Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,502
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Weathernoob335
    Newest Member
    Weathernoob335
    Joined

Vendor, Blog and TV Channel Forecasts Thread


earthlight

Recommended Posts

1" seems low to me. I'm thinking 2" in Central Park given the developing system's dynamics, forecast track (considering the spread among the guidance), and qpf over the past two model cycles. A 1"-3" range probably isn't unreasonable for the City, though I think a 2"4" one might be a little better, as I suspect amounts in the 2"-3" range will be more common in the City than 1"-2" amounts. Furthermore, as a 1" figure would probably depend on low ratios (perhaps on the order of 8:1) and/or a reduction in qpf from what is forecast on most of the guidance, I suspect that there's probably a little more upside potential than downside potential e.g., if the storm develops a little more quickly than forecast.

Not to mention any shift of the Norlun, which can be very localized 15-20 miles wide ( and in many cases less) but if it parks over  you you can back looking at Lakes type hourly rates. This is a potentially volatile situation. Im more than ok going with 2-4 based .20-.30 QPF with potential for more from NE NJ on east ( Including NYC metro)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I think there is 2 just with the initial push w that strong of an h5 look .

Then I think the models need to resolve the mesoscale feature placement as that's prob 2 plus .

There will be a rip off zone. Someone may be happy while others are screaming bust.

Happens all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is 2 just with the initial push w that strong of an h5 look .

Then I think the models need to resolve the mesoscale feature placement as that's prob 2 plus .

There will be a rip off zone. Someone may be happy while others are screaming bust.

Happens all the time.

I think that's elevated even more with this one.  Could see a decent swath getting less than 2 inches while some lucky isolated areas get 6-8.  Tantrum incoming if I get screwed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Weather Channel was, in another age, a pioneering, innovative repository of weather information like never seen anywhere before. Every on camera met knew far more meteorology than anyone you would ever see on a local broadcast. I do understand that the organization continues to employ some exceptional people; especially behind the scenes; but as for some of their on camera mets...well, I could get better meteorological advice from drunks in the gutter.

Her name is Kait and she's hot!! But less then an inch? That's just irresponsible. 2" is the absolute low end. With all the drifting I doubt the zoo keeper reports less the 4"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...But less then an inch? That's just irresponsible. 2" is the absolute low end. With all the drifting I doubt the zoo keeper reports less the 4"

Even the NWS minimum snowfall product shows 1" for Central Park:

 

NWS_Minimum_Forecast_02142015.jpg

 

It's these kinds of almost flippant numbers that are thrown out on the air that make forecasters look bad when, in fact, many are very good (we see many of them here, at NWS, and elsewhere).

 

One funny anecdote from back on January 3. I was at the dentist's office on January 3 for a teeth cleaning. Channel 12 (local TV) was playing and there was a radar image shown onscreen when the weather report came on. The forecaster said something along the lines that the rain had finished falling and there would now be a dry period. Meanwhile, the radar showed an area of moderate to heavy rain (this was before Winter 2014-15 awakened after having gone into hibernation in December, so one was dealing with rain) moving toward the area just to the south and west of the Hudson River.

 

My comment to the hygienist was that he appeared to be reciting a memorized script that was out of synch with the radar and what was happening. She stated that "they're usually wrong." About 20 minutes later, a downpour had arrived.

 

As for the zookeeper, the report could state: "Trace. Blowing snow, but no actual measurement. Too windy & cold." ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

As for the zookeeper, the report could state: "Trace. Blowing snow, but no actual measurement. Too windy & cold." ;)

 

At the cooperative station in Centerport on Long Island (Vanderbilt Museum)...the actual report had written on it "no measurement due to snow" after the Blizzard of '78. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great find, Pamela.

 

Thnxs.  I have to credit NorthShoreWx...I recall him making a post about it years ago.  I may not have had the exact thing on the quote word for word, but that was the gist of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve D thinks that NYC may reach 10 inches with blizzard conditions.

One of his reasons for the increase is he expects ratios to increase dramatically. He makes a case for his concerns though. Nick Gregory was mentioning the possibility of this being more last night but was going to stay put for now. Joe Cioffi is a little more aggressive compared to NWS and he's also concerned about the ratios being higher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of the snow will fall before the wind really picks up I think though no?

Yeah your right, wind will happen later. He is still doing qpf to temp calculation and and taking the coldest temperature time which does include winds. Again, a bit aggressive with the amounts but not only are convective bands hard to predict location wise amounts are just as difficult.

You could jackpot from this, remember last year...Lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah your right, wind will happen later. He is still doing qpf to temp calculation and and taking the coldest temperature time which does include winds. Again, a bit aggressive with the amounts but not only are convective bands hard to predict location wise amounts are just as difficult.

You could jackpot from this, remember last year...Lol.

I'm being cautiously optimistic. (Cautiously being the key word) hahaha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Rjay locked this topic

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...