Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

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

January 7th/8th Storm Discussion


TauntonBlizzard2013

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

Mid levels haven't really changed too much. Even the more east solutions that scared the qpf queens a little still had good ML fronto into the interior. 

I've seen the knowledgeable folks (such as yourself) talking about the mid-level features being in an excellent position to improve forcing over the interior, leading to an expectation of higher than normal snow/liquid ratios.  Do the favorable mid levels also argue for more QPF than printed by the models, or primarily more efficient snow growth/ratios?  Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 minute ago, jbenedet said:

Can clearly see the edge of the best forcing (700 mb fronto) that extends from Sussex NJ into Salisbury CT, and progressing northeastward into Amherst MA. I think this westernmost band will make it into Manchester NH and eventually up towards Rochester NH. In my opinion, this line will represent the western edge of the 6" + totals. Northwest of that line totals falls off dramatically. 

yeah I just commented on that in the Obs thread...  You can clearly see that axis on the NWS mosaic product from the lower Poconos to western Mass... west of there - better luck next time.. East of there, it's a now-cast ceremony. 

There's also a nice frontogenic/meso band signature extending NE from Jersy S of LI that is pivoting slowly up. 

Anywhere east of said arc will probably have these tough to model focuses in bands -

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, jbenedet said:

Can clearly see the edge of the best forcing (700 mb fronto) that extends from Sussex NJ into Salisbury CT, and progressing northeastward into Amherst MA. I think this westernmost band will make it into Manchester NH and eventually up towards Rochester NH. In my opinion, this line will represent the western edge of the 6" + totals. Northwest of that line totals falls off dramatically. 

Exactly my thoughts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

yeah I just commented on that in the Obs thread...  You can clearly see that axis on the NWS mosaic product from the lower Poconos to western Mass... west of there - better luck next time.. East of there, it's a now-cast ceremony. 

There's also a nice frontogenic/meso band signature extending NE from Jersy S of LI that is pivoting slowly up. 

Anywhere east of said arc will probably have these tough to model focuses in bands -

I can tell you exactly where that line will be in Western Mass.  Right where it winds up in so many of these.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said:

What the pistol swallowers and queens do is look at a snowmap and see less snow over their area , freak out and get upset and quickly jam out multiple emotional and frantic posts on how things are shifting east and it's a bad sign 

I know your are glad you don't live here however if you lived through the past ten years back this way you would get it, dv parameters aside, you have had a charmed existence for snow lovers

from secs to hecs ( a few close to becs).....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, codfishsnowman said:

I know your are glad you don't live here however if you lived through the past ten years back this way you would get it, dv parameters aside, you have had a charmed existence for snow lovers

from secs to hecs ( a few close to becs).....

I wasn't including you in that. You haven't Debbie'd as bad as other times. I happen to think you see 6-8"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, jbenedet said:

Can clearly see the edge of the best forcing (700 mb fronto) that extends from Sussex NJ into Salisbury CT, and progressing northeastward into Amherst MA. I think this westernmost band will make it into Manchester NH and eventually up towards Rochester NH. In my opinion, this line will represent the western edge of the 6" + totals. Northwest of that line totals falls off dramatically. 

Watching the back edge.  I'm 55 miles north of Manchester in Central NH.  I'll take a  1/2" and run.  Would be nice to cover the old snow.  Wonder if this will be hours of virga or if some snow can make it to the Southern White Mountains.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, sankaty said:

I've seen the knowledgeable folks (such as yourself) talking about the mid-level features being in an excellent position to improve forcing over the interior, leading to an expectation of higher than normal snow/liquid ratios.  Do the favorable mid levels also argue for more QPF than printed by the models, or primarily more efficient snow growth/ratios?  Thanks!

It can do both. It's usually weighted toward more snow growth but you can get a secondary qpf max there too that models fail to see 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Just purely based on the radar not models, what I'm looking at that has me interested is the band that is formed through the central Pennsylvania West Philly and just east of Harrisburg and I'm hoping that is the storm pushes Northeast that that band will continue to develop on the western edge that could get up to Concord New Hampshire. Also I am noticing that there's in the last few frames and expansion of precipitation field north and west perhaps happening as the storm Intensifies.  That's the hope for up here.  2-4 probably best case

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, jbenedet said:

This is somewhat OT but important when considering NWS forecasts. Perhaps the issue is in who the NWS is hiring. There has been a huge shift recently--over the past 5-10 years---towards those with strong programming backgrounds. So much so that NWS openings are being filled more commonly with "computer scientists" and statistics gurus rather than weather forecasters. There is some overlap in the skill set for sure. But good forecasters are often overlooked because the skill itself is not objectively proven during undergrad or graduate study. 

I can't argue that really. There is a strong push towards both computer skills and also communication skills, both of which are great. But higher level management continues to think we have the forecast locked down and we need to start focusing on messaging (through graphics and communication with partners). The reality is that we still don't have the forecast nailed down to the level that we can assume it's right all the time. On the flip side, it's not just new hires, but the older generation has seen the technology pass them by. So much has changed in the last 15-20 years that some people just don't know how to put their forecast thoughts into the computer anymore. The get the forecast done the easiest way possible, which may not be the right way. I mean it'll be close, but it's not good enough.

15 hours ago, CT Rain said:

The NWS does a lot of things very well but man there snow maps are almost always all over the place. Poor shift-to-shift consistency, poor consistency across CWA borders sometimes, and also just some weird numbers and ranges sometimes. I feel like they're almost so bogged down by algorithms and the model blender (that incorporates a bunch of BS stuff like the SREF) that they lose sight of the bigger picture. 

Totally. I hate (with a capital H) when we post storm total maps on social media 2 or 3 days out, because then I know there will be 6 other maps to come that contradict one another. Intra-office there is far too much "blowing away" of a previous forecast. Just dumping new data in and erasing the old. I carefully craft a forecast last night, and the day shift decides they want a straight 20:1, and poof there go my snow grids. Inter-office, there are so many differing tools and philosophies. I mean clearly I wasn't in agreement with BOX on applying 15:1 everywhere for snow amounts. So there's an inconsistency right there. They also do hourly snow amount and then that is added together to produce a 6 hour total. We do 6 hour totals only. So if you have mixing and temps varying near 32, our grids will be average and there's will be more accurate (assuming temps are correct). I know Ekster and I will break our snow amounts into 1 hour increments and then recombine into 6 hours to avoid that problem. But it's an extra step, so not everyone does that here. Also, do I use snow ratios to produce my snow amounts, or do I just apply a one size fits all number? BOX typically uses a ratio based on surface temps (higher ratio for lower surface temp) but that really doesn't make much sense scientifically. So yeah, a lot of problems with snow amounts across the NWS. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...