USCAPEWEATHERAF Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Ok NAM dumps 6"+ on CHH before it rains slightly, the temps warm up after the heaviest snow is over, so the torch does nothing for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 GFS looked pretty nice to me...though I suppose some of us look at different aspects of the models than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mahk_webstah Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 36 minutes ago, moneypitmike said: Yup. They were real 'man-clippers' back in those days. 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUNNAWAYICEBERG Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 1 minute ago, USCAPEWEATHERAF said: Ok NAM dumps 6"+ on CHH before it rains slightly, the temps warm up after the heaviest snow is over, so the torch does nothing for me. good luck wit 6+. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USCAPEWEATHERAF Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 I agree Will, the shortwave looked better on the GFS and water vapor shows me a healthy looking shortwave. Also the worst of the storm happens before it warms up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mahk_webstah Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 39 minutes ago, moneypitmike said: I'll take: Tuesday Night Snow likely...mainly in the evening. Total snow accumulation of 3 to 5 inches possible. Not as cool. Near steady temperature in the lower 20s. East winds around 5 mph. Chance of snow 70 percent 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HIPPYVALLEY Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 40 minutes ago, moneypitmike said: I'll take: Tuesday Night Snow likely...mainly in the evening. Total snow accumulation of 3 to 5 inches possible. Not as cool. Near steady temperature in the lower 20s. East winds around 5 mph. Chance of snow 70 percent Lol, 4K NAM say no snow for you and me. 34 minutes ago, powderfreak said: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USCAPEWEATHERAF Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 1 minute 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? It did 24 hours ago, the latest trends have been to favor SNE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUNNAWAYICEBERG Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Just now, USCAPEWEATHERAF said: I agree Will, the shortwave looked better on the GFS and water vapor shows me a healthy looking shortwave. Also the worst of the storm happens before it warms up. stop with the insanity. if you get even 4" out of this I will put your mug as my avatar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dryslot Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 1 minute 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? 2-3" is very reasonable right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 2 minutes 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? You kind of whiff on round 1 of the system. So your snow will occur with the second push of energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USCAPEWEATHERAF Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Just now, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said: stop with the insanity. if you get even 4" out of this I will put your mug as my avatar. You are quite the negative person Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damage In Tolland Posted January 30, 2017 Author Share Posted January 30, 2017 6 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said: GFS looked pretty nice to me...though I suppose some of us look at different aspects of the models than others. GFS has 2 solid snow events(if you weren't looking at qpf) tomorrow and again Sunday night/Monday..Looks as good as 12z did. Unless they were expecting a big storm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUNNAWAYICEBERG Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Just now, USCAPEWEATHERAF said: You are quite the negative person haha, dood Im more optmistic and positive than most but I also call like I see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HIPPYVALLEY Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 14 minutes ago, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said: bad gfs run for tom and SB. Look decent for PF, maybe he'll post pics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JC-CT Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 1 hour 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. I never interpreted the Box maps they put out with ranges like that. I always thought they pick their ranges that they are going to show with different shading, and then if an area falls within that range it gets labeled with that range and that shading. So in this case, because they had widespread 4"s in EMA, that area fell within their 4-6 range and was labeled as such. But that doesn't mean they think the low is 4 and the high is 6. Per their probability maps, that is clearly not the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Just now, JC-CT said: I never interpreted the Box maps they put out with ranges like that. I always thought they pick their ranges that they are going to show with different shading, and then if an area falls within that range it gets labeled with that range and that shading. So in this case, because they had widespread 4"s in EMA, that area fell within their 4-6 range and was labeled as such. But that doesn't mean they think the low is 4 and the high is 6. Per their probability maps, that is clearly not the case. Yes you are correct in how the ranges appear on the BOX site...I was more responding to the idea that the lowest number is the most likely...that isn't the case...and also a more general point about ranges. But even in the BOX way of doing it, the lowest number does not usually mean the most likely. If they had a most likely amount of 5.7" in their grid, then it would still fall under the 4-6 amount. In this specific case, yeah, the lower number of their range was close to their most likely amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HIPPYVALLEY Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 2 minutes ago, JC-CT said: I never interpreted the Box maps they put out with ranges like that. I always thought they pick their ranges that they are going to show with different shading, and then if an area falls within that range it gets labeled with that range and that shading. So in this case, because they had widespread 4"s in EMA, that area fell within their 4-6 range and was labeled as such. But that doesn't mean they think the low is 4 and the high is 6. Per their probability maps, that is clearly not the case. Yup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JC-CT Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Just now, ORH_wxman said: Yes you are correct in how the ranges appear on the BOX site...I was more responding to the idea that the lowest number is the most likely...that isn't the case...and also a more general point about ranges. But even in the BOX way of doing it, the lowest number does not usually mean the most likely. If they had a most likely amount of 5.7" in their grid, then it would still fall under the 4-6 amount. In this specific case, yeah, the lower number of their range was close to their most likely amount. Yes, we agree. Box's range is just where their most likely falls within the ranges they have predetermined for shading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damage In Tolland Posted January 30, 2017 Author Share Posted January 30, 2017 I think they pick a middle range. So 2-4" means they think 3" is what most places come in with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Just now, Damage In Tolland said: I think they pick a middle range. So 2-4" means they think 3" is what most places come in with No that isn't how they do it. Read above... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damage In Tolland Posted January 30, 2017 Author Share Posted January 30, 2017 9 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said: No that isn't how they do it. Read above... Plucked right from AFD Read below... Winter weather advisory has been issued as snow accumulations will generally be 3 inches across the area and the impact to the evening commute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 9 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said: Plucked right from AFD Read below... Winter weather advisory has been issued as snow accumulations will generally be 3 inches across the area and the impact to the evening commute. A majority of their region is in the 3-4" zone...not the 4-6"...the 4-6 zone is where they think the 4" amounts are more likely. Regardless, whether you are arguing 3 or 4 inches, it's advisory snowfall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40/70 Benchmark Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 2 hours ago, ORH_wxman said: I guess you aren't looking at the models correctly then...because every single model has your area going above freezing. Don't bother....textbook ignore case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUNNAWAYICEBERG Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 15 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said: Don't bother....textbook ignore case. You have a meanie weenie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USCAPEWEATHERAF Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 30 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said: Don't bother....textbook ignore case. I think I am going to ignore you too because you have nothing to say period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damage In Tolland Posted January 30, 2017 Author Share Posted January 30, 2017 Fight, fight, fight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codfishsnowman Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Alberta has got all her suitors fired up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoarfrostHubb Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 I yearn for a regular event These are a nuisance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dendrite Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 1 hour 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? Where have you been the past couple weeks? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.