Thats not true at all. I put out a first call map yesterday and I'm working on a new one as we speak for a final call, that will be adjusted.
I haven't needed to for the past few storms and have an excellent track record so far this season.
I can show you many storms that ive bumped up or down in past seasons.
I agree.
I personally don't care, it doesn't affect the outcome and certainly doesn't affect my FX. I just find it funny when watches go up, nothing supports it, they themselves have 0% >6" in those areas and you KNOW they are just going to be converted to an advisory anyways.
I'm hoping the warming and changeover is timed perfectly with the precip shutting off around here, and it's looking more and more like that's whats going to happen. Hopefully just some dz at the end
i wonder if those two numbers after Cobb are the year it was updated or adjusted. Because ive seen other numbers as well in different versions of BUFKIT.
Edit: They are years.
Right and i've seen that of course. But it also makes sense weather wise, weather wiz. 2010-2011 is def OUR year for CT snow. We got 3 major snow storms in Jan alone, a pack that would like VT on a good winter and many many more events, including box day. 2010-2011 was OUR year, just like 2014-2015 was E MA year.
Deep Thunder & RPM for anyone who cares.
RPM has been consistent for many runs with 2-4 across CT and 1-2 S coast.
IBM is 4-6 most of CT, 6-8 spot W and 2-4 SE CT
Using max temp in profile on BUFKIT, NAM/GFS start out high around 18:1 then they crash after a couple hours down to 12:1 then eventually 10:1, the average is right around 12:1 for the event.
I don't use Cobb3 or 6 or 11 or whatever numbers that have been changing because i dont know what cobb is. Ill use max temp in profile to get an idea or use the slider for a straight 10:1 or 12:1. If anyone knows what Cobb ratio method is id be interested to hear it.
(The blue line is snow ratio, the grey bars is snow falling (totals by the hour).
I'd agree with that. I used to use overlapping numbers like 1-3/2-4/3-6 but then through the years of forecasting and making verification maps it never really works out that way. So for the past 3 or 4 years ive just been going with numbers like 1-3/3-6 that butt up against each other.
I think 1-3 is probably a better range than C-2 as well, as with plenty of cold air in place even the shores basement is at least 1" imo. Doubt anyone gets away with this thing with just a coating of snow, even GON.
Ah, thanks i didnt see that. What a pain in the butt to scroll through all those files though! And the GFS fronto maps dont even work, only NAM is working.
ECMWF total QPF for 6Z.Some at the very end is lost to liquid for southern areas. 80-85% is frozen though. At 3Z the 925 line makes it up to 84
I used to use this site for checking F-Gen at certain levels but it seems it last ran on Dec 10th 2019.
http://moe.met.fsu.edu/banding/
Does anyone have anything similar to this? I would love to see some of these graphics for this storm.
One thing that is definitely broken, without question, in those maps is the 6 -hr snow totals. If you add them up you get 12" Torrington, 11" Windsor Locks, 10" Hartford, 9" Willimantic, 11" Worcester. Huh?
Even down here the numbers are around 7"
He was then USCAPEAFWEATHER broke-in, stabbed him in the eye and took over command. Then Snow88 drove up to Norwood in his cruiser and arrested him, but not before expanding the watches.