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 0437Z Jul 18, 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
1237 AM EDT Wed Jul 18 2018

Valid Jul 18/0000 UTC thru Jul 21/1200 UTC

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

12Z Model Evaluation...with Preliminary Preferences and Confidence

...Overall Model Analysis for the CONUS...

Overall Preference: Blend of 12Z ECMWF, UKMET, CMC
General Confidence: Average

Models continue to show the greatest differences with a trough
digging into the Upper Midwest by late in the week, and an
associated broad trough over the Southeast. The 00Z NAM and GFS
are more amplified with the digging trough and generally show
lower heights than the consensus of the remaining global models
over the eastern half of the CONUS. The NAM is also slightly
faster with the progression of the surface low in the Great Lakes.
The preference was to lean toward a blend of the remaining models
(12Z ECMWF, UKMET, CMC), as they are better supported by the range
of NAEFS and ECMWF ensemble members (GFS is more amplified than
just about all of them). Elsewhere, models show greater
similarity, and a general model blend could conceivably be used.

Model trends at
500 mb forecasts at