Skip Navigation Links 
NOAA logo - Click to go to the NOAA homepage National Weather Service   NWS logo - Click to go to the NWS homepage
The Weather Prediction Center



Follow the Weather Prediction Center on Facebook Follow the Weather Prediction Center on Twitter
NCEP Quarterly Newsletter
WPC Home
Analyses and Forecasts
   National High & Low
   WPC Discussions
   Surface Analysis
   Days ½-2½ CONUS
   Days 3-7 CONUS
   Days 4-8 Alaska
   Flood Outlook
   Winter Weather
   Storm Summaries
   Heat Index
   Tropical Products
   Daily Weather Map
   GIS Products
Current Watches/

Satellite and Radar Imagery
  GOES-East Satellite
  GOES-West Satellite
  National Radar
Product Archive
WPC Verification
   Medium Range
   Model Diagnostics
   Event Reviews
   Winter Weather
International Desks
Development and Training
WPC Overview
   About the WPC
   WPC History
   Other Sites
Meteorological Calculators
Contact Us
   About Our Site is the U.S. Government's official web portal to all federal, state, and local government web resources and services.
Model Diagnostics Discussion
(Caution: Version displayed is not the latest version. - Issued 1624Z Aug 15, 2018)
Version Selection
Versions back from latest:  0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   
Abbreviations and acronyms used in this product
Geographic Boundaries -  Map 1: Color  Black/White       Map 2: Color  Black/White

Model Diagnostic Discussion
NWS Weather Prediction Center College Park MD
1224 PM EDT Wed Aug 15 2018

Valid Aug 15/1200 UTC thru Aug 19/0000 UTC

...See NOUS42 KWNO (ADMNFD) for the status of the upper air

12Z model evaluation including final preferences

...Overall Synoptic Pattern across the CONUS...
Preference: General model blend
 Exception: Non-ECMWF in Western Great Lakes/Northeast after 18/00z
Confidence: Slightly above average

Models are congruent with nearly all systems crossing the CONUS
for the short range forecast period.  The greatest differences
remain with the merging/binary interaction between the weakening
upper low/opening trof through the Lower Ohio River currently and
the compact wave in the Black Hills.  The differences in the mass
fields comes down to small timing differences, where the GFS is a
bit quicker overall typical of its bias, with the upstream wave
reaching IL by early Friday which leads to the lag of the surface
wave lifting across the Great Lakes compared to the other
guidance, but this is a small variation in the mass fields and
well within the ensemble cluster.  On the other side of the
spectrum, the 00z ECMWF is slower with the initial wave, slowing
the upstream wave leading to the upstream wave remaining a bit
more compact in the mid-levels leading to a delaying of the
surface wave across Ontario into the Northeast, fairly typical
with its bias.  The ECMWF though does lag significantly late Fri
into Sat, even compared to the 00z ECENS mean...suggesting slowly
phasing the 00z ECMWF out any blend by Day 3.   The 12z NAM and
00z UKMET/CMC are a bit more progressive than the ECMWF matching
closer to the GFS by the end of the forecast period as well, but
are nice middle ground solutions.   All in all, a general model
blend should suffice for this system, but hedging away from the
00z ECMWF toward the 00z ECENS mean after 12z Fri is WPC

Elsewhere, models are in strong agreement with the timing and
general evolution of the wave crossing the Northwest into the
Northern US Rockies and High Plains by the end of the forecast
period.  Further north in central Canada, there are some
timing/mid-level trof orientation differences, especially with the
slow/flat CMC, but overall do not seem to affect/leak into the
CONUS by 19/00z, enough to support a general model blend at above
average confidence for this system.

Model trends at
500 mb forecasts at