• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by eduggs

  1. The impact in our area is towards the end of its run, but the stage is set by hrs 60 or 66.
  2. The 12z NAM is a quick hitting wet snow bomb north of the City with a little snow in elevated NNJ. Compared to most other guidance, the NAM has a relatively compact precip. field. This is still evolving with every cycle so it's conceivable things could shift more widespread wintry with time. But without much cold air it seems like a lot more can go wrong than right.
  3. I think some people dislike seafood because they had a bad experience with fishy tasting and smelling fish as a child. Mild, flaky fish like Cod, Sole, and maybe Trout as well as scallops are a much more pleasant early introduction to the world of seafood IMO.
  4. The mountains of western NC get a lot more snow than anywhere in NE on the last few GFS runs.
  5. Decent looking clipper system on the last few GFS runs for next Tuesday. That's a good orientation to advect some modest early-season cold air. It looks like maybe an outside chance of snow. The CMC has a little something too. Sneaky late developing low scenario if that shortwave can amplify a bit more.
  6. 500mb was definitely a touch sharper. Ticked towards yesterday's snowier solutions.
  7. Great point. I think this confuses a lot of people. I guess they do it for continuity. The way we classically categorize hurricanes seems relatively simplistic and a little bit archaic. Maybe it's time for a more sophisticated (and more realistic/meaningful/accurate) categorizing scheme.
  8. Me neither. Not at ground level outside a tornado. Hurricane strength is measured based on maximum sustained winds in the most intense part of the storm over the open water. Those ideal conditions are not present over land. And in the rare cases where extremely strong winds are present, measuring equipment is rarely located in the perfect location to measure them. Some people assume at Cat 4 means Cat 4 winds will be widespread. That's clearly not the case. Even Cat 2 sustained winds are uncommon at ground level over land.
  9. For that you'd probably have to measure right at the coastline in the eastern eyewall. Or measure on top of a high building. Friction with the land surface decreases winds significantly. Official measurements above 100mph sustained are uncommon.
  10. Definitely north of west. But it should be enough of an angle to give a somewhat different image.
  11. Hmm, I would have guessed the top (first) image. The presentation just looks a lot like precipitation attenuation. And it would make sense. But you make a good point about the different radar sites.
  12. Where are the two radar sites located? Are the images from exactly the same time. Clearly the southern eyewall has lower intensity precipitation. But depending on where the radars are located, there could also be some attenuation of the beams. In one image, it looks like the radar is located almost due north. In the other, it looks more like to the NNW. I don't see how there wouldn't be some attenuation due to an intense hurricane eyewall. But if one radar site is actually located far to the east or west, then maybe you are correct.
  13. Commercial aircraft do show up in radar images. Landing approach paths into airports can be discerned in long-term averaged radar images. Not sure if the scale is correct for an aircraft, but it's not impossible.
  14. There are no radar sites to the south of Laura, so the most likely area of obstruction would be the very southern eyewall area. But regardless, the southern eyewall appears to have lower intensity precipitation compared to other quadrants.
  15. I haven't looked at different radar sites, so cannot speak to your first point. But I've definitely seen torrential rainfall (as in the northern eyewall for example) attenuate the beam at this range.
  16. Looks like radar beam attenuation due to intense precipitation.
  17. I'm sure there were some high 60s and isolated low 70s in many towns and cities close to the shore. But I think if 70 mph+ plus was widespread inland the damage would have been much more extensive. There were many downed trees, but the damage I saw clearly reflected sub hurricane force winds. And the limited wind data we have doesn't offer much support for widespread higher gusts.
  18. You kind of make my point. Only a few areas, relatively near shore, on a large island heavily exposed to southerly winds off the Ocean, reported 70 mph+. LI is a very exposed piece of land, and was particularly exposed in this setup. The majority of the NYC metro saw max gusts below 70 mph, which was still sufficient to cause widespread damage.
  19. Along or near the immediate shore, especially in LI, there were widespread gusts over 70. But inland I think it was mostly lower than that. 60 mph gusts over the course of a few hours can definitely bring down large trees, especially with full summer foliage.
  20. Two lessons learned (hopefully): 1) 60 mph+ wind gusts are very damaging. 2) Be suspicious of modeled 60 mph+ winds away from immediate shorelines.
  21. I've seen strong wind storms in western Europe - Netherlands, Germany, Poland - where 20%+ of the treecover was felled over dozens to hundreds of square miles. On the east coast of the US, tree damage tends to be much more localized, particularly in severe thunderstorms. But I can imagine a scenario where we lose a lot more trees over a widespread area. Saturated ground and widespread 80-100mph winds would do it. And it will happen one day.