>Model Analyses Feb. 25 18z

>ECMWF- Takes old GFS solution with two lows. Main low keeps same track as 0z GFS.

GFS- One low with a north track.
NOGAPS- Takes ECMWF solution with main low farther south, increasing snow potential for South Great Lakes.
GEM- Takes North solution through South Great Lakes.
WRF- ECMWF solution, main low a bit more north than NOGAPS model.
GEFS (6z-12z comparison)- 12z run had low more north, weaker.
UKMET- Appears to take a one-low solution, south track.
JMA- Appears to have a south track.
SOUTH TRACK: ECMWF, NOGAPS, WRF, UKMET, JMA
NORTH TRACK: GFS, GEM
SIHM Discussion- The In-House computer model says that the low will take more of an ECMWF solution, riding on consistency. However, the SIHM does flirt with the GFS solution in runs as well. Will monitor.
Overall discussion- Will take ECMWF track, but curious to see how the supposed push of warm air above the low will play out. SIHM doesn’t pull the warm air up as far, more of a NOGAPS solution with the rain/snow line on Wisconsin/IL border.
Edit: GFS has not had consistency, even though all models took a two-low solution as GFS did. Very odd.
Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s