All Activity

Not bad

It’s been very annoying lol. This storm ruled though, and another 2-3 feels likely later.

I wonder what Louis Uccellini would say about this one?

As long as it not a complete disaster I’m not going to worry if it is a little worse we are 5 days out. It’s going to change multiple times, better or worse. As long as it doesn’t stay worse.

You’ll still have a shot at 20 this afternoon/evening. At least unlike bigger coastal storms, there weren’t a lot of notable subby zones in this. If you got enhancement, it wasn’t at the expense of your neighbors this time around.

Yes, I know that's what CoCoRaHS recommends, which I disagree with and I'd rather follow the recommendations of Bill Syrett, head of PSU's esteemed weather observatory for decades. For me the issue with sleet, in particular, is that when it falls on top of snow it will always compact that snow. I had 11.8" of snow/sleet combining my separate measurements of 3.5" of sleet and 8.3" of snow before that, but that was 10.8" just measuring depth which is significant compaction, whereas if they fell in reverse order I likely would've had about 11.8". I'd rather have a system that gives the same measurement independent of order. Furthermore, IMO, the meteorological community has always wrongly been focused on snow depth with forecasts/outcome, when their job is to convey impact and risk and frozen mass does a much better job of that than measured depth. As a result, sleet, which has the same mass as snow for a given QPF, is greatly underestimated for impact based on depth. For example, 3" of sleet at 3:1 has the same mass as 9" of 10:1 snow and i would argue they have the same impact with regard to transportation/driving and shoveling/plowing, where anyone who removes snow knows that mass is the key, not depth. In addition, sleet melts far more slowly than snow, given its much lower surface area to volume ratio (as melting only occurs at the surface not in the interior). Given all of that, I'd rather not discount sleet even further by reporting a compacted depth which doesn't convey the true impact of that precipitation and going further, I think a way needs to be found to use frozen mass as the measure of impact not depth, but I know I'm probably just howling at the moon. At the very least, though, the NWS and media mets could do a much better job of conveying the impacts from sleet, educating the public that sleet is ~3X more dense than snow, such that each inch of sleet has the same mass as 3" of snow. One more point. While the NWS recommends the public to only measure once every 24 hours, that kind of makes no sense to me, since their instructions for measuring snow at NWS sites is to measure every 6 hours, clearing the board after each measurement and summing the 4 totals for the final total. I think they only ask for one measurement per day from the general public so they don't turn everyone off from measuring snow (who wants to measure 4X a day other than weenies like folks on weather boards or those paid to do so). And if every 6 hours is good enough for the NWS sites, it's good enough for me - and note that in yesterday's case, using the NWS approach, I would've measured 2" of snow at 7 am, 8.3" of snow at 1 pm, when it changed to sleet, so I would've cleared the board, and at 7 pm I would've measured 2.9" of sleet and another 0.6" of sleet at 1 am for a total of 11.8" snow/sleet, which is what I got by simply clearing the board once around 1 pm when the sleet started. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.weather.gov/media/coop/Snow_Measurement_Guidelines-2014.pdf

That’s here . You’re 3-6

The individual members on the ensemble support this. Still no consensus but seems that any storm that amplifies put us in the game. Even a few that take the low up the Bay .

Where do we go from here? Analyzing 21.7" by Jan 25th (Harrisburg/Middletown) Hey eve With our current seasonal total sitting at 21.7" as of January 25th, I decided to dig into the historical archives for the Middletown-Harrisburg area to see how this stacks up and what "history" says about the rest of our winter. I looked at every season since 1899 to find years that met or exceeded our current 21.7" by today’s date. Here’s the breakdown: The Historical Analogues There are 28 seasons in our history that reached this mark by Jan 25th. * Average Final Total: 48.4" * Snowiest Year in this Group: 1960-1961 (Finished at 81.3") * Least Snowy Year in this Group: 1987-1988 (Finished at 26.7") What’s Left in the Tank? (Snow after Jan 25th) Looking only at what fell after today’s date in those 28 seasons: * Average remaining snow: 17.6" * Median remaining snow: 15.5" * The "Boom" Scenario: 1993-1994 added a massive 45.6" after Jan 25th! * The "Bust" Scenario: 1953-1954 only added 1.5" more. The "Confidence" Forecast Based strictly on these 28 historical matches, here is the probability for our final seasonal total: * 90% Certainty: We finish with at least 27.1" * 75% Certainty: We finish with at least 30.6" * 50% Certainty (The Coin Flip): We finish with at least 37.2" * 25% Certainty: We finish with at least 47.7" * 10% Certainty (The Longshot): We finish with at least 53.4" Context: The Big 2-Day Hitters For those wondering about the "big one," here are the top 2-day totals ever recorded in our data: * 30.2" (Jan 22-23, 2016) * 25.0" (Feb 11-12, 1983) * 22.2" (Jan 7-8, 1996) * 21.0" (Jan 15-16, 1945) * 20.4" (Mar 13-14, 1993) Summary: History suggests we are about 55-60% of the way through our seasonal snowfall. If we follow the "average" of our historical peers, we're looking at another 17" or so before spring. What do you guys think? Do we follow the 1994 path (+45") or the 1954 path (+1.5")? [emoji3587][emoji409] Sent from my SM-S731U using Tapatalk

early thoughts for weekend? no way am I biting yet, down here we are always on the warm side of the low

Miller-A storm would be much appreciated and it’s been far too long. But, I still think we miss this one to the east

15:1

12/5 - 1.9" 12/14 - 1.3" 1/26 - 8.5" Total - 11.7"

Yea, the CF never got quite far enough inland for me. 17.25".

If it goes the other way, I'll be worried for some peeps in here

Backing in.

Ik it's been a pretty standout year for Chicago lake effect events but I'm pretty happy with the bonuses I've received here in westmont so far. I think snow cover has been far more consistent than back home in Aurora and I'm pleasantly surprised. It's definitely kept me from cad posting

FYI -- you can converse with Weather Next 2 via Gemini. It think the SLP forms too far off the coast and phases too late with precip confined to coastal NC.

963 at the benchmark . I’m with Heisy, I think I'm more concerned with a super tucked solution than a miss east at this point.

I mean I never said I wouldn't track it but I certainly wont be upset if we miss. Curious to see what the euros show today.

GEFS backing that wagon up on the 12z run. Like the look for now, considering how far out we are in time.

GFS ENS were posted in the MA forums definitely an improvement over 6z

About 14 mins from euro ai. Hopefully it’s similar to the 6z beat down

I’d be shocked if you didn’t grab at least 2”. Could be 3-5” if you get into some nice fluff bands this evening. IVT seems to enhance the dPVA snows as they hit eastern areas after 21z.