Welcome to American Weather


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About gymengineer

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location:
    North Bethesda, MD 20852
  1. Oh, the magic of this event. We were having Christmas dinner at a relative's house in Rockville. Before leaving for the dinner I noticed that flurries were in the forecast. After the dinner while everyone else was still chatting, I ducked out from the dining room and went to the front door hoping I could see some flurries in the air. Opening the door, the shocking sight was that the driveway was already covered while heavy snow was falling. I informed everyone else that the ground was covered and we all left in a hurry (because of course DC area folk freak out about driving in the snow). On the drive back on secondary streets, we saw multiple rear-wheel drive vehicles on the side of the roads not able to make it throug the icy roads. Once we got home, the snow was winding down. 1.5" of surprise snow had fallen. My dad and I decided to kick around a soccer ball out in the snow; I convinced him to do so because I just wanted to be out in the first event of 93/94.
  2. Notice I didn't put the word snow at all in the post you responded to.
  3. 0Z models so far are unanimous for a heavy stripe of precip over a narrow region of our subforum early Sunday AM (that would be the Norlun verifying, right?). The orientation of the stripe is also unanimous-- NNW to SSE. The only difference is if the center of that stripe lands in VA or MD.
  4. It was an F for me until this morning. Four consecutive mornings of 100% snow cover with two snowcover days in January separates this winter from the other F winters. 59.5% fake D-.
  5. This whole issue in the media would not have started if Greg Carbin (WPC) hadn't gone on record in an interview and said what he said. Sure, the reaction has been over the top, but this simply would have been viewed as a busted forecast and nothing more until the article came out.
  6. I don't disagree in general, although I do think a more nuanced forecast would be even better late in the game: high impact event, uncertain snow amounts (So increase the range--NYC 8-20"), but changing to sleet does not diminish impact. For the original article though, I don't understand why any employee would go on the record and say what Carbin said. That AP article is what got this into the national media, *not* the CWG.
  7. I mock-figure skated on my building's front lawn. Did Cizeron/Papadakis' opening free dance sequence.
  8. No you didn't.
  9. And I started a thread below about this very article with the title "AP claims....." because I can't tell from the article if the local forecast offices agreed with the WPC forecaster's assessment. As in maybe the WPC were convinced of the warm incursion but Upton was still convinced of their own numbers. The WPC percent probability maps don't line up verbatim with the local offices sometimes.
  10. LWX *did* cut back and pushed the 6" line well northwest in their afternoon update. Taunton also put a note on their snow total graphic that confidence was lower for an encircled (coastal) portion because of possible mixing.
  11. I posted about this in the Mid-Atlantic forum. Kind of surprised there's not more discussion about this in this sub-forum.
  12. But LWX did adjust their totals down for the metro areas Monday afternoon. DC went down to 5" (4" for the "National Mall" in the table). I don't think a modest shift would have been a bad idea for NYC. Their watch started with 12-18", so it wouldn't have been that much a shift to return to that range vs. the 20" top-7 event they stayed with.
  13. Yes. Notice the other event he referred to--- the last 2"+ sleet bomb we experienced. That sleet-pack had to be removed with special equipment in parking lots all across the area once it froze over solid. So much liquid equivalent packed in.
  14. I commented on this article in another thread but I think it's important enough to discuss in its own thread: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SCI_WINTER_WEATHER_FORECAST?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-03-14-17-17-34 Thoughts? Were these just comments taken out of context and put into a conclusion to fit the story or did the NWS/WPC really just admit they continued with forecasts they didn't believe in?
  15. Two things I noticed: First, the ZR in southeast parts of the area that did tree damage showed that the surface verified colder compared to all/almost all of the modeling. Even right on the Tidal Basin, there are those stunning pics of ice covered cherry blossom buds. So we had warmer than modeled mid-levels (except UKMet) and colder than modeled surface temps which made the forecast particularly difficult. But this reinforces the idea to go with the meso-models for surface temps, *especially* when ZR shows up as a precip type. Second---So this is now three splashy, headline making busts for the New York City office in three straight winters. Two were much less than forecast and one much more. For this storm, I did pay attention to the modeling for areas northeast of us, and could never figure out why they settled on 17-20" (20" at Central Park) as the "Most likely" number for the boroughs yesterday. 20" is a top seven event for the city. Verbatim, several models showed the warm air intrusion getting awfully close to the city. And there's this article: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SCI_WINTER_WEATHER_FORECAST?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-03-14-17-17-34 What do you all think about this approach of keeping the forecast high even when they didn't buy it themselves for the sake of public safety? That doesn't seem like a good approach and I can't see how this being out in the news is going to inspire any public confidence.