Jump to content

weatherwiz

Meteorologist
  • Posts

    79,765
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by weatherwiz

  1. 2 minutes ago, OceanStWx said:

    Part of me kind of misses the days of broad ranges with highlighted zones for "locally higher amounts"

    The problem these days is that you can try and forecast the band from PVD-GHG on this run. But then the next run it's ORH-BOS, so you increase the snow there. But you don't want to drop it from PVD-GHG just in case that was actually right. So the snow amounts are forever only going up until it's too late to recover from the messenger shuffle.

    200.webp

    The broad brush ranges certainly makes things much easier lol. 

    But I can understand why there has been more of a movement to include more ranges and place greater emphasis on max/min zones. If you're in say an emergency planning vertical or DOT, landscaping, etc. the broad brush ranges often don't serve a great value (this is where the private sector come in because you can pay for greater local detail). 

    Anyways very impressive to see that the short-term guidance and mesos absolutely nailed how this would evolve...literally to a T, especially with the evolution of the two bands and what would happen in between and even more impressive, the timing this would begin. 

    These large events (or really any event) so there is much focus and so much sweat on analyzing QPF and QPF trends, snow maps and snow map trends and comparing from one model to another and one run to another run...that's a pretty terrible way to assess storm trends and evolution, IMO. In fact, on one of my lecture slides the professor even has stated in bold...these products do not explain why trends in storm track or precipitation intensity are there. 

    This shall be another fun case study storm

  2. 46 minutes ago, OceanStWx said:

    In a typical developing (i.e. not peak intensity) storm your frontogenesis is going to be sloped towards the cold air. 850 is farther southeast than 700 mb, and so on. Lift tends to be maximized around 700 mb, hence congrats Dendrite.

    This storm bombed out a little farther south, so one of the first things I noticed was the position of the forecast 700 and 850 mb frontogenesis.

    0f095dfa-cc17-4149-97db-12555d34cc50.png

    1e88047a-bb65-4be0-9bbd-d327647db09d.png

    While still sloped a bit, it's far more collocated/vertically stacked. That signaled to me that one major band would develop. And that look at 700 mb with a secondary band farther north suggested to me that it wasn't going to be a uniform precip shield. That a subsidence zone was possible between the two. I may have sent a text about toaster baths in the LWM area to @CoastalWx and @CT Rain Sunday.

    I made a little gif too, so you can see how the forcing is overlaid.

    18fc8efa-0319-4f7b-a13a-72d66221c599.gif

    I do think part of the problem with the secondary band was that it was advecting so much dry air into the storm. @dendrite posted somewhere along the line the map of RH, and 50% across central NH just wasn't going to get it done for that northern extent. It was like a dry wedge in the usually CAD spots. 

    Very annoyed with myself because that was a glaring signal on all guidance...extremely glaring signal but for some reason I didn't want to buy it and buy into exactly how bad the potential for subsidence would be in the valley. The signals were all right there, laid out right there and just totally overlooked. 

    Great stuff on the differences in alignment regarding 850mb fronto and 700mb fronto and what happens when the two become stacked. Moving forward I am going to give stronger attention to this. Anytime there are situations where models are big with the 700mb fronto, I've disregarded what's happening at 850 in terms of fronto. I wonder if this stuff would be covered in my course this week focusing on isentropic analysis. 

    The other challenging part when dealing with the potential for subsidence zone(s) is how to portray that on a snowfall forecast map without making the map look stupid (Speaking for myself here). I guess maybe one way to do this is don't go crazy with the ranges and then add some text or an outline indicating where max totals may be. It's much easier to highlight max zone versus min zone I think anyways

  3. 1 minute ago, Sey-Mour Snow said:

    Wild WAA temps start in the teens and even some single digits with first flakes then halt up 20 degrees in 2-3 hours , won’t be much road stickage with temps like that on the south coast and valleys. 

    I actually wouldn't be surprised if the degree of warming temps is a bit understated, especially during the precip. Possible maybe we see some late afternoon highs?

  4. 1 minute ago, Spanks45 said:

    This winter in particular....it seems like we get into these 1 week periods where it just wants to snow,  then we go another week or 2 that it doesn't want to. Upcoming period definitely fits that pattern again

    Yup.

    And I think we should be relatively active right up to probably mid-March. Don't see a hole heck of a lot too screaming warm so we're going to have potential to continue adding to seasonal totals for sure

  5. Should be a fun morning for sure, except for those traveling. 

    Also, some of the mesos are hinting at some potential squalls to move across northwest CT and Mass late afternoon or early evening with some very weak instability in place. Could see some spots pick up an additional 1-2" with those, albeit localized.

    • Like 2
×
×
  • Create New...