Hey, I just wanted to say I noticed that NAM and HRRR seem to be starting at the correct ground pressure now. Thanks for fixing this!
S
Best posts made by ShawnKM
-
RE: Inconsistent behavior in skew-t for NAM and HRRR modelsposted in Bug Reports
Latest posts made by ShawnKM
-
RE: NAM Inopposted in Your Feedback and Suggestions
@rdeigsler I can confirm that NAM is also not updating for me. It would be nice to have it back up.
-
RE: Inconsistent behavior in skew-t for NAM and HRRR modelsposted in Bug Reports
Hey, I just wanted to say I noticed that NAM and HRRR seem to be starting at the correct ground pressure now. Thanks for fixing this!
-
Inconsistent behavior in skew-t for NAM and HRRR modelsposted in Bug Reports
Please forgive me if I am misinterpreting things as I only recently learned how to read a skew-t but I noticed something strange.
The skew-t plot for my area (Denver, Colorado, elevation is about 1600m ) starts at 1000 millibars or sea level when using the NAM or HRRR models. However when I switch to the ECMWF model, it starts at 800 millibars which is closer to what I would expect.
Here is the NAM skew-t in windy:
For reference, this is the NAM skew-t from the NOAA web page:
