ncforecaster89
-
Posts
1,166 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Blogs
Forums
American Weather
Media Demo
Store
Gallery
Posts posted by ncforecaster89
-
-
1 hour ago, MacChump said:
lol what?
That’s what I said and thought! Insane if true.
-
2
-
-
I just heard from a member here who told me that another member of this particular forum supposedly went to another members house and assaulted them over them calling this storm a bust. Anyone know who this idiot might happen to be or even if there’s truth to this rumor?
-
2
-
-
Just now, rockchalk83 said:
What is a KU storm?
It’s an acronym for the authors of a book on historical winter storms that have affected the NE U.S.
In other words, It’s essentially an HECS (Historic East Coast Storm).
The probability of this particular event reaching that esteemed category continues to increase, but not yet guaranteed.
On a related note: we at least want to avoid an “FU” storm. Seen too many of those over the past 4 years in SNE.
-
4
-
-
Getting this topic out of the storm thread. Just sharing my own personal preference for old-school football where defenses were allowed to play more physical. Same with the NBA. There’s too much of an advantage offensively in today’s game.
Then again, it might be that I’m just getting older…making me “old school.”Lol. Turning 52 in May. Where has time gone? Crazy!
-
3 minutes ago, dendrite said:
Anyway, hopefully the goofus is as exciting as that game.
Couldn’t agree more! I desperately want an opportunity to resume chasing an HECS or significant blizzard in SNE or even NNE. Haven’t had such an event since the four March Nor'easters of 2018.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, dendrite said:
Change it to each team has a chance and then you’ll get games where both teams score a TD, and then the team that scored first will score again. Then that will be considered unfair since the other team doesn’t get 2 shots. I mean where does it end?
That’s why I prefer the college rules for OT, but having said that…I still think it’s MORE fair to go to the current rules after each team is guaranteed one possession, if the first team scores a TD, or go to sudden death after that process.
Simply put, each team should have at least one offensive possession, no matter the procedure from there, in my own personal opinion.
-
3 minutes ago, dendrite said:
Please no. Don’t want the gimmicky college rules in the NFL.
The NFL doesn’t really want long overtimes due to player safety. They’ve already reduced it to 10 mins in the reg season. The D coordinators need to keep playing aggressive and not slip into scared prevent mode.
Of course, on the flip side, the Bucs may still be alive if they hadn’t been way too aggressive (all out blitz) on that last play to set up the game winning FG for the Rams.
-
5 minutes ago, DavisStraight said:
I remember everyone complaining when the Pats beat KC in OT with a TD on the first drive, don't think the KC fans will be complaining now.
I’ve always preferred the way it’s done in college. I’m all for making it as fair as can be humanly possible.
-
3 minutes ago, PhineasC said:
The Bengals will probably be demolished now. KC is fired up.
Burrow is not ready for this meat grinder. In a couple seasons, yes. But not yet.
This will be like Luke vs Vader first duel.
I agree, unfortunately. Definitely think KC is the huge favorite to win it all. Felt that way all along, but I can’t stand them, personally. Never been an Andy Reid or Tyreek Hill fan.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, moneypitmike said:
Well all my teams are out. Lol
Ironically, it’s been a horrible weekend for me, as well, watching each team I was rooting for lose on the final play of each respective game. Guess I’m going to pull for Cincy from here.
-
1 minute ago, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said:
His point is that it shouldn’t be like that, especially in the playoffs.
I deleted the post immediately, once I reread it. You replied with ninga skills before I did so. Lol
-
2 minutes ago, mreaves said:
I think in OT each team should get a possession regardless if the first teams scores a td. If each team fails to score then it’s sudden death.
I agree, except I also prefer the way it’s done in college so that the team who wins the coin toss doesn’t keep having the advantage.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said:
Prevent defense NEVER works.
Like they say, “it prevents you from winning!” In that case, it almost always works. Btw, I’m a huge bills fan.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, JoshWeather said:
maybe instead of going from models showing 8+ inches and ending up with 1-2 inches we'll go to models showing 20+ inches and ending up with 4-5!
The truth is, far more often than not, we go from those modeled events to literally a completely non-event…in relation to the latest GFS run posted above.
Not saying it’s impossible or isn’t meteorologically plausible, but simply very low probability; albeit no less fun to look at. It’s the things “wet dreams” are made of for the weather weenie, and sometimes, dreams do come true!
-
I completely understand why weather enthusiasts get so disappointed, and frustrated, when model trends move towards a less desirable solution.
That said, I’d simply like to note that as good as computer modeling has become over the past few decades, they will never be able to 100% accurately account for all the complexities involved in the atmospheric processes that lead to such weather phenomena.
With that in mind, It’s important to also remember that the significant strides we’ve made in weather forecasting over the past few decades has been the result of enhanced computer modeling…without which, forecasts would result in far greater errors.
-
1
-
-
Raleigh, NC Snowstorms (1887-1947):
*6.0” or greater*
02/21/1889: 10.0”
12/27-28/1892: 9.5”01/18-19/1893: 12.0”
02/17-18/1896: 7.0”
12/02-03/1896: 7.5”
01/28/1899: 7.5”
02/11-13/1899: 17.7”
02/15-17/1902: 17.9”
02/10-11/1912: 6.5”
02/14/1913: 6.0”
02/26/1914: 7.0”
12/12-13/1917: 7.1”
01/26-27/1921: 8.3”
01/26-28/1922: 9.5”
01/09-11/1927: 7.3”
03/02/1927: 17.8”
12/17/1930: 7.0”
01/13/1933: 10.0”
03/10/1934: 8.0”
12/29/1935: 6.2”
02/06-07/1936: 8.0”
12/28/1937: 6.0”
03/24/1940: 7.0”
-
2
-
-
12 hours ago, StantonParkHoya said:
In the 60s/70s it happened almost every year it seemed like
Here is a listing of all snowfalls (of at least 6”) measured at RDU…dating back to 1945:
12/09-10/2018: 8.9”
02/24-26/2015: 6.5”
12/25-26/2010: 7.1”
02/26-27/2004: 6.5”
01/02-03/2002: 10.8”
01/24-25/2000: 20.3”
02/17-18/1989: 6.2”01/07-08/1988: 7.3”
02/06/1984: 6.9”
03/24/1983: 7.3”
01/13-14/1982: 6.0”
03/01-02/1980: 11.1”
02/18-19/1979: 10.4”
01/07-08/1973: 6.4”
03/01/1969: 9.3”
02/09/1967: 9.1”
01/25-27/1966: 9.7”
02/26/1963: 6.9”
03/02-03/1960: 7.1”
03/09/1960: 6.9”
12/11/1958: 9.1”
01/19/1955: 9.0”
01/31-02/01/1948: 9.0”
02/09-10/1948: 14.5”
-
2
-
-
6 hours ago, mattie g said:
I don't know if you can put all the blame on VDOT. If you get high volume of traffic - including tractor trailers - trying to drive in 2"/hr rates, accidents will happen. That starts the chain of events that closes down the highway. How many resources are available to move multiple 18-wheelers off of entrance and exit ramps in 12" of hardpacked snow along a 50-mile stretch of highway? If you can't move them and get people off the road, then you can't plow.
I was right in the middle of that mess from 1030 am into 630 am this morning. Took me 20 hours to travel less than 50 miles from around mile marker 106 to 156 on I-95 N (between Ladysmith and Woodbridge, VA). The predominant issue was countless tractor-trailers getting stuck and/or being unable to get traction to move on the icy roads.
The secondary issue was the typical impatient and reckless drivers causing unnecessary accidents when they inevitably got stuck. This doesn’t include the few plows we saw that closed one lane by unconsciously plowing snow into said lane making it impossible for tractor-trailers to move.
The other things you noted obviously contributed to this disaster, but I’m simply sharing firsthand observations that made it 10x worse.
-
3
-
-
5 minutes ago, Bubbler86 said:
Merry Christmas all.
Merry Christmas to you and everyone else, here. As always, I’m spending Christmas at my wife’s family home in Lancaster.
-
3
-
-
It’s not a perfect science, so it’s unlikely we’ll ever truly know the exact intensity of storms such as Irma, Michael, and Dorian.
It appears that the SFMR isn’t the most reliable tool/method in determining the strength of these high-end systems. Although imperfect, flight-level Recon wind obs and dropwindsounde data (especially WL-150 winds) are far more trustworthy for assessing intensity…as a result of long-term application and research.
Given the aforementioned, and the fact the SFMR measurements are the only data supportive of an intensity greater than 145 kt…it’s likely the peak surface winds were closer to 150 kt for Dorian. The same applies for Irma, albeit it actually had higher 700 mb FLWs in support of a 150 kt intensity.
As well-detailed in the TCR, Michael’s peak intensity was highly likely somewhere in the 140-145 kt range…or about 5-9 kt (6-10mph) below that of Irma and Dorian, respectively.
Edit: I suspect the NHC will ultimately revise the respective intensities…as a compromise between the adjusted SFMR recalibration results and the Recon data…to arrive at the following:
Dorian: 155 kt
Irma: 150 kt
Michael: 140 kt
-
Hi Roger! Thanks for all the work you put into this effort. Just wanted to note that all of us below the 20/9/4 numbers should be listed a position higher (e.g. after BKViking, since they have the same forecast as WxWatcher007). By counting both, as equal, we get unfairly knocked down a place…due to our efforts to provide a distinct forecast from everyone else.
Edit: This post isn’t meant to disparage BKVing and it’s not a big deal, necessarily. I’m just big on fairness in general.
-
1
-
-
“Ida” is a prime example of why I wish the NHC would add the descriptive term of “Super” for major hurricanes with a MSW of 130 kt or greater…similar to the WPAC.
Reasoning being there is a significant difference in the ferocity of the wind and its destructive ability at these velocities in comparison with those at the lower-end of the Cat 4 range.
-
2
-
-
To better understand (determine) how that 223 mph instantaneous wind gust corresponds to a one-minute sustained wind speed at standard height…one can use the power law to covert from that 30 meter height to 10 meters elevation.
First, we need to convert the instantaneous gust to a 1-minute sustained wind speed. Extensive research
has shown that an instantaneous wind gust can be converted to a 1-minute wind speed by a factor of 1.45. In this case, it would translate to 154 mph.
Then, we’ll simply use the power law equation to extrapolate the aforementioned 154 mph wind at 30 m to a 10 m equivalent. To do so accurately, you need to utilize the appropriate surface roughness length. In this case, I’m using 0.10 for open ocean.
This converts to a 139 mph (120 kt) one minute sustained wind value. That’s a very impressive in-situ measurement to be captured at landfall in Port Fourchon.
Given its highly unlikely that any anemometer would be positioned perfectly to capture the highest wind speed in the eyewall, and taking into account that the strongest winds were likely found just to the E…this measurement provides excellent additional support for the operational intensity of 130 kt.
-
1
-
-
On 10/18/2021 at 10:52 PM, Maxwell03 said:
2006?
You’re correct, as I totally missed that particular season and the 2015 season. That’s what I get for relying on memory lol
Thus, its actually only been 6 years (feels like so much longer) since there’s been a season without an October formation. Thanks for catching my aforementioned error.
Interestingly, they (2006, 2015) were both El Niño years, as well.
Philly Area Banter
in Philadelphia Region
Posted
Here’s the actual text message I received:
“I’m hearing some guy on a weather forum, from Philadelphia, went a few blocks from where he lived and assaulted another member for claiming the storm is a bust!!!”