All Activity

I guess bro

That’s not really correct. So Flip a coin…

We will…it’s just a matter of time…but this is a weather forum..right?

Here in New Jersey our drought warning is over. There is a lingering drought watch in the southernmost area that includes Cape May, but the rest of the state is officially back to normal: https://dep.nj.gov/drought/current-conditions/#regional-drinking-water-supply-indicator-and-declared-water-supply-status

They might give up 500 yards just in rushing yards tonight. I can't believe what I'm watching.

Weatherfront. Currently very cheap and available on desktop/apple/iphone all three. I've been enjoying it. Its pretty new and they're adding stuff all the time. Not as in depth as Weatherbell but a fraction of the price and I love the fact it is fully zoom-able to whatever region you want. https://www.weatherfront.com/

"I HAZ?"

Wait, I thought we annihilated Iran?

The NAM was a pretty awful model in general. They should have taken it out back and shot it awhile ago.

"Yah but" you do not have to be concerned about the storm developing "too late" or any issues w/ moisture. You do not even need a strong sfc low and still get crushed. Jan 20, 1978 is a classic example. Gave BOS is biggest 24 hr snowstorm up this time.

Nope. I doubt we get higher than 72.

It was a 1 minute shower here.

I bet we'll see 80 again, but this was very likely our last day with temps well up into the 80s until next spring. It hit 87 here today.

We’re ending the NAM about as fast as the Iran war.

Looks like @CoastalWx gets to keep his beloved NAM a little longer! As for his "garbage" model (RRFS), it does appear to have issues w/ making deeply occluded lows into TCs too easily. It did that for the most recent storm. But non-TC CAMs usually do.

the south wins once again lol

Since operational intensity was borderline and it's not really a sampling issue, I don't really see how they would bother. I mean, that's not overwhelming data for reanalysis to circumvent the operational intensity, IMO. Lots to consider in this case, and given the dearth of HUs this season, I hope focus on Fay by NHC is not overthought or nitpicked if we do not have any clear HUs for the rest of the season! I am just thinking external pressures that can hurt the objectivity of the met science here (e.g. social media making a stink or crying foul w/ armchair mets and hype-masters going off!). ASCAT has issues in heavy rain areas leading to a high bias. And in convective area that pulse when downbursts are more likely, that is an issue. On that ASCAT image provided from the X link, it is a very small area of 65 kt winds, that can suggest a mesoscale transitory feature., Also, I have seen it noted that Fay had an eye briefly. That was more dry slot residual b/c leading up to that appearance you could see a narrow band of dry air curling into the center. This dry air present also promotes pulsing convection and downbursts. That's one thing I have found questionable at times for assigned intensity. Spot winds are not the same as mean winds. Local convective winds are not the same as avg synoptic gradient winds. Many moderate to strong TS briefly have HU force winds from localized intense convection that pulses in blobs, esp. when some shear and dry air is present, but that does not make them a HU. So one has to be careful here. Sometimes I see "given the possibility of undersampling." That is a slippery slope IMHO. You can always say that in measuring meteorological phenomena, but does that mean you always say it was stronger and go higher? If so, what is the limit as to how much stronger? It is subjective and fluid. Dvorak classifications for TCs do best for winds approx 60 to 105 kt, so that means TDs are often min TSs and intense HUs are often stronger in reality. We know this from recons, but in the absence of recon, we don't officially assign a stronger value due to the limitations of Dvorak. It's why you will not see a system above 160 kt in the Atlantic or eastern/central Pacific in the absence of a recon. Best you can say w/ high confidence is that it was at least this strong and mention "it could have been stronger" in something like the TCR given any number of ancillary factors that can exist when it comes to determining TC intensity. A SAR pass showed 73 kt for Fay, but this remote sensing tech has been shown high bias here as well compared to recon measurements.

What site are you using Tyler?

Book it!

Been pretty busy lately, but looks like we have our first fantasy NW flow storm on the GFS at 18z- first one I've noticed at least. Winter is definitely on the way.

Tuesday looks like a chilly time to do it, ha.