|
Richard Grumm
<richard.grumm@noaa.gov>
|
Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 1:18 PM
|
|
To:
Mel Shapiro <mshapiro@ucar.edu>
Cc:
Craig Clark <Craig.Clark@valpo.edu>, map@atmos.albany.edu,
tim.hewson@ecmwf.int, shopsch@aer.com, ktyle@atmos.albany.edu,
Victoria.Sinclair@helsinki.fi
|
List
I made some better projections (http://eyewall.met.psu.edu/rich/cases/30Jan2012/) and sequenced images.
I
believe the 850 hPa MFLUX was well over 6 sigma along with the PW
anomalies at Spitsbergen. Thus, I sit corrected as the PW anomalies were
really high there.
I also found the elusive 1060 hPa high in the NCEP GFS.
Nice 500 hPa ridge too. Impressive.
I suspect the rains were in the 28-30 Jan time frame.
Was it predictable?
Rich
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Richard Grumm <richard.grumm@noaa.gov> wrote:
Mel,
So when did it rain? I will attach another image. Funny, I
deleted the text about the anomalous (6s) PW anomalies over the ridge in
my original email. Thought it was superfluous and wouldn't wash. May
bad. The PW field and anomalies were sent with the pressure image. But
this image (below) shows it too.
Hard to believe that 16mm of PW is +6sigma. No wonder they are all
wet up there. Reindeer smell real bad when wet, trust me on this.
I had to find out where exactly Spitsbergen was (attached), then spell it. Probably in the 3sigma area not the 6sigma.
Good thing about being stupid in the digital age is one can look smart when the internet is working.
Rich
![]()
![]() [Quoted text hidden]
--
Life is a journey not a destination.
--
Life is a journey not a destination.
|
|
