A-L-E-X Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 I agree with the progressive biases you mentioned; Im just pointing out the inconsistency of the models and how much theyve waffled around lately. Time and again, what's worked out best has been a compromise track between the western and eastern outliers-- which is usually the case in most winters. Add to that the fact that the ensembles have often done better than the OP in sniffing out trends and that's how we start to build a consensus. It's not a smart idea to latch onto any one model, rather look at the composite to figure out the signal. BTW that slower signal is also what Im counting on, as that gives the next Arctic high to build from the NW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atownwxwatcher Posted January 23, 2011 Author Share Posted January 23, 2011 Just thought i would post this in here...Many say that the NOGAPS is not looked at or referred to by HPC EXTENDED FORECAST DISCUSSION NWS HYDROMETEOROLOGICAL PREDICTION CENTER CAMP SPRINGS MD 140 PM EST SUN JAN 23 2011 VALID 12Z WED JAN 26 2011 - 12Z SUN JAN 30 2011 GUIDANCE OFFERS A COMPLICATED SHORT RANGE MESS INTO MIDWEEK WITH MUCH ABOVE NORMAL FORECAST SPREAD WITH POTENTIAL SRN STREAM STORM DEVELOPMENT AND ASSOCIATED HEAVY PCPN POTENTIAL OUT FROM THE SERN US AND UP/OFF THE EAST COAST INTO THU. UNCERTAINTY WITH UPSTREAM KICKER ENERGY...CONVECTIVE FOCUS...AND NRN STREAM INTERACTION HAS LEAD TO SIGNIFICANT TIMING AND SUPPRESSION ISSUES WITH THE STORM. THE OO UTC ECMWF/UKMET/CANADIAN AND TO A LESSER EXTENT THE 00 UTC GFS CONTINUE TO FAVOR A DEEPENING LOW TRACK MORE ON THE WESTWARD PORTION OF THE ENTIRE SOLUTION ENVELOPE IN STARK CONTRAST TO THE MORE SUPPRESSED 00 UTC NOGAPS AND 06 UTC GUIDANCE INCLUDING THE NAM/DGEX AND ESPECIALLY 06 UTC GFS THAT WAS LESS PROGRESSIVE WITH BOTH SRN STREAM KICKER ENERGY AND LEAD LOW DEVELOPMENT. Apparently they do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atownwxwatcher Posted January 23, 2011 Author Share Posted January 23, 2011 12 Z NOGAPS @ 84 hrs compared to 18 Z NAM @ 78 hrs Notice how a progressive SE Biased model is slightly more west then the NAM @ the same hour... Again and indication that the NAM is too far to the east.... Look for the NAM to get a handle on this at about 48 hrs and under..till then its going to be lost.. 96 hours...progressive bias again applied and yet... about the same location as the 12 Z ECM @ 96 hrs... Overall I expect a further west solution then what the ECM shows @ 96 hrs.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTrials Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.