Damage In Tolland Posted February 4, 2016 Author Share Posted February 4, 2016 12z Ukie qpf, In case some cant do the math, 25.4 mm is 1".......... PA_000-072_0000 ukie.gif That's 8+ river east Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteLawns Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Why the WSW for totals like that above? Riddle me that Forum. Yeah that map doesn't really make to much sense to me. "That's 8+ river east" What about river west? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Madness Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Hmm... StormTotalSnowWeb1.png Doesn't match their probability tables, which say 5" likely for BOS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eduggs Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Living on the edge here, nothing knew. I'll take what I can get though. Anything but torched wet days in winter. You're not the edge. You could be golden. Watch it rain to your east and guidance keeps ticking west. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rnaude241 Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 What's with the BOX max? To much rain on the front? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damage In Tolland Posted February 4, 2016 Author Share Posted February 4, 2016 Still, they didn't include Tolland County in the WSW. When they say no to the model consensus, it does give me pause. They have relied on mesos and been correct in the past. They have always thought of Tolland County as western CT. Except for Ekster and Drag..they just don't understand all the geography around here..and lump us in with the valley lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Why the WSW for totals like that above? Riddle me that Forum. box.png disaster snow maps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanStWx Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Still, they didn't include Tolland County in the WSW. When they say no to the model consensus, it does give me pause. They have relied on mesos and been correct in the past. What consensus? There are plenty of models that are lighter on the NW edge. I'm guessing the current watch outlines an area where they are truly worried about warning criteria. Just because you don't have a watch now, doesn't mean you won't get an advisory later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40/70 Benchmark Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 You're not the edge. You could be golden. Watch it rain to your east and guidance keeps ticking west. This has to be among the worst stretches out there....man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JC-CT Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Doesn't match their probability tables, which say 5" likely for BOS Yeah those just updated. What consensus? There are plenty of models that are lighter on the NW edge. I'm guessing the current watch outlines an area where they are truly worried about warning criteria. Just because you don't have a watch now, doesn't mean you won't get an advisory later. Which ones? Honest question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baroclinic Zone Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 disaster snow maps And they just updated them too according to the timestamp. They can't be correct given the WSW areas. BOX phail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanStWx Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Why the WSW for totals like that above? Riddle me that Forum. box.png An important question, the WSW was expanded for a reason. Deep breaths everyone. I can see their totals, and that map will change. Nobody is taking away any snow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarverWX Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 The UKIE gives SE Mass between 2-2.5" of precip. wth Wow even if we lost 1" to rain that's still a 8-10+" storm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JC-CT Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 I do see they are going advisory criteria for Tolland County in the tables. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkO Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Hmm... StormTotalSnowWeb1.png Is that the Euro qpf? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baroclinic Zone Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 An important question, the WSW was expanded for a reason. Deep breaths everyone. I can see their totals, and that map will change. Nobody is taking away any snow. Oh I know. I just found it odd the timestamp updated but the graphic did not. Don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanStWx Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 If an advisory is issued following a watch, it is reasonably interpreted to mean that the event is expected to have less impact than it was previously thought it could have. Watches obviously aren't typically issued for events that are expected to stay below the warning threshold. So I think your upgrade, downgrade comment is misleading. Technically the issuance of a new advisory portends a now imminent (previously uncertain) impact, but the magnitude of the potential impacts have been downgraded. Not really though. It's because people interpret it wrong (which is why the system is possibly going to change). A watch is a 50/50 proposition. In the truest sense, half should be upgraded to warnings, and the other half an advisory. Technically they could be dropped with no headline, but I would argue you shouldn't have issued the watch in the first place as there was 50% confidence. This is another reason I hate putting hard snowfall amounts in a watch. Potential for 6 inches or more, nothing else is needed. But in my mind, a watch is potential, an advisory is hazardous, and a warning is dangerous up to life threatening. You can argue about whether the potential is greater or lesser when going from watch to advisory, but the threat has been upgraded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRSno Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 I see this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2Otown_WX Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 They have always thought of Tolland County as western CT. Except for Ekster and Drag..they just don't understand all the geography around here..and lump us in with the valley lol They don't have a firm grasp on the microclimate that is Mount Tolland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damage In Tolland Posted February 4, 2016 Author Share Posted February 4, 2016 I mean why are they forecasting 4-6 as most likely? How is that most likely based on all guidance? What does that do to credibility to keep going up with each new map Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dryslot Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 An important question, the WSW was expanded for a reason. Deep breaths everyone. I can see their totals, and that map will change. Nobody is taking away any snow. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanStWx Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Yeah those just updated. Which ones? Honest question. 4km NAM, the ARW and NMM were pretty light, but I haven't checked the latest runs. NCAR ensemble didn't love this event any. Could be they think global models are being too broad with QPF, and it's less exciting for the ones on the NW side. Extrapolating their forecast down into CT though, and it's a solid advisory event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUNNAWAYICEBERG Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 I've always liked impending systems where totals go up and up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JC-CT Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 4km NAM, the ARW and NMM were pretty light, but I haven't checked the latest runs. NCAR ensemble didn't love this event any. Could be they think global models are being too broad with QPF, and it's less exciting for the ones on the NW side. Extrapolating their forecast down into CT though, and it's a solid advisory event. Do you agree with them? I see no reason to say this can't continue to tick west. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUNNAWAYICEBERG Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 4km NAM, the ARW and NMM were pretty light, but I haven't checked the latest runs. NCAR ensemble didn't love this event any. Could be they think global models are being too broad with QPF, and it's less exciting for the ones on the NW side. Extrapolating their forecast down into CT though, and it's a solid advisory event. That's my concern, nw edges can tend to be too broad by globals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dryslot Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Looks like the 12z Euro is going to come west of 0z early on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanStWx Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 I see this StormTotalSnowWeb.png That's correct based on what I see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanStWx Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Do you agree with them? I see no reason to say this can't continue to tick west. I do. I mean could it tick west again, yes. But it's also progressive, there is an upper limit to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eduggs Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Not really though. It's because people interpret it wrong (which is why the system is possibly going to change). A watch is a 50/50 proposition. In the truest sense, half should be upgraded to warnings, and the other half an advisory. Technically they could be dropped with no headline, but I would argue you shouldn't have issued the watch in the first place as there was 50% confidence. This is another reason I hate putting hard snowfall amounts in a watch. Potential for 6 inches or more, nothing else is needed. But in my mind, a watch is potential, an advisory is hazardous, and a warning is dangerous up to life threatening. You can argue about whether the potential is greater or lesser when going from watch to advisory, but the threat has been upgraded. Max potential has been downgraded. Likelihood has been upgraded. In every storm I can remember dating back decades, when an advisory replaced a watch it reflected a shift in guidance away from a significant event towards a more modest event. Sure I wasn't privy to the internal discussions of the forecasters, but I was usually watching the models and reading the discussions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Euro will come a tick west again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.