. I think that's a major storm threat for the area, and probably the next one to track after Friday's Nor'easter. Interesting that the models have now trended to bringing in a big cold shot early in the weekend, but then saving the true arctic air for after a clipper goes through. Certainly looks incredibly cold by Sunday, great airmass in place with the disturbance brewing down South:

GFS lags a majority of the energy in the south-west .. and only sends a piece east. 0z gfs did not really do this.. nor do any other guidance really. Yes that 126 looks good down south... but after that it goes wacky with the upper levels. At least compared to early runs and its 0z ensembles..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just trying to keep this in perspective, the nam qpf in the Mount Holly CWA has had a wet bias the past month (throughout the northeast coastal region, graphs posted below). The model has been good at showing the processes, but both the gfs and euro qpf have been verifying closer.

post-623-0-02949600-1295444025.gif

post-623-0-04864600-1295444113.gif

post-623-0-76537300-1295444136.gif

post-623-0-27455300-1295444189.gif

That being said this still looks (IMO) like a borderline advisory to warning scenario for our cwa. All the players are in raob range so hopefully closer model consensus from here on in.

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...