June 2019 observation and discussion

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Go down

June 2019 observation and discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: June 2019 observation and discussion

Post by rb924119 on Thu Jun 13, 2019 6:10 am

Quietace wrote:
rb924119 wrote:
billg315 wrote:Looks like the new GFS core (FV3) is up and running. We'll see how it performs in the coming months as Fall and Winter slooowly get closer.

Anybody else find it curious that they are releasing it as operational now that it’s summer, when a not insignificant portion of its problems were highlighted with its snowfall prediction? I’m really nervous about this model.
As we know it was delayed for that issue, however, if you read the implementation notice you will find that it states:

"EMC has conducted 3 years of retrospective experiments, including the real-time parallel, covering the past 3.5 years for a  comprehensive evaluation of the Q2FY19 GFS implementation. GFS V15 shows equal or improved forecast skills in many areas, especially for 500-hPa height anomaly correlations, precipitation diurnal cycle and ETS score over the CONUS, surface 2m temperature, stratospheric ozone and water vapor, and hurricane intensity over all basins. Several individual case studies illustrate the model occasionally produces excessive snow in the medium range. EMC also noted a persistent cold bias that increases with forecast time. EMC will continue to explore ways  to address these issues."
There were two updates that were utilized to fix this problem, with a power point link I have included below that describes the issues and fixes in more detail. However, it is noted that while the severity of the issues is moderated, it is not a complete fixed. On one hand, the summer release allows them additional time to provide updates to fix this issue while operating a slightly higher skill score model during a time of year where this bias has little impact. However, the counter-argument is the assumption any fixes can be implemented before the winter.

http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/users/Alicia.Bentley/fv3gfs/updates/MEG_4-04-19_FV3GFS_COLD.pptx

Thanks for posting, Ryan! Mind if I borrow that link to share elsewhere? And in response to yours, I honestly don’t see how they can say it definitively improved, when the raw fractional increases were 1-4% (from what I could tell on mobile). That doesn’t scream “better model” to me. Now, will future fixes increase that, possibly significantly? I hope so! Secondly, there were other issues aside from the snowfall forecasts that led to its suspension. Even though they have started fixing them with results in the right direction, why they didn’t keep it on the shelf and run it in parallel to the base GFS in real time for a longer period baffles me. There’s no way you’re going to convince me that the changes they made were compartmentalized and will only affect cold weather output. Therefore, we really don’t know how/if any biases were truly fixed and/or if any new ones emerged. Sure, they ran hindcasts, but that doesn’t tell you much IMO when the answers to the equations are known and you reverse engineer the equation. It’s just like solving a math problem in grade school: How much easier was it to “show your work” if you knew the answer that you had to get because you happened to remember a homework problem verbatim that showed up on the test, versus if you had no idea and were shaky on the algorithm to solve the problem? No comparison. Same thing here. Why they aren’t continuing to run it in parallel and compare its raw outputs through the next ten months is counterintuitive to me. What happens if it shows the 1-4% change this trop season and this winter, which is for all intents and purposes, negligible, and there is no longer the base GFS to fall back on? Then what? This whole thing seems very much rushed to me in the name of ego. If my tax dollars are being used for this, idc if it takes us ten years to do it, as long as it’s done right. But this just seems knee-jerk, especially when this is going to be THE model used in our field, with lives and property on the line.

rb924119
Meteorologist
Meteorologist

Posts : 4857
Reputation : 179
Join date : 2013-02-06
Age : 27
Location : Greentown, Pa/Fishkill, NY

View user profile

Back to top Go down

June 2019 observation and discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: June 2019 observation and discussion

Post by billg315 on Thu Jun 13, 2019 8:07 am

60* with heavy rain here. This would make a nice little snow event in January. Lol. Looks like some modeling was “off” yesterday keeping the heaviest axis of rain over eastern PA. It seems to be sitting right over NJ this morning. We’ll get over an inch easy.
billg315
billg315
Advanced Forecaster - Mod
Advanced Forecaster - Mod

Posts : 2703
Reputation : 144
Join date : 2015-01-24
Age : 45
Location : Somerville, NJ

View user profile

Back to top Go down

June 2019 observation and discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: June 2019 observation and discussion

Post by Quietace on Thu Jun 13, 2019 1:14 pm

rb924119 wrote:
Quietace wrote:
rb924119 wrote:
billg315 wrote:Looks like the new GFS core (FV3) is up and running. We'll see how it performs in the coming months as Fall and Winter slooowly get closer.

Anybody else find it curious that they are releasing it as operational now that it’s summer, when a not insignificant portion of its problems were highlighted with its snowfall prediction? I’m really nervous about this model.
As we know it was delayed for that issue, however, if you read the implementation notice you will find that it states:

"EMC has conducted 3 years of retrospective experiments, including the real-time parallel, covering the past 3.5 years for a  comprehensive evaluation of the Q2FY19 GFS implementation. GFS V15 shows equal or improved forecast skills in many areas, especially for 500-hPa height anomaly correlations, precipitation diurnal cycle and ETS score over the CONUS, surface 2m temperature, stratospheric ozone and water vapor, and hurricane intensity over all basins. Several individual case studies illustrate the model occasionally produces excessive snow in the medium range. EMC also noted a persistent cold bias that increases with forecast time. EMC will continue to explore ways  to address these issues."
There were two updates that were utilized to fix this problem, with a power point link I have included below that describes the issues and fixes in more detail. However, it is noted that while the severity of the issues is moderated, it is not a complete fixed. On one hand, the summer release allows them additional time to provide updates to fix this issue while operating a slightly higher skill score model during a time of year where this bias has little impact. However, the counter-argument is the assumption any fixes can be implemented before the winter.

http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/users/Alicia.Bentley/fv3gfs/updates/MEG_4-04-19_FV3GFS_COLD.pptx

Thanks for posting, Ryan! Mind if I borrow that link to share elsewhere? And in response to yours, I honestly don’t see how they can say it definitively improved, when the raw fractional increases were 1-4% (from what I could tell on mobile). That doesn’t scream “better model” to me. Now, will future fixes increase that, possibly significantly? I hope so! Secondly, there were other issues aside from the snowfall forecasts that led to its suspension. Even though they have started fixing them with results in the right direction, why they didn’t keep it on the shelf and run it in parallel to the base GFS in real time for a longer period baffles me. There’s no way you’re going to convince me that the changes they made were compartmentalized and will only affect cold weather output. Therefore, we really don’t know how/if any biases were truly fixed and/or if any new ones emerged. Sure, they ran hindcasts, but that doesn’t tell you much IMO when the answers to the equations are known and you reverse engineer the equation. It’s just like solving a math problem in grade school: How much easier was it to “show your work” if you knew the answer that you had to get because you happened to remember a homework problem verbatim that showed up on the test, versus if you had no idea and were shaky on the algorithm to solve the problem? No comparison. Same thing here. Why they aren’t continuing to run it in parallel and compare its raw outputs through the next ten months is counterintuitive to me. What happens if it shows the 1-4% change this trop season and this winter, which is for all intents and purposes, negligible, and there is no longer the base GFS to fall back on? Then what? This whole thing seems very much rushed to me in the name of ego. If my tax dollars are being used for this, idc if it takes us ten years to do it, as long as it’s done right. But this just seems knee-jerk, especially when this is going to be THE model used in our field, with lives and property on the line.
You are preaching to the choir. As someone who runs WRF and MPAS daily, I still believe they chose the wrong core and I won't get over it for a while Smile

_________________
Ryan
B.S. Meteorology from Plymouth State University
Graduate Meteorology Student at Florida State University
Quietace
Quietace
Meteorologist - Mod
Meteorologist - Mod

Posts : 3598
Reputation : 29
Join date : 2013-01-07
Age : 22
Location : Tallahassee, FL

View user profile

Back to top Go down

June 2019 observation and discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: June 2019 observation and discussion

Post by nutleyblizzard on Thu Jun 13, 2019 3:56 pm

Quietace wrote:
rb924119 wrote:
Quietace wrote:
rb924119 wrote:
billg315 wrote:Looks like the new GFS core (FV3) is up and running. We'll see how it performs in the coming months as Fall and Winter slooowly get closer.

Anybody else find it curious that they are releasing it as operational now that it’s summer, when a not insignificant portion of its problems were highlighted with its snowfall prediction? I’m really nervous about this model.
As we know it was delayed for that issue, however, if you read the implementation notice you will find that it states:

"EMC has conducted 3 years of retrospective experiments, including the real-time parallel, covering the past 3.5 years for a  comprehensive evaluation of the Q2FY19 GFS implementation. GFS V15 shows equal or improved forecast skills in many areas, especially for 500-hPa height anomaly correlations, precipitation diurnal cycle and ETS score over the CONUS, surface 2m temperature, stratospheric ozone and water vapor, and hurricane intensity over all basins. Several individual case studies illustrate the model occasionally produces excessive snow in the medium range. EMC also noted a persistent cold bias that increases with forecast time. EMC will continue to explore ways  to address these issues."
There were two updates that were utilized to fix this problem, with a power point link I have included below that describes the issues and fixes in more detail. However, it is noted that while the severity of the issues is moderated, it is not a complete fixed. On one hand, the summer release allows them additional time to provide updates to fix this issue while operating a slightly higher skill score model during a time of year where this bias has little impact. However, the counter-argument is the assumption any fixes can be implemented before the winter.

http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/users/Alicia.Bentley/fv3gfs/updates/MEG_4-04-19_FV3GFS_COLD.pptx

Thanks for posting, Ryan! Mind if I borrow that link to share elsewhere? And in response to yours, I honestly don’t see how they can say it definitively improved, when the raw fractional increases were 1-4% (from what I could tell on mobile). That doesn’t scream “better model” to me. Now, will future fixes increase that, possibly significantly? I hope so! Secondly, there were other issues aside from the snowfall forecasts that led to its suspension. Even though they have started fixing them with results in the right direction, why they didn’t keep it on the shelf and run it in parallel to the base GFS in real time for a longer period baffles me. There’s no way you’re going to convince me that the changes they made were compartmentalized and will only affect cold weather output. Therefore, we really don’t know how/if any biases were truly fixed and/or if any new ones emerged. Sure, they ran hindcasts, but that doesn’t tell you much IMO when the answers to the equations are known and you reverse engineer the equation. It’s just like solving a math problem in grade school: How much easier was it to “show your work” if you knew the answer that you had to get because you happened to remember a homework problem verbatim that showed up on the test, versus if you had no idea and were shaky on the algorithm to solve the problem? No comparison. Same thing here. Why they aren’t continuing to run it in parallel and compare its raw outputs through the next ten months is counterintuitive to me. What happens if it shows the 1-4% change this trop season and this winter, which is for all intents and purposes, negligible, and there is no longer the base GFS to fall back on? Then what? This whole thing seems very much rushed to me in the name of ego. If my tax dollars are being used for this, idc if it takes us ten years to do it, as long as it’s done right. But this just seems knee-jerk, especially when this is going to be THE model used in our field, with lives and property on the line.
You are preaching to the choir. As someone who runs WRF and MPAS daily, I still believe they chose the wrong core and I won't get over it for a while Smile
This so called upgrade should make for a stressful and chaotic winter as far as storm forecasting is concerned.scratch
nutleyblizzard
nutleyblizzard
Senior Enthusiast
Senior Enthusiast

Posts : 1578
Reputation : 37
Join date : 2014-01-30
Age : 53
Location : Nutley, new jersey

View user profile

Back to top Go down

June 2019 observation and discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: June 2019 observation and discussion

Post by dkodgis on Thu Jun 13, 2019 10:39 pm

It looks like tomorrow through Sunday will be nice. An early Happy Father's Day to all the dads and for those who still have their dads with them, enjoy. Next week, warmer in the 80s and high 60s at night but rain throughout the week? Looks like rain is the new snow
dkodgis
dkodgis
Pro Enthusiast
Pro Enthusiast

Posts : 880
Reputation : 61
Join date : 2013-12-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

June 2019 observation and discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: June 2019 observation and discussion

Post by rb924119 on Fri Jun 14, 2019 4:10 am

Quietace wrote:
rb924119 wrote:
Quietace wrote:
rb924119 wrote:
billg315 wrote:Looks like the new GFS core (FV3) is up and running. We'll see how it performs in the coming months as Fall and Winter slooowly get closer.

Anybody else find it curious that they are releasing it as operational now that it’s summer, when a not insignificant portion of its problems were highlighted with its snowfall prediction? I’m really nervous about this model.
As we know it was delayed for that issue, however, if you read the implementation notice you will find that it states:

"EMC has conducted 3 years of retrospective experiments, including the real-time parallel, covering the past 3.5 years for a  comprehensive evaluation of the Q2FY19 GFS implementation. GFS V15 shows equal or improved forecast skills in many areas, especially for 500-hPa height anomaly correlations, precipitation diurnal cycle and ETS score over the CONUS, surface 2m temperature, stratospheric ozone and water vapor, and hurricane intensity over all basins. Several individual case studies illustrate the model occasionally produces excessive snow in the medium range. EMC also noted a persistent cold bias that increases with forecast time. EMC will continue to explore ways  to address these issues."
There were two updates that were utilized to fix this problem, with a power point link I have included below that describes the issues and fixes in more detail. However, it is noted that while the severity of the issues is moderated, it is not a complete fixed. On one hand, the summer release allows them additional time to provide updates to fix this issue while operating a slightly higher skill score model during a time of year where this bias has little impact. However, the counter-argument is the assumption any fixes can be implemented before the winter.

http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/users/Alicia.Bentley/fv3gfs/updates/MEG_4-04-19_FV3GFS_COLD.pptx

Thanks for posting, Ryan! Mind if I borrow that link to share elsewhere? And in response to yours, I honestly don’t see how they can say it definitively improved, when the raw fractional increases were 1-4% (from what I could tell on mobile). That doesn’t scream “better model” to me. Now, will future fixes increase that, possibly significantly? I hope so! Secondly, there were other issues aside from the snowfall forecasts that led to its suspension. Even though they have started fixing them with results in the right direction, why they didn’t keep it on the shelf and run it in parallel to the base GFS in real time for a longer period baffles me. There’s no way you’re going to convince me that the changes they made were compartmentalized and will only affect cold weather output. Therefore, we really don’t know how/if any biases were truly fixed and/or if any new ones emerged. Sure, they ran hindcasts, but that doesn’t tell you much IMO when the answers to the equations are known and you reverse engineer the equation. It’s just like solving a math problem in grade school: How much easier was it to “show your work” if you knew the answer that you had to get because you happened to remember a homework problem verbatim that showed up on the test, versus if you had no idea and were shaky on the algorithm to solve the problem? No comparison. Same thing here. Why they aren’t continuing to run it in parallel and compare its raw outputs through the next ten months is counterintuitive to me. What happens if it shows the 1-4% change this trop season and this winter, which is for all intents and purposes, negligible, and there is no longer the base GFS to fall back on? Then what? This whole thing seems very much rushed to me in the name of ego. If my tax dollars are being used for this, idc if it takes us ten years to do it, as long as it’s done right. But this just seems knee-jerk, especially when this is going to be THE model used in our field, with lives and property on the line.
You are preaching to the choir. As someone who runs WRF and MPAS daily, I still believe they chose the wrong core and I won't get over it for a while Smile

What would you have wanted them to go with?

rb924119
Meteorologist
Meteorologist

Posts : 4857
Reputation : 179
Join date : 2013-02-06
Age : 27
Location : Greentown, Pa/Fishkill, NY

View user profile

Back to top Go down

June 2019 observation and discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: June 2019 observation and discussion

Post by Quietace on Fri Jun 14, 2019 6:02 am

rb924119 wrote:
Quietace wrote:
rb924119 wrote:
Quietace wrote:
rb924119 wrote:
billg315 wrote:Looks like the new GFS core (FV3) is up and running. We'll see how it performs in the coming months as Fall and Winter slooowly get closer.

Anybody else find it curious that they are releasing it as operational now that it’s summer, when a not insignificant portion of its problems were highlighted with its snowfall prediction? I’m really nervous about this model.
As we know it was delayed for that issue, however, if you read the implementation notice you will find that it states:

"EMC has conducted 3 years of retrospective experiments, including the real-time parallel, covering the past 3.5 years for a  comprehensive evaluation of the Q2FY19 GFS implementation. GFS V15 shows equal or improved forecast skills in many areas, especially for 500-hPa height anomaly correlations, precipitation diurnal cycle and ETS score over the CONUS, surface 2m temperature, stratospheric ozone and water vapor, and hurricane intensity over all basins. Several individual case studies illustrate the model occasionally produces excessive snow in the medium range. EMC also noted a persistent cold bias that increases with forecast time. EMC will continue to explore ways  to address these issues."
There were two updates that were utilized to fix this problem, with a power point link I have included below that describes the issues and fixes in more detail. However, it is noted that while the severity of the issues is moderated, it is not a complete fixed. On one hand, the summer release allows them additional time to provide updates to fix this issue while operating a slightly higher skill score model during a time of year where this bias has little impact. However, the counter-argument is the assumption any fixes can be implemented before the winter.

http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/users/Alicia.Bentley/fv3gfs/updates/MEG_4-04-19_FV3GFS_COLD.pptx

Thanks for posting, Ryan! Mind if I borrow that link to share elsewhere? And in response to yours, I honestly don’t see how they can say it definitively improved, when the raw fractional increases were 1-4% (from what I could tell on mobile). That doesn’t scream “better model” to me. Now, will future fixes increase that, possibly significantly? I hope so! Secondly, there were other issues aside from the snowfall forecasts that led to its suspension. Even though they have started fixing them with results in the right direction, why they didn’t keep it on the shelf and run it in parallel to the base GFS in real time for a longer period baffles me. There’s no way you’re going to convince me that the changes they made were compartmentalized and will only affect cold weather output. Therefore, we really don’t know how/if any biases were truly fixed and/or if any new ones emerged. Sure, they ran hindcasts, but that doesn’t tell you much IMO when the answers to the equations are known and you reverse engineer the equation. It’s just like solving a math problem in grade school: How much easier was it to “show your work” if you knew the answer that you had to get because you happened to remember a homework problem verbatim that showed up on the test, versus if you had no idea and were shaky on the algorithm to solve the problem? No comparison. Same thing here. Why they aren’t continuing to run it in parallel and compare its raw outputs through the next ten months is counterintuitive to me. What happens if it shows the 1-4% change this trop season and this winter, which is for all intents and purposes, negligible, and there is no longer the base GFS to fall back on? Then what? This whole thing seems very much rushed to me in the name of ego. If my tax dollars are being used for this, idc if it takes us ten years to do it, as long as it’s done right. But this just seems knee-jerk, especially when this is going to be THE model used in our field, with lives and property on the line.
You are preaching to the choir. As someone who runs WRF and MPAS daily, I still believe they chose the wrong core and I won't get over it for a while Smile

What would you have wanted them to go with?
MPAS. Developed by NCAR which is open source and is developed across the world. It can be tuned to a huge amount of uses. It is the core The Weather Company (or for older folk WSI) used to develop deep thunder, the soon to be 3km global model. There is a very long and biased story as to why it lost

_________________
Ryan
B.S. Meteorology from Plymouth State University
Graduate Meteorology Student at Florida State University
Quietace
Quietace
Meteorologist - Mod
Meteorologist - Mod

Posts : 3598
Reputation : 29
Join date : 2013-01-07
Age : 22
Location : Tallahassee, FL

View user profile

Back to top Go down

June 2019 observation and discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: June 2019 observation and discussion

Post by sroc4 on Fri Jun 14, 2019 2:40 pm

Quietace wrote:
rb924119 wrote:
Quietace wrote:
rb924119 wrote:
billg315 wrote:Looks like the new GFS core (FV3) is up and running. We'll see how it performs in the coming months as Fall and Winter slooowly get closer.

Anybody else find it curious that they are releasing it as operational now that it’s summer, when a not insignificant portion of its problems were highlighted with its snowfall prediction? I’m really nervous about this model.
As we know it was delayed for that issue, however, if you read the implementation notice you will find that it states:

"EMC has conducted 3 years of retrospective experiments, including the real-time parallel, covering the past 3.5 years for a  comprehensive evaluation of the Q2FY19 GFS implementation. GFS V15 shows equal or improved forecast skills in many areas, especially for 500-hPa height anomaly correlations, precipitation diurnal cycle and ETS score over the CONUS, surface 2m temperature, stratospheric ozone and water vapor, and hurricane intensity over all basins. Several individual case studies illustrate the model occasionally produces excessive snow in the medium range. EMC also noted a persistent cold bias that increases with forecast time. EMC will continue to explore ways  to address these issues."
There were two updates that were utilized to fix this problem, with a power point link I have included below that describes the issues and fixes in more detail. However, it is noted that while the severity of the issues is moderated, it is not a complete fixed. On one hand, the summer release allows them additional time to provide updates to fix this issue while operating a slightly higher skill score model during a time of year where this bias has little impact. However, the counter-argument is the assumption any fixes can be implemented before the winter.

http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/users/Alicia.Bentley/fv3gfs/updates/MEG_4-04-19_FV3GFS_COLD.pptx

Thanks for posting, Ryan! Mind if I borrow that link to share elsewhere? And in response to yours, I honestly don’t see how they can say it definitively improved, when the raw fractional increases were 1-4% (from what I could tell on mobile). That doesn’t scream “better model” to me. Now, will future fixes increase that, possibly significantly? I hope so! Secondly, there were other issues aside from the snowfall forecasts that led to its suspension. Even though they have started fixing them with results in the right direction, why they didn’t keep it on the shelf and run it in parallel to the base GFS in real time for a longer period baffles me. There’s no way you’re going to convince me that the changes they made were compartmentalized and will only affect cold weather output. Therefore, we really don’t know how/if any biases were truly fixed and/or if any new ones emerged. Sure, they ran hindcasts, but that doesn’t tell you much IMO when the answers to the equations are known and you reverse engineer the equation. It’s just like solving a math problem in grade school: How much easier was it to “show your work” if you knew the answer that you had to get because you happened to remember a homework problem verbatim that showed up on the test, versus if you had no idea and were shaky on the algorithm to solve the problem? No comparison. Same thing here. Why they aren’t continuing to run it in parallel and compare its raw outputs through the next ten months is counterintuitive to me. What happens if it shows the 1-4% change this trop season and this winter, which is for all intents and purposes, negligible, and there is no longer the base GFS to fall back on? Then what? This whole thing seems very much rushed to me in the name of ego. If my tax dollars are being used for this, idc if it takes us ten years to do it, as long as it’s done right. But this just seems knee-jerk, especially when this is going to be THE model used in our field, with lives and property on the line.
You are preaching to the choir. As someone who runs WRF and MPAS daily, I still believe they chose the wrong core and I won't get over it for a while Smile


Did you guys just become best friends?? lol! told ya



_________________
"Go hug a human, not a weather model"
“Optimism is great, but cautious optimism is more realistic”
"In weather and in life, theres no winning and losing; there's only winning and learning."
WINTER 2012/2013 SNOW TOTALS 43.65"
WINTER 2013/2014 SNOW TOTALS 64.85"
WINTER 2014/2015 SNOW TOTALS 71.20" (First snow Dec 8th)
WINTER 2015/2016 SNOW TOTALS  35.00" (First snow Jan 17th)
WINTER 2016/2017 SNOW TOTALS 42.25" (First snow Dec 11th)
WINTER 2017/2018 SNOW TOTALS 62.85" (First snow Dec 9th)
WINTER 2018/2019 SNOW TOTALS 14.25" (First snow Nov 15th)
Nov 15th 3.00"
Feb 12th 2.75"
Feb 20th 0.75”
Feb 28th 0.25"
March 2nd 3.5"
March 3rd-4th 4.00"
sroc4
sroc4
Admin
Admin

Posts : 6238
Reputation : 246
Join date : 2013-01-07
Location : Wading River, LI

View user profile

Back to top Go down

June 2019 observation and discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: June 2019 observation and discussion

Post by frank 638 on Sat Jun 15, 2019 12:20 pm

A gorgeous Saturday to be at the beach 80 * and not humid.i can't believe in the long range there is no heat wave coming up not that I am complaining .I wonder how long will it last

frank 638
Pro Enthusiast
Pro Enthusiast

Posts : 1911
Reputation : 20
Join date : 2016-01-01
Age : 35
Location : bronx ny

View user profile

Back to top Go down

June 2019 observation and discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: June 2019 observation and discussion

Post by algae888 on Sat Jun 15, 2019 1:39 pm

frank 638 wrote:A gorgeous Saturday to be at the beach 80 * and not humid.i can't believe in the long range there is no heat wave coming up not that I am complaining .I wonder how long will it last
Yes frank nice day and no heat at least til july. Wet week coming up. In the very long rang heat ridge looks to set up over texas with no sign of a SE ridge. That 50\50 low looks like a permanent feature for several more weeks. Very rare to not have a 90* day at lga or newark thru june.
algae888
algae888
Advanced Forecaster
Advanced Forecaster

Posts : 4948
Reputation : 37
Join date : 2013-02-05
Age : 57
Location : mt. vernon, new york

View user profile

Back to top Go down

June 2019 observation and discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: June 2019 observation and discussion

Post by dkodgis on Sat Jun 15, 2019 9:16 pm

Now Sunday is rain. Oh well. We are becoming like Houston.
dkodgis
dkodgis
Pro Enthusiast
Pro Enthusiast

Posts : 880
Reputation : 61
Join date : 2013-12-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

June 2019 observation and discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: June 2019 observation and discussion

Post by frank 638 on Sun Jun 16, 2019 1:27 pm

Happy father's day to all the great dads out there and

frank 638
Pro Enthusiast
Pro Enthusiast

Posts : 1911
Reputation : 20
Join date : 2016-01-01
Age : 35
Location : bronx ny

View user profile

Back to top Go down

June 2019 observation and discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: June 2019 observation and discussion

Post by skinsfan1177 on Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:44 pm

June 2019 observation and discussion - Page 2 Mcd11110

Areas affected...southeast PA and central and southern New
Jersey...southward across northern Virginia and the Delmarva
Peninsula

Concerning...Severe potential...Watch possible

Valid 181623Z - 181800Z

Probability of Watch Issuance...60 percent

SUMMARY...Storms are forecast to gradually increase this afternoon,
with attendant/increasing risk for locally damaging winds, and
possibly some hail. WW may be needed.

DISCUSSION...Latest objective analysis shows ongoing airmass
destabilization across the Mid Atlantic region, as gradual heating
of a moist boundary layer (low 70s dewpoints) through broken cloud
cover, has resulted in 1000 to 1500 J/kg mixed-layer CAPE as of 16Z.
Though cumulus remains suppressed south of the Mason/Dixon line at
this time, visible imagery shows deepening convection over southeast
PA, just upstream of the axis of greatest instability. 

Area VWPs indicate moderate (35 to 45 kt) mid-level westerly flow,
which will likely provide ample shear for organized convection. As
such, risk for locally damaging winds should gradually increase this
afternoon, along with potential for hail with the strongest cells.
Additionally, backed low-level flow is indicated across parts of
eastern PA and into NJ north of a northwest-to-southeast surface
boundary lying across southeast PA/southern NJ per recent surface
analysis. Given this local enhancement to the low-level shear
profile, a tornado is also not out of the question with any
isolated/rotating storm which may evolve.
skinsfan1177
skinsfan1177
Senior Enthusiast
Senior Enthusiast

Posts : 4328
Reputation : 34
Join date : 2013-01-07
Age : 41
Location : Point Pleasant Boro

View user profile

Back to top Go down

June 2019 observation and discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: June 2019 observation and discussion

Post by billg315 on Tue Jun 18, 2019 2:06 pm

Very heavy rain moving across Central/Northern New Jersey presently. Sliding along an axis roughly in line with I-78 and affecting areas about 20 miles north or south of that path.
billg315
billg315
Advanced Forecaster - Mod
Advanced Forecaster - Mod

Posts : 2703
Reputation : 144
Join date : 2015-01-24
Age : 45
Location : Somerville, NJ

View user profile

Back to top Go down

June 2019 observation and discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: June 2019 observation and discussion

Post by billg315 on Tue Jun 18, 2019 2:10 pm

The southern tail of that large area of heavy rain appears to be sinking south across the central part of the state and is likely to affect Middlesex, Monmouth and Ocean counties in the next hour or so.
billg315
billg315
Advanced Forecaster - Mod
Advanced Forecaster - Mod

Posts : 2703
Reputation : 144
Join date : 2015-01-24
Age : 45
Location : Somerville, NJ

View user profile

Back to top Go down

June 2019 observation and discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: June 2019 observation and discussion

Post by skinsfan1177 on Tue Jun 18, 2019 2:18 pm

billg315 wrote:The southern tail of that large area of heavy rain appears to be sinking south across the central part of the state and is likely to affect Middlesex, Monmouth and Ocean counties in the next hour or so.

I would not be surprised areas in CNJ and even SNJ get into severe storms.
skinsfan1177
skinsfan1177
Senior Enthusiast
Senior Enthusiast

Posts : 4328
Reputation : 34
Join date : 2013-01-07
Age : 41
Location : Point Pleasant Boro

View user profile

Back to top Go down

June 2019 observation and discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: June 2019 observation and discussion

Post by skinsfan1177 on Tue Jun 18, 2019 2:46 pm

June 2019 observation and discussion - Page 2 Image_29

URGENT - IMMEDIATE BROADCAST REQUESTED
Severe Thunderstorm Watch Number 394
NWS Storm Prediction Center Norman OK
210 PM EDT Tue Jun 18 2019

The NWS Storm Prediction Center has issued a

* Severe Thunderstorm Watch for portions of 
District Of Columbia
Delaware
Eastern Maryland
New Jersey
Southeast Pennsylvania
Northern and eastern Virginia
Coastal Waters

* Effective this Tuesday afternoon and evening from 210 PM until
1000 PM EDT.

* Primary threats include...
Scattered damaging wind gusts to 70 mph possible
Isolated large hail events to 1.5 inches in diameter possible
A tornado or two possible

SUMMARY...At least isolated strong to severe thunderstorms are
expected to develop from southeast Pennsylvania into New Jersey,
where potential will exist for a couple of supercells with hail/wind
and potentially some tornado risk. Other storms will also increase
this afternoon south-southwestward across the Delmarva and broader
parts of northern/eastern Virginia to eastern Maryland, with
damaging winds and some hail possible in these areas.

The severe thunderstorm watch area is approximately along and 65
statute miles north and south of a line from 20 miles southeast of
Lakehurst NJ to 55 miles west southwest of Washington DC. For a
complete depiction of the watch see the associated watch outline
update (WOUS64 KWNS WOU4).

PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS...

REMEMBER...A Severe Thunderstorm Watch means conditions are
favorable for severe thunderstorms in and close to the watch area.
Persons in these areas should be on the lookout for threatening
weather conditions and listen for later statements and possible
warnings. Severe thunderstorms can and occasionally do produce
tornadoes.

&&

AVIATION...A few severe thunderstorms with hail surface and aloft to
1.5 inches. Extreme turbulence and surface wind gusts to 60 knots. A
few cumulonimbi with maximum tops to 500. Mean storm motion vector
26025.

...Guyer
skinsfan1177
skinsfan1177
Senior Enthusiast
Senior Enthusiast

Posts : 4328
Reputation : 34
Join date : 2013-01-07
Age : 41
Location : Point Pleasant Boro

View user profile

Back to top Go down

June 2019 observation and discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: June 2019 observation and discussion

Post by algae888 on Tue Jun 18, 2019 4:55 pm

If long range ensembles are accurate, july looks to start off cool with anomalous ridge out west and trough on east. No heat in sight. What a difference from last year. Three more days and sunlight starts getting shorter.
algae888
algae888
Advanced Forecaster
Advanced Forecaster

Posts : 4948
Reputation : 37
Join date : 2013-02-05
Age : 57
Location : mt. vernon, new york

View user profile

Back to top Go down

June 2019 observation and discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: June 2019 observation and discussion

Post by docstox12 on Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:10 am

algae888 wrote:If long range ensembles are accurate, july looks to start off cool with anomalous ridge out west and trough on east. No heat in sight. What a difference from last year. Three more days and sunlight starts getting shorter.

As you said, Al, amazing to have no 90 degree days as of yet.I was just thinking that this week, the long march to winter begins June 22 with each day getting shorter!I see
some temps in the 80's coming up as per NWS.
docstox12
docstox12
Wx Statistician Guru
Wx Statistician Guru

Posts : 6614
Reputation : 162
Join date : 2013-01-07
Age : 68
Location : Monroe NY

View user profile

Back to top Go down

June 2019 observation and discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: June 2019 observation and discussion

Post by frank 638 on Wed Jun 19, 2019 6:20 am

algae888 wrote:If long range ensembles are accurate, july looks to start off cool with anomalous ridge out west and trough on east. No heat in sight. What a difference from last year. Three more days and sunlight starts getting shorter.
I wonder if this summer will be a repeat of 2009 because June and July was very similar of this June and I think Aug we had a couple of days of 90 * that was it

frank 638
Pro Enthusiast
Pro Enthusiast

Posts : 1911
Reputation : 20
Join date : 2016-01-01
Age : 35
Location : bronx ny

View user profile

Back to top Go down

June 2019 observation and discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: June 2019 observation and discussion

Post by dkodgis on Wed Jun 19, 2019 10:52 am

Torrential rain yesterday and I was in it on 17. I finally got off it and got into a parking lot. It was almost impassible with local roads flooding. Anyone have a rain total fr yesterday?

Real Noah’s Ark stuff
dkodgis
dkodgis
Pro Enthusiast
Pro Enthusiast

Posts : 880
Reputation : 61
Join date : 2013-12-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

June 2019 observation and discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: June 2019 observation and discussion

Post by skinsfan1177 on Thu Jun 20, 2019 3:16 pm

Keep a eye on the sky strong line of storms in eastern PA. Depoints are up in the 70s and sun is out here. We may be in for a great storm this evening.June 2019 observation and discussion - Page 2 Inxr1k11
skinsfan1177
skinsfan1177
Senior Enthusiast
Senior Enthusiast

Posts : 4328
Reputation : 34
Join date : 2013-01-07
Age : 41
Location : Point Pleasant Boro

View user profile

Back to top Go down

June 2019 observation and discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: June 2019 observation and discussion

Post by billg315 on Thu Jun 20, 2019 3:19 pm

skinsfan1177 wrote:Keep a eye on the sky strong line of storms in eastern PA. Depoints are up in the 70s and sun is out here. We may be in for a great storm this evening.June 2019 observation and discussion - Page 2 Inxr1k11

Yeah, this line looks pretty strong. And with the moisture in the air right now (feels like a Tropical Rain Forest) if nothing else we'll probably get buckets of rain from this line. I think we may have other strong lines of storms later this evening/overnight in some areas as well. But . . . weekend is looking great! Very Happy
billg315
billg315
Advanced Forecaster - Mod
Advanced Forecaster - Mod

Posts : 2703
Reputation : 144
Join date : 2015-01-24
Age : 45
Location : Somerville, NJ

View user profile

Back to top Go down

June 2019 observation and discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: June 2019 observation and discussion

Post by dkodgis on Thu Jun 20, 2019 3:36 pm

About 45 min ago the storms came through Chester Co outside Phila. I am there. Heavy, intense. That’s what’s coming
dkodgis
dkodgis
Pro Enthusiast
Pro Enthusiast

Posts : 880
Reputation : 61
Join date : 2013-12-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

June 2019 observation and discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: June 2019 observation and discussion

Post by 1190ftalt on Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:44 pm

This is approaching the 24th floor in Ft Lee, Teterboro is now socked in , looks to be worst GWB area AND north!June 2019 observation and discussion - Page 2 6500a510
June 2019 observation and discussion - Page 2 B4e24710

1190ftalt

Posts : 173
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2013-12-13
Location : Ft Lee, Stillwater, NJ

View user profile

Back to top Go down

June 2019 observation and discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: June 2019 observation and discussion

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum