by ZAMG
17 April 1996/06.00 UTC - Meteosat IR image; yellow: height contours 1000 hPa 06.00 UTC, green: height contours 1000 hPa 12.00 UTC, blue: height
contours 1000 hPa 18.00 UTC; SatRep overlay: names of conceptual models
|
17 April 1996/06.00 UTC - Meteosat IR image; yellow: temperature advection - WA 1000 hPa 06.00 UTC, green: temperature advection - WA 1000 hPa 12.00
UTC, blue: temperature advection - WA 1000 hPa 18.00 UTC; SatRep overlay: names of conceptual models
|
|
|
|
|
17 April 1996/06.00 UTC - Meteosat IR image; yellow: positive vorticity advection (PVA) 500 hPa 06.00 UTC, green: positive vorticity advection
(PVA) 500 hPa 12.00 UTC, blue: positive vorticity advection (PVA) 500 hPa 18.00 UTC; SatRep overlay: names of conceptual models
|
17 April 1996/06.00 UTC - Meteosat IR enhanced image
|
17 April 1996/06.00 UTC - Meteosat IR enhanced image
|
|
|
|
|
17 April 1996/06.00 UTC - Meteosat IR enhanced image
|
For the diagnosis stage additional parameters like PV have been discussed and it was concluded that a low isentropic level does not contain any stratospheric air in the area under consideration and that a higher isentropic level shows some typical features in this key parameter but somewhat displaced to the south (compare Rapid Cyclogenesis: Diagnosis for 17 April 06.00 UTC ). Bearing this result in mind, the forecast fields of PV can be understood in the same manner.
17 April 1996/12.00 UTC - Meteosat IR image; cyan: potential vorticity (PV) 305K, red: isobars; SatRep overlay: names of conceptual models
|
17 April 1996/12.00 UTC - Meteosat IR image; cyan: potential vorticity (PV) 320K, red: isobars; SatRep overlay: names of conceptual models
|
|
|
|
|
17 April 1996/18.00 UTC - Meteosat IR image; cyan: potential vorticity (PV) 310K, red: isobars; SatRep overlay: names of conceptual models
|
17 April 1996/18.00 UTC - Meteosat IR image; cyan: potential vorticity (PV) 320K, red: isobars; SatRep overlay: names of conceptual models
|
This is a case of Rapid Cyclogensis, where the numerical model of ECMWF is not completely ignoring this process but should be corrected at least in respect to the position.