USCAPEWEATHERAF Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 I am surprised we don't have a WWA issued here on the Cape for 2-5" forecasted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 2 hours ago, mahk_webstah said: I missed that full conversation. But I can guess where it went....a woman gives feedback about how men can't seem to understand that when they equate being feminine with being weak, it is actually insulting and perpetuates a stupid and useless stereotype about women...and about men. And then the men get all prickly for being called out (gently probably) and blame the woman for calling them out........and all of this proves what I said in the last post about who is and isn't the stronger gender. .Can't wait for the unisex snow tomorrow, no base all treble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoarfrostHubb Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 50 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said: Little CSI or maybe a rumble AWA (as we asked) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 GFS is looking mighty good...really merging the effects of the WAA snow and IVT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 3 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said: GFS is looking mighty good...really merging the effects of the WAA snow and IVT. That's a nice thump for Essex county. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 10 minutes ago, CoastalWx said: That's a nice thump for Essex county. Manchester by the sea FTW. It's interesting that all the guidance thus far at 00z (NAM, RGEM, and GFS) are giving BOS 0.25" of qpf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whineminster Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 7 hours ago, ORH_wxman said: I've been seeing references to big time clippers the past couple days...I'm not sure where they are coming from. Clippers rarely produce anything above advisory snowfall...if you get a nice little popper off NJ coast, then yeah, you can get a low end warning event. 1/21/11 was a good example of this and probably 2/18/14. The bigger miller B storms are usually not Alberta clippers...maybe Manitoba Maulers (ala Jan 2005 and Feb '78) or the ol' panhandle hook storms that redevelop once they are in the OH Valley. Yeah he said they'd drop a quick 6" or so, but he seems to remember them happening more frequently and redeveloping somewhat. Then again he's 76 so who knows what happened back in 1963 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HIPPYVALLEY Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 My model skills are not good but I'm not seeing any model with more than 1-2" here which seems well under BOX forecast? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weathafella Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 3 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said: Manchester by the sea FTW. It's interesting that all the guidance thus far at 00z (NAM, RGEM, and GFS) are giving BOS 0.25" of qpf. Hence your ceiling of 4-5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUNNAWAYICEBERG Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, HIPPYVALLEY said: My model skills are not good but I'm not seeing any model with more than 1-2" here which seems well under BOX forecast? I see it. moreso from invt snows tom night into wed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whineminster Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 1 hour ago, ORH_wxman said: NAM looks really solid for E MA this run. It's got some fun stuff aloft going on to really prolong the snows...forcing the IVT to at least initially set up there. Is it me....Or does it seem that E MA or cape is always where the IVT sets up. Is there a reason for this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HIPPYVALLEY Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 11 minutes ago, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said: I see it. moreso from invt snows tom night into wed. Region wide or more so ENE? I kind of thought invt was for E MA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUNNAWAYICEBERG Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Just now, HIPPYVALLEY said: Region wide or more so ENE? I kind of thought invt was for E MA. It initially seems to setup there but it extends back your way overnight. I see weenie maps painting 4 and 5 spots over you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#NoPoles Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 5 hours ago, mahk_webstah said: It is ironic isn't it, that we use "man" as an adjective to say that something is tough and strong. Ironic because in so many ways women are the tougher gender. I think we are using it in jest towards gender stereotypes though, aren't we? I wish there were more men like you, now more than ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreaves Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Every time I see IVT, I think Interior Vermont. Those type of snows rarely ever work here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 5 minutes ago, #NoPoles said: I wish there were more men like you, now more than ever There are ,lots of them. Enjoy your unisex dumping tomorrow,you are in a great spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanStWx Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Pit north FTW? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanStWx Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 11 hours ago, ORH_wxman said: Yeah still a bit paltry on QPF, but better than 00z....the shortwave def looked pretty good to me. Has a little kink in it and travels near LI and ACK. Round 2 looks pretty good along and N of pike especially. That has some sneak potential because of the lapse rates.... MAUL. Showing up in our coastal forecast soundings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanStWx Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 9 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said: WINDEX technique was developed originally based upon NGM (now defunct) FRH(FOUS) grid parameters: T1 TT5 TR1: Relative Humidity Lifted Index: Using these numbers off the NAM(FRH/FOUS) ...may or may not provide the equivalent technique. But using these values above ...You calculate the difference between the T1 and the T5; if it is over 10, and especially over 15, you then look at the lifted index.. if it rises significantly after the proposed event, and the RH at R1 is over 50%, you will have instability squalls. And for those who forgot or are too young to know, T1 is the first model layer (1000-965) and T5 is the 5th model layer (820-785), R1 is boundary layer RH. A fair proxy would be surface to 850, but I know in AWIPS I can do a 975 to 800 mb subtraction to approximate the WINDEX and NORLUN studies. I mention both because they are both instability snow events (like LES too). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanStWx Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 8 hours ago, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said: lol, doesnt a range always include the "potential up to". thats why its a range right? 8 hours ago, HoarfrostHubb said: Agreed. How can Most Likely be 4" AND 4-6" Dumb. Bring back the old maps It's because we're hard coded into these ranges. If I forecast 3.5" of snow, it HAS to be placed into the 4-6" category. I can't make the software say 3-5." A grip point away I can forecast 3.4" and that falls into the 3-4" range. Since people only see the high end of the ranges, people start to believe their neighbor is in line for 6" and a warning while they're stuck with 4" at most and an advisory. At least the single number maps show you a more realistic snapshot of what the forecast is in time. 4" is anywhere from 3.5" to 4.4" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanStWx Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 8 hours ago, ORH_wxman said: The range is a range...the lowest amount is basically your floor and the highest amount is your ceiling....you can make a caveat and say "isolated amounts up to X inches" if you want to convey a bit more potential....but I don't think anyone has typically forecasted that 3-6" means that 3" is your most likely amount. That means your distribution curve of snowfall is insanely skewed to the left (smaller)...which we know in reality doesn't really happen. Most systems over the long haul will bust high about as often as they bust low. So this is the way Ryan or anyone creating their own graphics could do it, but the NWS is just hard coded into ranges. We can't alter them (so we can keep maps and forecast wording consistent from WFO to WFO, state to state, and region to region). So for everyone looking at our probability graphics they are designed completely differently from the "range" snowfall maps. The "at least this much" and "potential for this much" is based on the spread of the model blend from WPC. The greater the spread, the larger the difference between the min and max. Our "range" maps are literally just taking our point snowfall forecast (2.4", 7.3", 10.7", etc) and placing it in a predefined range bin. The "at least this much" and "potential for this much" takes the same point forecast and applies the spread. If the spread was higher than normal (say 10 inches) you're 7.3" forecast would give you "at least this much" rounded to 2" (7.3- (10/2)) and your "potential for this much" would give you 12" (7.3 + (10/2)). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanStWx Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 7 hours ago, mahk_webstah said: only 2-3 forecasted up here. Is GYX underdoing it or is it BoxGW? I though it looked decent up this way compared to SNE? Hey, it could be both too! But I do think the best chances for higher amounts will be closer to the coast and inverted trof. 5 hours ago, dendrite said: No clue. That's Chris' territory that I don't tread on. Last night's run unfortunately cut some of the snowfall off, and had none of the inverted trof. So tonight's run should wrap up around forecast issuance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40/70 Benchmark Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 8 hours ago, USCAPEWEATHERAF said: I think I am going to ignore you too because you have nothing to say period. Promise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40/70 Benchmark Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 7 hours ago, USCAPEWEATHERAF said: Didn't you see my map, I gave all of eastern MA the 6"+, not just my backyard, you people make me question why people make forecast maps. Only when it's clear that they suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damage In Tolland Posted January 31, 2017 Author Share Posted January 31, 2017 Models and BOX honing in on Pike south for best accumulations . Round 1 seems like it really wants to over perform..and then northern areas of pike south get into round 2 in varying degrees Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanStWx Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 34 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said: Models and BOX honing in on Pike south for best accumulations . Round 1 seems like it really wants to over perform..and then northern areas of pike south get into round 2 in varying degrees I mean really? Looks like a pretty even split to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damage In Tolland Posted January 31, 2017 Author Share Posted January 31, 2017 27 minutes ago, OceanStWx said: I mean really? Looks like a pretty even split to me. Read their advisory discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 I don't think it will be strictly pike south. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanStWx Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 1 minute ago, Damage In Tolland said: Read their advisory discussion. Well I have a problem with their forecast then. If that's what you truly think is going to happen, put it in the grids. Unless by "near and south of the pike" they mean from ORH east to BOS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 22 minutes ago, OceanStWx said: Well I have a problem with their forecast then. If that's what you truly think is going to happen, put it in the grids. Unless by "near and south of the pike" they mean from ORH east to BOS. Kevin is very wish casting this morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.