Jump to content

calculus1

Members
  • Posts

    4,900
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by calculus1

  1. I think they are accounting for the lee-side minimum in these WWAs.  The centers of Caldwell, Burke, McDowell, etc. appear to have the least likely chances to meet WWA criteria, so they decided not to issue them.  I would feel better about my own chances if I were on the eastern side of Catawba County.  I think the NW corner, where I am, has the least likely chance of getting accumulating snowfall in this setup.

    • Like 1
  2. Ugh.  Such a difference in possible outcomes here in the lee.  12K NAM and RGEM show nothing just to the east of the foothills.  ICON, FV3, 3KNAM, and earlier runs of the GFS show a little precip maximum there.  So, could get completely blanked here in Hickory or could get a couple of decent inches.  Like always, never really know until it’s “Go time”.

    • Like 3
  3. 21 minutes ago, PackGrad05 said:

    I hate these charts even more after reading this article.

    This article does not explain how ensembles work.  It explains how WRAL takes the number of ensemble members that show 1 inch of snow for your backyard out of the total 50 that run with each ECMWF iteration to manufacture a “probability” or “chance” of 1 inch of snow in your backyard.  That’s not a “probability” of 1 inch of snow.  It’s a “percentage” of ensemble members that show the desired outcome.  Those 50 ensemble members aren’t the only possible 50 outcomes for how the storm system could evolve, and they aren’t equally likely outcomes.  It’s not a probability.

    If all it takes to be a meteorologist is being able to calculate percentages of ensemble members that show a particular outcome and making a pretty chart to graph it, then sign me up.

    Rant over.  I’ll shut up now and promise to stop commenting on these charts even though people keep posting them in here.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...