Jns2183

Does anyone have any experience with using QGIS here? Particularly importing LIDAR maps the government made to build a horizon analysis that look at heights of the land and of the vegetation/forest on it? If you have experience with any of the mentioned items above, especially a good tutorial for QGIS I would appreciate it. That software is kicking my ass. Sent from my SM-S731U using Tapatalk

.42" here. The soil moisture levels needed this Sent from my SM-S731U using Tapatalk

We've had such an above normal april that when comparing to other years like it when stands out is that may tends to be below normal in almost every case. Also the kinda of rain we need, slow soaking, long duration, usually comes with cut of lows, east winds and temperatures in the 60's during June and 50's during May Sent from my SM-S731U using Tapatalk

My dad had one hit his neighborhood. He has no power or Internet and he hears the chainsaw going. Right up means about 1,200 ft there and that looks like about 100 knots g2g at peak Sent from my SM-S731U using Tapatalk

I think this year we see some action. In May. Although with these temperatures that may get pushed to April. Sent from my SM-S731U using Tapatalk

I just want to get it as cold as possible going into this monstrosity. Our Average high the past 25 years this week is 65 degrees which appears to be our low temperature this week Sent from my SM-S731U using Tapatalk

I have everyone complaining how cold I have the house this morning but I call it prepping for this week. The ac goes on the minute the sun breaks out today. I currently have ambient temperature at 61 degrees inside Sent from my SM-S731U using Tapatalk

That seems like a road perfect for experiencing a NDE storm chasing Sent from my SM-S731U using Tapatalk

If you're in the mood the nerdout, I’ve been drifting into the "ghost math" of how we actually capture the sky. It turns out our rain gauges are essentially professional liars, especially when the wind is busy whisking our snow away or the radar beams are overshooting the action entirely. I’ve pulled together a little guide on the invisible physics behind it all, from the way a breeze "deflects" a snowflake right past the collector to why our local airport totals might be missing a good 15% of the real story. It’s dive into fluid dynamics and PA weather quirks, perfect for anyone who wants to see the logic that turns raw data into the actual ground truth. https://jns182wx.github.io/Gauge_Bias_Correction/ I have a couple of calculators for anyone to try figure out their own biases Sent from my SM-S731U using Tapatalk

To the wisdom filled folks here who have any remembrance of the famous northeast 5+ year drought what do you remember. Reading up on it in context of the 1960's was a wild ride. It appears states were preparing to come to blows with other states, like drawing up national guard plans, to secure their water due to some ridiculous poor planning. The Delaware river was site to a full on war against the salinity encroachment not threatened to make all drinking water in se pa undrinkable. Throwing the crazy politics and daily bombings and it seems like a wild ride. Sent from my SM-S731U using Tapatalk

.03" to go with my .48" sunday Lancaster county is doing a whole better than Franklin and especially Adams this week. Adams has fallen off a cliff Sent from my SM-S731U using Tapatalk

Those stations I posted about from PEMN have soil moisture and temperature at 3 depths Plant Available Water. 10\text{cm}: Moisture for your Lawn. (Currently in a deficit/drying phase). 20\text{cm}: Moisture for your Shrubs and Garden. (Currently stable, near baseline). 50\text{cm}: Moisture for your Trees. (Currently very healthy and high). Watch moisture after it rains and during dry spells. They signal everything The rain past Sunday never even with dent on the deeper sensors. The upper sensor we already are below where we were on Sunday. Sent from my SM-S731U using Tapatalk

If people are not aware I wanted to let them know about the PEMN Network Penn state's putting a lot of places that are rural. We're talking about many thousands of dollar professional stations that put out excellent one minute data that can be seen in real time. If you go to the Pennsylvania climate website and look for PEMN viewer Sent from my SM-S731U using Tapatalk

I was at Hershey Park for 7 hours Saturday. This weather would have been much preferable. Mid 80's and the sun beating in those lines was not enjoyable. At least I didn't go Friday and have to deal with that giant fight. Sent from my SM-S731U using Tapatalk

My Magnus Opus of why I can never be mad at preceiptitation reports after a big storms.. We've all been there. NEXRAD shows 0.50" for your pixel. Your CoCoRaHS gauge reads 0.22". Your neighbor two blocks over posts 0.81". Both of you are right. The radar might also be right. Here's why, and why it gets genuinely alarming during intense convection. The Geometry First I'm 73.8 miles from KCCX at State College. At that range, the 1° beam has expanded to 6,803 feet in diameter — that's 1.29 miles across. The center of that beam is floating 7,882 feet above my roof. The super-resolution pixel covering my house is 0.830 square miles / 2.15 km². The legacy pixel was 1.660 square miles / 4.30 km². That single dBZ value stamped on that pixel represents the average backscatter of a volume of air roughly the size of 12 Disneylands hovering a mile and a half above the ground. Now imagine 100 top-of-the-line rain gauges evenly distributed across that pixel. Super-res spacing works out to one gauge every 481 feet. I stand dead-center in my grid cell. By Pythagoras, my four nearest gauges are at the corners — each 340 feet away from me. Here's Where It Gets Uncomfortable For well-behaved stratiform rain — your warm-frontal overrunning, your classic nimbostratus — everything is fine. CV of 0.10 to 0.16. My four nearest gauges within a few hundredths of each other. Radar is defensible. Life is good. But bump up into Category 7 — intense convective core directly over the pixel — and the math falls apart spectacularly. Radar reports 0.50". CV = 1.00. Standard deviation = 0.50". Lognormal distribution gives a pixel-wide range of 0.090" to 1.391" at the P5/P95 level. That's a 15:1 spread across my 0.830 square mile pixel, between gauges that are less than half a mile from each other. But here's the part that genuinely made me sit back: my four nearest gauges — 340 feet away from me, about the length of a city block — have a realistic P10/P90 spread of 0.250" to 0.810". Three-to-one variation between gauges I can practically see from my porch. Both are physically correct measurements of the same event. Scale that up to Category 8 — extreme/flash flood/training cells — and it becomes almost philosophical. Radar reports 0.50". Pixel range P5/P95: 0.052" to 1.613". That's a 31:1 ratio. My four nearest gauges: 0.157" to 0.965". Six-to-one. The gauge 340 feet north of me reads under two tenths. The gauge 340 feet east reads close to an inch. The radar says half an inch. Every single instrument is functioning perfectly. At 1.00" reported by the radar the numbers get worse: Cat 7 gives my nearest four a spread of 0.500" to 1.620" and Cat 8 gives 0.314" to 1.930". The gauge closest to me physically could read less than a third of an inch while the one a city block away reads nearly two inches. During the same event. At the same time. Why This Matters for Verification Work This isn't a measurement error problem. This isn't instrument quality. This is the fundamental physics of convective precipitation at sub-kilometer scales, documented by Peleg et al. (2013) with a dense gauge network and confirmed repeatedly in the literature. Rainfall within a single radar pixel during convection can vary by over 100% — and that finding came from a network covering a smaller area than my NEXRAD pixel at 73.8 miles. When someone posts their CoCoRaHS total and it's half what radar showed during a summer storm, the correct response isn't "your gauge is off." The correct response is "yes, that is entirely expected and physically consistent with everything we know about convective precipitation structure." The radar isn't wrong. Your gauge isn't wrong. The atmosphere just doesn't care about our need for tidy single-number summaries. The only honest statement you can make about precipitation during a Cat 7/8 event with a single gauge is: this is what fell at this exact point. Full stop. Extrapolating to even the next block over is an act of faith, not measurement. Methodology: Lognormal distribution fit to literature CV values by precip type (Ciach & Krajewski 1999, 2006; Peleg et al. 2013; Jensen & Pedersen 2005). Local near-gauge CV compressed by exponential spatial correlation model. KCCX beam geometry calculated using 4/3 Earth radius refraction. All pixel areas computed from actual Camp Hill–KCCX range of 73.8 miles. Sent from my SM-S731U using Tapatalk