weatherwiz

3 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said:

Too much dry air 

It will be about as moist as a Christmas ham

13 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said:

Euro crush job 18th

could be some decent icing somewhere 

was too lazy to type it all out. 

euro quite dry though at 850 with DAA (making it up ahahahaha) quickly arriving at 700

Just now, OceanStWx said:

The tough part is that 850 mb f-gen is well east of the 700 mb forcing.

i.e. way too sloped to really help enhance omega for warning criteria amounts.

yeah that's a huge issue here too. 

It does seem though that they sort of become more stacked moving through the morning across RI/SE MA...this is virtually where any hope exists for accumulating snow. 

Hell at this juncture there's a chance someone in W CT doesn't even see a flake. Precip is going to shit down quickly. 

4 minutes ago, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said:

SWCT over performer?

If only

4 minutes ago, OceanStWx said:

Even the crappy solutions show pretty intense f-gen in the mid levels, it's just narrow. Could be a classic couple of inches for E MA while Dave is staring up at starlight filtering through the cirrus.

This is some of the strongest fronto I think I've seen on a forecast model:

If you analyze further you can easily see as well why the best chance for snow would be on the east side as opposed to the west side.

21 minutes ago, purduewx80 said:

I like using the trend gif option on the freely available sites. You can see how the northern stream wave was farther west over the Great Lakes on the NAM runs that had a stripe of heavy snow farther north. This allowed more of the southern stream wave over TX to edge in front of it. The OH Valley vort (now over WI/IA on WV loops) has trended a bit stronger too which flattened the ridge and shoved everything farther S/E. 

 

Thank you. I think using gif option's where available will be the best way to go moving forward to really understand things and learn more. This displays it beautifully. 

14 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

It's the vast majority of need... 

You have to DIFFFERENTIATE  ... Sorry to yell...just trying to get that point in to people.  If the flow is fast, and a S/W moves into that region ...the net approaches 0... as you do, you get less responses everywhere... until you are at 0, where shit nadda nothing takes place.

Everything in the atmosphere happens because of differential process.  period.  There's nothing else driving this stuff.   

Keep in mind, also, this is the science - how it pertains to this particular set up is a separate discrete analysis.  I'm just pointing this stuff out as possible explanation for the models backing off.  Because from what I am seeing actually depicted from the various sources.. the S/W is getting lost in the flow up there. 

Gotcha...this helps. Great explanation. 

2 minutes ago, purduewx80 said:

It has everything to do with it. That shallow wedge of dry air on a few models at 850 mb has nothing to do with why most guidance shifted southeast in the past 24 hours. 

See...this is where I am a bit weak in analysis. 

Well...I get the southeast shift has little to do with the shallow edge of dry air at 850...

but what about the differences in the s/w relate to a farther southeast shift in precip. This is what I struggle to deal with visually on models. 

2 minutes ago, CTWeatherFreak said:

Yes.. seems too me more than once weve  had 6" of virga.

At least there is no virga when tracking severe 

6 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

 

Starting to see why the models are backing off a bit as we get closer .. 

The problem is that the wind velocity at mid levels ahead of the western OV [ apparent ] short wave are not actually differentiating with respect to S/W enough because of that antecedent velocity surplus... S/W 'disappears' in streams that are already fast and that's it.. game over ( in relative amounts that is..). 

Anyway, I've tried to explain this a thousand times and it doesn't seem to be very well-received - probably ignored because it's bad news whenever the topic needs to come up... But, when the flow is very fast, S/W's get absorbed.. .and when they get absorbed, they don't have mechanical ability to trigger restoring jet structures... which in this case, is the post frontal up-glide -- destablization and breakout of lag QPF... etc... Go find the S/W over the western OV and notice the wind well ahead of it are already over 110 kts everywhere! 

I've been discussing at length across recent years ... that velocity surplussing in the atmosphere is a detriment in some cases because it is, in a 2ndary sense of it, a destructive wave interference in the relationship between large scale base-state synoptics, when then placing S/W spaces into said field that is already screaming. 

The large scale 'cancels' out the power of the smaller scales... There is only so much mechanical energy available to the atmosphere, which we know to be true. The Earth only rotates so fast and the density of the atmosphere is a constant... such that PV=NRT combined with the Corriolis in the equations of atmospheric motions can only result in so much .. .Well, if the large scale already expresses all that strength, the S/W are screwed - one way to think of it.  So, this OV S/W is having trouble in the models inducing the upglide over the west side of the front.  

   

In a situation like this though, how important is that s/w? Too me, I don't think it is overly important (referring to that OV s/w)...that s/w lags the cold front quite a bit and it's this front (and associated frontal energy) as it pushes through which just yields a different atmospheric state (going from buoyant to subsident). Even if that s/w didn't really get absorbed and maybe the jet feature/speed was more favorable...would it do anything to help? If there was stronger moisture advection which could shoot in with some WAA as we lose the influence of the front...maybe it would be different? 

22 minutes ago, OceanStWx said:

I think the grand irony there is that we probably pay more attention to southern NH than we should just because that's where all our population lives. 

I feel like there are people who just browse social media 24/7 and stalk either local news stations or NWS and troll. My roommate from school works on TV in Bangor, ME and the comments he gets are ridiculous. One viewer was claiming she measured like 26'' of snow in the last storm and was upset b/c when he mentioned a range of totals that fell on air her total wasn't in the range lol

10 minutes ago, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said:

Not saying there’s no chance of snow we could get like 1-2” still but you and others raised some flags that some of us read and learned from. 

What I've learned from here over the years is that the best method/approach to forecasting is to account for everything...especially flags. When flags start to arise, that's when you need to pump the brakes and start asking yourself questions in your head...questions such as "how does this alter the potential outcome" or "what does this offset". What I then do is try and paint a visualization in my head of how everything will look as the event is unfolding (especially regarding radar). 

This does burn me often b/c I will be conservative more times than not, however, I have learned that there are some things I may place too much emphasis in or that my understanding of what I was interpreting was just flat out wrong. One example of this is RH in the DGZ. For some reason I was using 90+% as a threshold, however, upon reading up, I was way too high...threshold seems to be more in the 80-85% range...so when I would see less than 90% I would think it was too dry for good snowgrowth and I would underforecast. 

I also suck at not necessarily analyzing charts like 500 vorticity, but I really suck at understanding how the pieces work together and how subtle changes in placement, structure, track influence everything at the surface. This BURNED me last year...remember the weekend where we had a storm Friday and sunday or Monday...I completely played up the Friday one and and downplayed the second one...we got little Friday and slammed Sunday. 

3 minutes ago, OceanStWx said:

I really, really wanted to keep any accumulating snow basically offshore with yesterday afternoon's forecast, but alas I had to try and shoehorn in around 2 inches to match up with neighbors. Didn't like getting dragged a bit on twitter for "ignoring" southern NH.

Just looking at our midnight shift grids and I'm going to have to chop even more than they did.

That certainly presents a major challenge for you...and everyone else really. It has to be tough when forecasting along the boundaries of CWA's in questionable situations...you think 1-2'' but just across the border they're going like 4-6''...huge difference and that does the public no good. People really thought you were ignoring southern NH...lol

5 minutes ago, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said:

You schooled the models and weenies on this one. Good work.

Thanks but it's not over yet haha. If the Pats can come back from down 28-3...anything can happen lol. 

Just now, dryslot said:

Coating to a trace?

I wonder if you can forecast negative snow...since we measure snow that reaches the ground (a positive value) what about snow that evaporates before reaching the ground...or gets caught in the updrafts?..it's not falling to the ground...it's rising farther from the ground. 

3 minutes ago, weathafella said:

Why?  It’s not like the coast will be getting onshore winds.  Everyone should be below freezing.   Moisture is the issue.

What's funny is there is a chance perhaps CT coast sees more than inland  

On 12/7/2019 at 12:53 PM, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said:

Winter months could be tough for NNE folk, no? 

One in winter and one in summer I think is fine.

The problem with the winter one is it is done on a Monday and in Boston. Living in CT, by the time we get out of work and into Boston...it would be time to come home. 

I like a spring/summer one b/c the weather is so much nicer and it's more enjoyable...Funky's I think had doors open and throughout the history of these things the spring/summer ones always seem to have higher turnouts...though there was an early winter one that did very well once or twice. 

Ugly

3 minutes ago, The 4 Seasons said:

Here, took 15 seconds!

Love it 

Should have put the lol emoji over Tolland

8 minutes ago, The 4 Seasons said:

LOL 0-0?

Easiest map to do LOL 

I may have to lower 

Just now, WeatherX said:

So 3-6 coast and 4-8 inland?


.

I'd bet on this over the deal

Just now, CoastalWx said:

I actually thought NAM was good despite the qpf. 

you see this fronto and it's so difficult not to envision two lines of ripping snow...but it's just so ehhh in the llvls

I will say this...there is a better chance of a widespread 3-6'' than Cole getting 9 years/$300+ million 

Just now, Ginx snewx said:

There's a lot in that section if you dig. Anyways you did a great write up on your reasoning for reduced QPF. Best of luck. Still some time to adjust either way. Discussion is what makes this board work. Outright dismissal of others thoughts is juvenile and egoistic. Thanks for your detailed outlook. 

Agreed...the discussion is what makes the board work. It's great to be able to read other's thoughts and reasoning's behind the forecast...it's how we all learn. After I create a forecast I like to read other's thoughts...you never know if perhaps if you overlooked something, missed something..may be placing too much/little emphasis. This field is driven by collaboration and sharing wealth of knowledge.