Welcome to American Weather
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
eekuasepinniW

NNE Winter: just can't compete with Maple Hollow.

2,123 posts in this topic

6ZGFS had this out in lala land.

gfs_mslp_pcpn_frzn_neus_46.png

 

 

 

Now we’re talking; we knew that stuff would start to appear eventually.  And coincidentally, October starts tomorrow.  When I ran the Mansfield numbers a couple years back they suggested a 90% occurrence of accumulating October snow, so we’re getting very close now.

 

The start of another cold season means that I’ve also got one more year in the books for our location in the Winooski valley, and the records I have reveal 9 out of 9 seasons with some form of frozen precipitation in October, and a mean/median occurrence date of Oct 20.  For accumulation it’s 6 out of 9 seasons, with a mean date of Oct 27 and a median of Oct 28.  We’ll see what this October brings, but with the storminess and cool temperatures today, there’s certainly much more feeling of seasonal change in the air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now we’re talking; we knew that stuff would start to appear eventually.  And coincidentally, October starts tomorrow.  When I ran the Mansfield numbers a couple years back they suggested a 90% occurrence of accumulating October snow, so we’re getting very close now.

 

The start of another cold season means that I’ve also got one more year in the books for our location in the Winooski valley, and the records I have reveal 9 out of 9 seasons with some form of frozen precipitation in October, and a mean/median occurrence date of Oct 20.  For accumulation it’s 6 out of 9 seasons, with a mean date of Oct 27 and a median of Oct 28.  We’ll see what this October brings, but with the storminess and cool temperatures today, there’s certainly much more feeling of seasonal change in the air.

 

Gotta love those first days when the cold pool aloft and NW flow is creating those cellular graupel and snow showers over the hills and that first frozen precip starts falling in the mountain valleys and NE Kingdom.  That's almost always the way the first frozen falls down in town.  There are the rarer occasions when its from a synoptic storm but it almost always seems to come from orographic showers following a cold front.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta love those first days when the cold pool aloft and NW flow is creating those cellular graupel and snow showers over the hills and that first frozen precip starts falling in the mountain valleys and NE Kingdom.  That's almost always the way the first frozen falls down in town.  There are the rarer occasions when its from a synoptic storm but it almost always seems to come from orographic showers following a cold front.

 

Indeed, it’s the orographics that has produced the frozen precipitation for several of those seasons vs. an actual synoptic snow.  A quick look at the data reveals that for 4 out of the 9 seasons, the date of first frozen precipitation/Trace was the same as the first accumulating snow, whereas for the other 5, the dates were different and first actual accumulation came sometime later.  I bet a lot of those with disparate dates were where orographics had the sky spitting out non-accumulating frozen stuff that we wouldn’t have otherwise gotten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice Eyewall.

 

In terms of how far behind we are.... I took these last year on September 28th.  The mountains were at peak foliage by the end of September.  This year, not even close.

 

Sept 28, 2014

 

10711026_10102005466396130_7589756165253

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice Eyewall.

 

In terms of how far behind we are.... I took these last year on September 28th.  The mountains were at peak foliage by the end of September.  This year, not even close.

 

Sept 28, 2014

 

10711026_10102005466396130_7589756165253

 

Wow yeah! I think last year was early and this year is definitely late. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yo!

 

Foliage is most definitely slow and dull so far this year.  I've seen a few pockets lit up pretty well with color but on the whole, not so much. 

 

Our first true frost is late too.  Hit 32.5 back on Sunday morning with just a touch of frost out in the field but that's been it so far.

 

3.5" of rain in that last soaker.  Had very little run-off for that much rain--most of it fell at a pretty beneficial clip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yo!

 

Foliage is most definitely slow and dull so far this year.  I've seen a few pockets lit up pretty well with color but on the whole, not so much. 

 

Our first true frost is late too.  Hit 32.5 back on Sunday morning with just a touch of frost out in the field but that's been it so far.

 

3.5" of rain in that last soaker.  Had very little run-off for that much rain--most of it fell at a pretty beneficial clip.

I noticed the same in terms of pockets of brighter trees in an overall dull display.  I was actually wondering if the colorful trees happened to be in normally wetter locations and they just didn't get as stressed by the abnormally dry conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yo!

 

Foliage is most definitely slow and dull so far this year.  I've seen a few pockets lit up pretty well with color but on the whole, not so much. 

 

Our first true frost is late too.  Hit 32.5 back on Sunday morning with just a touch of frost out in the field but that's been it so far.

 

 

 

This is probably why... Warmest September in 130 years at BTV.  And it wasn't even close, as this one was 2F warmer than the next nearest contender.

 

 

 

RECORD REPORT

NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE BURLINGTON VT

955 AM EDT THU OCT 1 2015

...RECORD WARMEST SEPTEMBER AT BURLINGTON...

THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE AT BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT FOR

SEPTEMBER 2015 WAS 67.4 DEGREES. THAT IS A NEW RECORD WARMEST

MONTHLY AVERAGE TEMPERATURE FOR SEPTEMBER AT BURLINGTON. THE

PREVIOUS SUCH RECORD WAS 65.4 DEGREES SET IN SEPTEMBER 1961.

$

 

 

Mount Mansfield missed the warmest September on record by half a degree, but still set the warmest average maximum temperature for the month of September.

 

Easy to see why everything is so late when records from the valley bottom to mountain summit are coming in with monthly warm records.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow yeah! I think last year was early and this year is definitely late. 

 

I was just going through my Facebook archives looking for dates of Fall snow because I know I would've posted photos.

 

October 2009 must've been a good month as there were multiple different snowfalls that month:

 

October 1, 2009... (can't imagine if that happened yesterday, haha)...

 

1935163_586753324540_1691632_n.jpg?oh=b1

 

1935163_586959411540_1673330_n.jpg?oh=71

 

Then it snowed again on October 14th, 2009...

 

1936095_588587927980_5176286_n.jpg?oh=1d

 

1936095_588587922990_3308759_n.jpg?oh=3e

 

 

We are into the time frame when snowfall becomes more likely in the mountains...just a matter of when, not if.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is probably why... Warmest September in 130 years at BTV.  And it wasn't even close, as this one was 2F warmer than the next nearest contender.

 

 

 

Mount Mansfield missed the warmest September on record by half a degree, but still set the warmest average maximum temperature for the month of September.

 

Easy to see why everything is so late when records from the valley bottom to mountain summit are coming in with monthly warm records.

 

1961 is still tops for Farmington, by about 3F.  The contrast between this year and last might be illustrated by 2 mid-Sept weeks.  In 2014, Sept. 7-20 averaged 7.4F below my avg temp for those weeks and featured two mornings at 28 and one at 26.  This year the same period ran +7.0 with no mornings cooler than 43.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just going through my Facebook archives looking for dates of Fall snow because I know I would've posted photos.

 

October 2009 must've been a good month as there were multiple different snowfalls that month:

 

October 1, 2009... (can't imagine if that happened yesterday, haha)...

 

1935163_586753324540_1691632_n.jpg?oh=b1

 

1935163_586959411540_1673330_n.jpg?oh=71

 

Then it snowed again on October 14th, 2009...

 

1936095_588587927980_5176286_n.jpg?oh=1d

 

1936095_588587922990_3308759_n.jpg?oh=3e

 

 

We are into the time frame when snowfall becomes more likely in the mountains...just a matter of when, not if.

 

I really would love one of those contrast foliage vs. snow opportunities :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, the Fall Foliage should start to ramp up pretty fast now...makes me uncomfortable that it is so late this year...meh...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surprised I didn't see anything on here yet, but the Greens are white today.

I'm out of town but a co-worker sent this photo of some light riming up on the ridge while doing the morning Toll Rd check. Also said there were a lot of icicles everywhere there was running water.

Temps dropped into the 20s with wind chills as low as 15F. Saw some 40mph gusts recorded, more than enough for some riming as those super-cooled droplets moved through the trees.

I saw other FB comments of white seen on the ridge. Most definitely rime and not snow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice Eyewall.

 

In terms of how far behind we are.... I took these last year on September 28th.  The mountains were at peak foliage by the end of September.  This year, not even close.

 

Sept 28, 2014

 

10711026_10102005466396130_7589756165253

Eyewall,  is that picture as the lens caught it or did you adjust saturation?  Again, as a photographer I just get crazy with altered photography.  As beautiful as it is I really think photographers have to be honest.  This is especially true on a weather board where it is more scientifically based on actual conditions and observations.  What people do in studio to hide personal blemishes etc. is different.  Your pictures are amazing but if you do digitally adjust them and then post you should make sure you say so.  It's kind of like cheating on a snow measurement.  This is just a general pet peeve of mine so not meaning it to be personal!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eyewall, is that picture as the lens caught it or did you adjust saturation? Again, as a photographer I just get crazy with altered photography. As beautiful as it is I really think photographers have to be honest. This is especially true on a weather board where it is more scientifically based on actual conditions and observations. What people do in studio to hide personal blemishes etc. is different. Your pictures are amazing but if you do digitally adjust them and then post you should make sure you say so. It's kind of like cheating on a snow measurement. This is just a general pet peeve of mine so not meaning it to be personal!

We went over this quite a bit last fall.

I don't think photography as an art has any obligation to be honest and not touched up. 99.9% of professional photographers adjust their work digitally.

In fact in terms of honesty, I think the photographer has the obligation to adjust the photo to how his eye saw it, not how the camera saw it. There's nothing more that I hate than a "holy f'ing sh*t" type landscape view that the camera botches into some dull white-washed forgettable photo...when the scene saw by the naked eye was certainly unforgettable.

Like cheating on a snow measurement? I'd say it would be like knowingly under-reporting snowfall when the camera doesn't do the real-life scene justice. Anyone who has ever used any type of camera knows that feeling. You just went on a sweet vacation to see the mountains or ocean or whatever...then get home and look at the photos and are like WTF is this? That's not what it looked like. Go on social media and you'll see tons of awful looking shots that the poster was like, this looked better in person.

Often it's just a simple change in contrast as the camera can't replicate the real-life contrast. It removes the whitewash and makes it look like you are playing with the saturation, when in reality it's just bringing out the colors that were already there (see photo of rime posted above, un-edited but with a hue to it that makes the parking lot look a similar shade as the rimed trees and cloud which were probably in fact looking a heck of a lot more white than that photo shows).

But I'm sure the NNE thread from last fall had pages of this same discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We went over this quite a bit last fall.

I don't think photography as an art has any obligation to be honest and not touched up. 99.9% of professional photographers adjust their work digitally.

In fact in terms of honesty, I think the photographer has the obligation to adjust the photo to how his eye saw it, not how the camera saw it. There's nothing more that I hate than a "holy f'ing sh*t" type landscape view that the camera botches into some dull white-washed forgettable photo...when the scene saw by the naked eye was certainly unforgettable.

Like cheating on a snow measurement? I'd say it would be like knowingly under-reporting snowfall when the camera doesn't do the real-life scene justice. Anyone who has ever used any type of camera knows that feeling. You just went on a sweet vacation to see the mountains or ocean or whatever...then get home and look at the photos and are like WTF is this? That's not what it looked like. Go on social media and you'll see tons of awful looking shots that the poster was like, this looked better in person.

Often it's just a simple change in contrast as the camera can't replicate the real-life contrast. It removes the whitewash and makes it look like you are playing with the saturation, when in reality it's just bringing out the colors that were already there (see photo of rime posted above, un-edited but with a hue to it that makes the parking lot look a similar shade as the rimed trees and cloud which were probably in fact looking a heck of a lot more white than that photo shows).

But I'm sure the NNE thread from last fall had pages of this same discussion.

Yeah Powder I know I ranted on and on last year about this.  I am not going to bring it up again.  Of course I live up here too.  Year after year as the foliage gets going and I see people's stunning pictures I always ask myself how come what I am seeing with my eyes never matches up with these unbelievable pictures.  Anyhow I brought it up again because we are about to see lots of new pictures. I guess I have made my point but I do want to apologize to eyewall as I should have made this a more general point again, it was not to be meant to be directed to any one poster.  Thanks for your post.  Looking forward to your first "snow" pictures which could very well be about a week away if the GFS is right.   Gene

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah Powder I know I ranted on and on last year about this. I am not going to bring it up again. Of course I live up here too. Year after year as the foliage gets going and I see people's stunning pictures I always ask myself how come what I am seeing with my eyes never matches up with these unbelievable pictures. Anyhow I brought it up again because we are about to see lots of new pictures. I guess I have made my point but I do want to apologize to eyewall as I should have made this a more general point again, it was not to be meant to be directed to any one poster. Thanks for your post. Looking forward to your first "snow" pictures which could very well be about a week away if the GFS is right. Gene

That is interesting that you don't think what your eyes see match up with the photos. I think it must be more on a personal basis then.

My one last comment on this would be that knowing many published photographers (even my shots are in ski publications and marketing material, as I know are JSpin's), that there isn't one photographer out there submitting professional work that isn't touched up and detailed. It's almost always on the lighting side though more than just blasting the saturation. Where cameras still fail these days are not color but lighting and being able to pick up those nuances that the naked eye can (like the relationship between shadows, bright light, and how that relates to the color seen). The camera still wants to "broadbrush" the entire frame in one specific light setting, where that's often not going to work as landscapes often involve high levels of contrast on their own.

Gene, this fall once I'm back from vacation later this week and take some foliage shots, I'll try to do some comparisons between "camera" and "final edit."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

October 7 1987 big time snow in Eastern NY and Western NE. Up to 2 feet. So we are now entering "winter can happen mode"

I thought that was October 4th? Not that I'd remember it as I was just learning to ride a bike then , haha.

My folks have a few old photos of our street back then just south of Albany, NY, and there's one taken from the middle of the street that is just surrounded by total destruction. It looks like every single limb is on the ground, sitting in the slush, with still completely green leaves on them. You can tell that was some wet snow because there's like inches of water in the one set of tire tracks in one of the photos.

It looks like 5-8" fell where we lived at the time in the southern Capital District in that 200-600ft elevation band, but the Berkshires/Catskills/Taconics had 10-18" with 2,000ft communities seeing over 18".

The most impressive part to me is this fell pretty much 3-4 weeks earlier than the Oct 2011 event. That's a big difference climo wise from the beginning of October to the end of the month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eyewall,  is that picture as the lens caught it or did you adjust saturation?  Again, as a photographer I just get crazy with altered photography.  As beautiful as it is I really think photographers have to be honest.  This is especially true on a weather board where it is more scientifically based on actual conditions and observations.  What people do in studio to hide personal blemishes etc. is different.  Your pictures are amazing but if you do digitally adjust them and then post you should make sure you say so.  It's kind of like cheating on a snow measurement.  This is just a general pet peeve of mine so not meaning it to be personal!

 

Which picture are you referring to? The saturation boost on these is actually not that substantial but there is a little. I am not going to go through this debate yet again though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which picture are you referring to? The saturation boost on these is actually not that substantial but there is a little. I am not going to go through this debate yet again though.

 

I believe I was strongly admonished for pointing this out in the previous discussion, but there’s not really any need for debate about some form of “unaltered photography” – it isn’t possible.  It doesn’t matter whether you’re talking film or digital, whether you’re Ansel Adams, Andreas Gursky, or some amateur photographer; the images don’t even exist until alterations are made.  Before the digital age, the film development process was easily manipulated to get the desired result, as the film development is whatever one wants it to be.  Having your photos processed commercially just meant that you got what the developer felt was representative.  Every setting that you can think of, whether it’s saturation, luminosity, color, sharpness, whatever; they’re all necessary to bring the image into existence.  If one wants to take the images as they come out of their specific brand of digital camera and do nothing else to them, that’s fine, but know that that’s simply yielding to whatever that corporation decided they wanted as their default settings.  Even within a line of cameras, those default settings can get changed with each new model.  If a camera is producing drab, colorless images, that’s not unaltered, it’s simply a brand of camera that has their default image creation settings altering the data to produce bland images.  If you go into the menu of any decent camera you’ll see that all these settings can be manipulated, and the camera is doing that for every single JPG you take.  It’s got nothing to do with being any closer to “reality”.  I’m not sure if eyewall is shooting RAW images, which in one sense is a very minimally altered form of the data from the sensor, but if you shoot RAW then you have to process the images yourself with a RAW image processor (and make all those same adjustments to create a visible picture).  How often is white balance (especially auto white balance) in a dynamic outdoor environment in which light is changing by the minute, nailing images to the exact K they should to be?  If a photographer is shooting for some sort of “realism”, in so much as such a thing exists, they have an obligation to be making all the possible required manipulations of the photo to get there, not leaving it in some arbitrarily processed state dictated by the camera’s internal settings.

 

There’s infinite room for debate about each person’s preference for the look of photographic images, but there isn’t any sort of “unaltered standard” of imaging in existence to which one can make any sort of reference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.