weathafella Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 We did that all the way up into the late 90s...lol. Well I guess in '96 or '97 you had the ability, but I lived and died through TV forecasts through the mid 90s at least. The sickest weenie knows how awesome it was to have those morning updates at 7:25 and 8:25 am. I had my weekday routine. Tv on for Rosenthal followed by Burbank and Todd Gross. Harvey at 6/11. When Harv showed up on the weekend you knew something ing big was coming. That, TWC, NECN by the 90s. After the mid 90s, we had 5 sub par years and by the time winters got good again we had computers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted November 16, 2011 Author Share Posted November 16, 2011 I had my weekday routine. Tv on for Rosenthal followed by Burbank and Todd Gross. Harvey at 6/11. When Harv showed up on the weekend you knew something ing big was coming. That, TWC, NECN by the 90s. After the mid 90s, we had 5 sub par years and by the time winters got good again we had computers. It's amazing when you think about it. Man, has technology done wonderful things for weenies. I still have this moment of watching Barbara Conrad (remember her?) on ch 56 reading the FOUS from the ETA on air for the Bliz of '96 at the end of the 10pm broadcast and she said....yep this looks like it could be a major snowstorm for Boston. This was 48hrs out I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted November 16, 2011 Author Share Posted November 16, 2011 It's amazing when you think about it. Man, has technology done wonderful things for weenies. I still have this moment of watching Barbara Conrad (remember her?) on ch 56 reading the FOUS from the ETA on air at the end of the 10pm broadcast and she said....yep this looks like it could be a major snowstorm for Boston. This was 48hrs out I believe. Well I think it was the ETA..could have been NGM..but I think it was the ETA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Well I think it was the ETA..could have been NGM..but I think it was the ETA. The best was Kevin Lemanowicz on the night of Dec 22, 1997 tearing up the ETA output on air after saying it showed a huge snowstorm for the interior and that it was out of the blue so he was ignoring it, lol. I think it was him...don't want to accuse anyone with 100% certainty, but I am pretty sure he did that. He said something like "one of our newest computer models shows a major snowstorm for interior southern New England for early tomorrow morning, but I'm gonna go ahead and say this is isn't happening", and tore it up on air fresh off the press, LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weathafella Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 The best was Kevin Lemanowicz on the night of Dec 22, 1997 tearing up the ETA output on air after saying it showed a huge snowstorm for the interior and that it was out of the blue so he was ignoring it, lol. I think it was him...don't want to accuse anyone with 100% certainty, but I am pretty sure he did that. He said something like "one of our newest computer models shows a major snowstorm for interior southern New England for early tomorrow morning, but I'm gonna go ahead and say this is isn't happening", and tore it up on air fresh off the press, LOL That was the storm which had Tom Chisholm subbing for someone and declaring as the rain slipped to snow around 6AM that "it will end by mid morning and the warm December sun will make it a distant memory by afternoon. What a moron! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 That was the storm which had Tom Chisholm subbing for someone and declaring as the rain slipped to snow around 6AM that "it will end by mid morning and the warm December sun will make it a distant memory by afternoon. What a moron! Best white Christmas for most of us in the area in our lifetimes (in terms of surprise). We all thought we were destined for a brown Christmas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted November 16, 2011 Author Share Posted November 16, 2011 The best was Kevin Lemanowicz on the night of Dec 22, 1997 tearing up the ETA output on air after saying it showed a huge snowstorm for the interior and that it was out of the blue so he was ignoring it, lol. I think it was him...don't want to accuse anyone with 100% certainty, but I am pretty sure he did that. He said something like "one of our newest computer models shows a major snowstorm for interior southern New England for early tomorrow morning, but I'm gonna go ahead and say this is isn't happening", and tore it up on air fresh off the press, LOL Ha...oops. That's funny. I still don't know what the hell created those snowfall amounts. If you go back to the NARR site..it looks so benign...lol. It defintely helped that we had an early season event loaded with juice. I wonder if there was some really strong low level frontogenesis. Not necessarily a coastal front, but maybe strong convergence in the lower 5000ft or so. Something to really set off those insane snowfall rates and squeeze all that moisture out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted November 16, 2011 Author Share Posted November 16, 2011 Ha...oops. That's funny. I still don't know what the hell created those snowfall amounts. If you go back to the NARR site..it looks so benign...lol. It defintely helped that we had an early season event loaded with juice. I wonder if there was some really strong low level frontogenesis. Not necessarily a coastal front, but maybe strong convergence in the lower 5000ft or so. Something to really set off those insane snowfall rates and squeeze all that moisture out. H7 trying to close off too, so there were lots of things going on to probably enhance the snow rates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Ha...oops. That's funny. I still don't know what the hell created those snowfall amounts. If you go back to the NARR site..it looks so benign...lol. It defintely helped that we had an early season event loaded with juice. I wonder if there was some really strong low level frontogenesis. Not necessarily a coastal front, but maybe strong convergence in the lower 5000ft or so. Something to really set off those insane snowfall rates and squeeze all that moisture out. Nobody knows to this date. There was speculation on a gravity wave I read years ago (maybe 2005?)...but nothing has ever been presented on why the snowfall was 6-8" per hour over a 2 hour period over the jackpot area....even outside of the jackpot area, there was no subsidence zone...like areas around Natick/Framingham and even to BOS were getting 2-4" per hour at the same time...it was just this massive convective-looking blob....no CSI or frontogensis type banding...it was like an MCS going over SNE but in the form of snow where it was cold enough for snow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted November 16, 2011 Author Share Posted November 16, 2011 Nobody knows to this date. There was speculation on a gravity wave I read years ago (maybe 2005?)...but nothing has ever been presented on why the snowfall was 6-8" per hour over a 2 hour period over the jackpot area....even outside of the jackpot area, there was no subsidence zone...like areas around Natick/Framingham and even to BOS were getting 2-4" per hour at the same time...it was just this massive convective-looking blob....no CSI or frontogensis type banding...it was like an MCS going over SNE but in the form of snow where it was cold enough for snow. I remember radar images and I'm trying to correlate the orientation, to some of the features that we know of today...and I don't know. It was a pretty moisture laden airmass. East winds in late December are pretty moist and temps just off that deck weren't that cold. But something had to lift that air up for several hours like that. A g-wave would explain a brief part of it. What a case study that would have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted November 16, 2011 Author Share Posted November 16, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 I remember radar images and I'm trying to correlate the orientation, to some of the features that we know of today...and I don't know. It was a pretty moisture laden airmass. East winds in late December are pretty moist and temps just off that deck weren't that cold. But something had to lift that air up for several hours like that. A g-wave would explain a brief part of it. What a case study that would have been. I think personally Dec 23, 1997 is one of the biggest mysteries in weather when looking snowstorm synoptics. Nobody can explain the extreme rates...and there is zero frontogenesis or CSI signature...its almost completely inexplicable. It looks convective. Yet, there was no reason to expect convection. Nobody has ever explained it well. Gravity wave is a theory but even that doesn't really add up...that should create a localized intense area that moves through within an hour or two and not be so large of an area. I think this event is one that has kind of been swept under the proverbial rug for explaining our atmospheric processes. I've always thought it deserved more analysis, but since it wasn't a major impact to big cities and such, it really never got more than a few looks. Mets just kind of say "well sh**, that was weird, but not sure how else to put it". Who knows what happened that morning....but its a good example of why this field remains a frontier of science. That people still cannot explain what happened that morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted November 16, 2011 Author Share Posted November 16, 2011 I think personally Dec 23, 1997 is one of the biggest mysteries in weather when looking snowstorm synoptics. Nobody can explain the extreme rates...and there is zero frontogenesis or CSI signature...its almost completely inexplicable. It looks convective. Yet, there was no reason to expect convection. Nobody has ever explained it well. Gravity wave is a theory but even that doesn't really add up...that should create a localized intense area that moves through within an hour or two and not be so large of an area. I think this event is one that has kind of been swept under the proverbial rug for explaining our atmospheric processes. I've always thought it deserved more analysis, but since it wasn't a major impact to big cities and such, it really never got more than a few looks. Mets just kind of say "well sh**, that was weird, but not sure how else to put it". Who knows what happened that morning....but its a good example of why this field remains a frontier of science. That people still cannot explain what happened that morning. Just for the hell of it, I looked back at Upton and Albany soundings at 12z on the 23rd. Actually, I looked at 00z as well to see what the difference was. There is an unstable looking layer at 600mb on the Upton sounding, but the airmass is drier too which may account for the dry adiabatic look to it. There was defintely an unstable layer no doubt, over eastern mass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Just for the hell of it, I looked back at Upton and Albany soundings at 12z on the 23rd. Actually, I looked at 00z as well to see what the difference was. There is an unstable looking layer at 600mb on the Upton sounding, but the airmass is drier too which may account for the dry adiabatic look to it. There was defintely an unstable layer no doubt, over eastern mass I'm not sure that did the trick though...since it was widespread 40dbz and even a lot of 50dbz. The sounding further north was less conductive for convection than OKX. We have never seen anything all that eye-popping on the soundings from that day. Even if upton was supporting a bit of convection, is that much different than many other times they were in the warmer side of a weak low? That storm is just amazing...a lot of question marks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2Otown_WX Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 I think personally Dec 23, 1997 is one of the biggest mysteries in weather when looking snowstorm synoptics. Nobody can explain the extreme rates...and there is zero frontogenesis or CSI signature...its almost completely inexplicable. It looks convective. Yet, there was no reason to expect convection. Nobody has ever explained it well. Gravity wave is a theory but even that doesn't really add up...that should create a localized intense area that moves through within an hour or two and not be so large of an area. I think this event is one that has kind of been swept under the proverbial rug for explaining our atmospheric processes. I've always thought it deserved more analysis, but since it wasn't a major impact to big cities and such, it really never got more than a few looks. Mets just kind of say "well sh**, that was weird, but not sure how else to put it". Who knows what happened that morning....but its a good example of why this field remains a frontier of science. That people still cannot explain what happened that morning. Wow that is bizarre...maybe a good caste study for my senior research down the road. How much do you think the El Nino on roids had to do with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavisStraight Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Look at these rates from that storm, incredible AYER FINAL 21.0 (8.0 BETWEEN 1030AM-1130AM) CHELMSFORD FINAL 20.4 (6.0 BETWEEN 11AM-1230PM) SHREWSBURY 510 PM 16.8 (6.0 BETWEEN 930AM-1030AM) WEST Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N. OF PIKE Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 I'm not sure that did the trick though...since it was widespread 40dbz and even a lot of 50dbz. The sounding further north was less conductive for convection than OKX. We have never seen anything all that eye-popping on the soundings from that day. Even if upton was supporting a bit of convection, is that much different than many other times they were in the warmer side of a weak low? That storm is just amazing...a lot of question marks. great convo......i'm extremely shocked and didn't realize there was no real met explanation for the insane rates and how they transpired. . el nino on roids what were pwat's that am ? i.e something had to be many standard deviations away from the norm snow storm what were VV's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted November 16, 2011 Author Share Posted November 16, 2011 I'm not sure that did the trick though...since it was widespread 40dbz and even a lot of 50dbz. The sounding further north was less conductive for convection than OKX. We have never seen anything all that eye-popping on the soundings from that day. Even if upton was supporting a bit of convection, is that much different than many other times they were in the warmer side of a weak low? That storm is just amazing...a lot of question marks. I was just trying to find some clues..any clues. I was curious just to see what the soundings were like. The OKX sounding like I said had an unstable layer, but it was relatively dry so it doesn't tell us much. Chatham had an unstable layer near 550mb but again, it probably was more of a function being closer to the warmer side of the low. I agree it doesn't tell all, but there was defintely some instability to get those rates. The question then becomes..why the hell was it so expansive and so intense? It doesn't explain those parts. I can't believe nobody looked closer at it. Something had to force that air to rise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorEastermass128 Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 I was just trying to find some clues..any clues. I was curious just to see what the soundings were like. The OKX sounding like I said had an unstable layer, but it was relatively dry so it doesn't tell us much. Chatham had an unstable layer near 550mb but again, it probably was more of a function being closer to the warmer side of the low. I agree it doesn't tell all, but there was defintely some instability to get those rates. The question then becomes..why the hell was it so expansive and so intense? It doesn't explain those parts. I can't believe nobody looked closer at it. Something had to force that air to rise. Or someone? CTBlizz testing his snow machine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted November 16, 2011 Author Share Posted November 16, 2011 [/b] Or someone? CTBlizz testing his snow machine. Even orographic lift over Mt Tolland couldn't explain it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 I was just trying to find some clues..any clues. I was curious just to see what the soundings were like. The OKX sounding like I said had an unstable layer, but it was relatively dry so it doesn't tell us much. Chatham had an unstable layer near 550mb but again, it probably was more of a function being closer to the warmer side of the low. I agree it doesn't tell all, but there was defintely some instability to get those rates. The question then becomes..why the hell was it so expansive and so intense? It doesn't explain those parts. I can't believe nobody looked closer at it. Something had to force that air to rise. No, I think your comments are def good...but I was just saying, I've seen some analysis on this before trying to explain it, but they never really could....it was gravity wave. But they even said the gravity wave couldn't explain all of it. Its def a meteorological mystery that would be fun to try and solve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Its the only storm in the SNE region that I've seen almost no explanation for 5-8" per hour rates. Just some passing theories that even admit don't explain everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earthlight Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 We discussed this briefly in one of my courses last semester. It is absolutely one of the most mind boggling events I've come across. If you told me in advance that this synoptic setup would produce 5-8"/hr rates, I would probably laugh in your face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 We discussed this briefly in one of my courses last semester. It is absolutely one of the most mind boggling events I've come across. If you told me in advance that this synoptic setup would produce 5-8"/hr rates, I would probably laugh in your face. Yes...it looks pathetic on the reanalysis. It would support the 1-3/2-4" forecasts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Who the hell would predict 18" at ORH based on that map? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted November 16, 2011 Author Share Posted November 16, 2011 We discussed this briefly in one of my courses last semester. It is absolutely one of the most mind boggling events I've come across. If you told me in advance that this synoptic setup would produce 5-8"/hr rates, I would probably laugh in your face. Yeah exactly. I mean, there are signs of some possible S+, but what the hell explains the coverage and duration? There are likely several factors that worked in complete harmony to produce this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted November 16, 2011 Author Share Posted November 16, 2011 Who the hell would predict 18" at ORH based on that map? Kevin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earthlight Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Who the hell would predict 18" at ORH based on that map? Sounds like a good next-conference research presentation to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Yeah exactly. I mean, there are signs of some possible S+, but what the hell explains the coverage and duration? There are likely several factors that worked in complete harmony to produce this. The duration was close...it only lasted 5-6 hours. The intensity is what totally f**ked the forecast. Why weould anyone in their right mind forecast 5-6" per hour for 2 hours from that? Nevermind 1-2" per hour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Sounds like a good next-conference research presentation to me. I would have done it 3 conferences ago if I knew the reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.