Paragon Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 40 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said: glad we don't live there Actually my favorite kind of weather is a lot of snow in the summer and a lot of heat in the summer. So like 50-60 inches of snow between November and April and then a lot of 90 degree heat and even a few above 100 between June and August. As long as it isn't snowing I want it to be very hot. We got that here in 2010 and 2011 when we had 60 inches of snow in back to back winters, 40-50 90 degree days in the summer in between and three days over 100 degrees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dryslot Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 GFSGW, Wow what a nuke......lol, But model guidance for something siggy next week is outstanding at this lead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastonSN+ Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 13 minutes ago, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said: Choking whiteout lol. Sucks though so much can go wrong. This isnt a Jan 96 bowling ball, to many sw's can choke us out. The GEFS looked good, but there were some trainers in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamarack Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 2 hours ago, Paragon said: With climate change, I actually think January is better than March and a close second to February. Back in the 80s March was probably the better month. I'm sure that varies with location. In my experience, the farther north/inland, the poorer January looks for big storms - none of the 8 snows of 15"+ in my 10 Ft. Kent winters came in that month. (Tops was 13") Dec had 3, Feb/Mar 2 each, plus April 1982. At my current foothills location, in 18 2/3 winters my 15-inchers are D-3,J-1,F-5,M-2,A-2. Drop the threshold to a foot and March adds 5 more, Jan 2, and Nov/Dec one each. For snowy months (defined by me as 30"+), Dec has 6, Jan just 2015, Feb 9, March 4, plus April 2007. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paragon Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 Just now, tamarack said: I'm sure that varies with location. In my experience, the farther north/inland, the poorer January looks for big storms - none of the 8 snows of 15"+ in my 10 Ft. Kent winters came in that month. (Tops was 13") Dec had 3, Feb/Mar 2 each, plus April 1982. At my current foothills location, in 18 2/3 winters my 15-inchers are D-3,J-1,F-5,M-2,A-2. Drop the threshold to a foot and March adds 5 more, Jan 2, and Nov/Dec one each. For snowy months (defined by me as 30"+), Dec has 6, Jan just 2015, Feb 9, March 4, plus April 2007. The funny thing is I can't remember any big January snowstorms here (by "big" I mean 12 inches plus) before January 1996, though I remember reading there was one in January 1978 before the really big one the month after. Funny thing about March is I actually remember more big snows in April (3) than March (2). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typhoon Tip Posted March 8, 2017 Author Share Posted March 8, 2017 17 minutes ago, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said: Choking whiteout lol. Sucks though so much can go wrong. This isnt a Jan 96 bowling ball, to many sw's can choke us out. ... the inevitable, proverbial "black-out" intervals loom.. That's when we finally come to what appears to be an early consensus on a trend (not so much a final solution), then... monkey wrench the hell out of it with several runs that totally lose it seemingly out of nowhere and for no apparent physical reason. About half the time, the system suddenly re-emerges ..oh, D 4, after the hiatus. Other times, they don't... chalk it up to perturbation/chaos/fractals getting a say in matters. The thing is, if they do come back ...such as the muse above, that D 4 seems to suddenly have a higher confidence interval - not mathematically/statistically derived per se. You just seem to know it's coming. Contrasting, we wring hands waiting for a comeback that either never takes place ...or, you end up with some weird coincident other minoring ordeal that takes some of the bite pressure away. But this paragraph confused the observations re the modeling behavior with sentiment... Point is, since there certainly plenty of precedence for it, we shouldn't be surprised if we do lose it for a couple few cycels, only to have it re-emerge. Also, ...this may be an opportunity to test the following: often times ...big deal events don't disappear in the guidance like that. The reason why is because they are more keyed at planetary wave scales and the modulation at those scales .. the storm is part and parcel to large mass-field correction events. It's hard to perturb with butterfly wing flaps, an entire planetary atmospheric signal - the latter is too overwhelming and absorbs those influences. It's really all Newton's First Law in action... Objects in motion will stay in motion until acted upon by some force capable of altering its momentum (not the exact text but interpretive -) Well, daily perturbations are less 'capable' of exacting a momentum change on a very large process already in motion. It's remarkably elegantly simple. And, there are other examples that are sort of in between that take on both the fleeting events, up to the scale of the 'adjustment bureau bombs.' Take April 1997... That wasn't a huge PW scaled correction event, but it was marked deeply in the atmospheric physics enough, too, that it was picked up and less likely to erode per perturbation ...from some five to seven days out in time. That's the same for 1992, December. ...etc. But, March of 1993? That's pretty much the apex quintessential example of the entire hemisphere getting in on the forcing... That sucker popped up on the MRF ensembles at like D13 ...not kidding. I remember it up at UML. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUNNAWAYICEBERG Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 Yea, I dont recall how well 93 Superstorm was modelled but I do remember TWC talking about it a week out. Anyway, good posts Tip. Hopefully this stays on guidance and all this is left is the board fighting over the jacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typhoon Tip Posted March 8, 2017 Author Share Posted March 8, 2017 11 minutes ago, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said: Yea, I dont recall how well 93 Superstorm was modelled but I do remember TWC talking about it a week out. Anyway, good posts Tip. Hopefully this stays on guidance and all this is left is the board fighting over the jacks. The GGEM solution was interesting... It was a three stream phased...but, the southern stream (and it's the only model with a pronounced Gulf of Mexico wave) becomes so much the focal lower level reflection of the total event, that the other streams sort of morph in late... anyway no yea the 1993 thing was 10 days and very consistent all the way to go time. pretty remarkable really - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinterWolf Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 5 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said: The GGEM solution was interesting... It was a three stream phased...but, the southern stream (and it's the only model with a pronounced Gulf of Mexico wave) becomes so much the focal lower level reflection of the total event, that the other streams sort of morph in late... anyway no yea the 1993 thing was 10 days and very consistent all the way to go time. pretty remarkable really - And if you take in to consideration that that was 24 years ago...and modeling wasn't even close to what it is a quarter century later, It's incredibly remarkable to say the least!!! Off the charts for any modeling, let alone 24 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typhoon Tip Posted March 8, 2017 Author Share Posted March 8, 2017 actually...go back to 1978... The modeling standard then was ..some logarithmic factor less dependable yet and that one did pretty good. There were many that doubted it though. I think the LFM (the model of the day) had just six-layers, utilizing what by today's science compounded improvement/standards would be comparable to very primitive equations. That model only ran out to 72 hours.. yet, it pretty much nailed the Feb even here along the NE coast, as well as the big bomb in the western OV/Lake some two weeks earlier. Those two events weren't as "hemispherically" charged as 1993; nevertheless, they must have had a pretty immutable presence in the atmosphere (physically) to be sniffed out by those modeling standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 19 minutes ago, WinterWolf said: And if you take in to consideration that that was 24 years ago...and modeling wasn't even close to what it is a quarter century later, It's incredibly remarkable to say the least!!! Off the charts for any modeling, let alone 24 years ago. Keep in mind that even though 93 was extremely well modeled for its time the sensible weather details were very quirky, no one forecasted the incredible Florida Gulf Coast surge, the deep deep Southern snows or the amount of sleet on the NE coast. I would imagine many in this subforum would be screaming bust when the NWS called for 18-24 and they ended up with 12 and 3 inches of sleet, just sayin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUNNAWAYICEBERG Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 10 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said: Keep in mind that even though 93 was extremely well modeled for its time the sensible weather details were very quirky, no one forecasted the incredible Florida Gulf Coast surge, the deep deep Southern snows or the amount of sleet on the NE coast. I would imagine many in this subforum would be screaming bust when the NWS called for 18-24 and they ended up with 12 and 3 inches of sleet, just sayin. True. I got a foot in CNJ with 6" of sleet followered by hours of ZR at 24F. Pissed little 13yr oldweenie but a remarkable experience nevertheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powderfreak Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 11 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said: Keep in mind that even though 93 was extremely well modeled for its time the sensible weather details were very quirky, no one forecasted the incredible Florida Gulf Coast surge, the deep deep Southern snows or the amount of sleet on the NE coast. I would imagine many in this subforum would be screaming bust when the NWS called for 18-24 and they ended up with 12 and 3 inches of sleet, just sayin. Yeah great post. You can be modeled for a huge storm but the devil is in the details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUNNAWAYICEBERG Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 39 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said: The GGEM solution was interesting... It was a three stream phased...but, the southern stream (and it's the only model with a pronounced Gulf of Mexico wave) becomes so much the focal lower level reflection of the total event, that the other streams sort of morph in late... anyway no yea the 1993 thing was 10 days and very consistent all the way to go time. pretty remarkable really - I am almost too nervous to look past hr 120 today lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leesun Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 19 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said: actually...go back to 1978... The modeling standard then was ..some logarithmic factor less dependable yet and that one did pretty good. There were many that doubted it though. I think the LFM (the model of the day) had just six-layers, utilizing what by today's science compounded improvement/standards would be comparable to very primitive equations. That model only ran out to 72 hours.. yet, it pretty much nailed the Feb even here along the NE coast, as well as the big bomb in the western OV/Lake some two weeks earlier. Those two events weren't as "hemispherically" charged as 1993; nevertheless, they must have had a pretty immutable presence in the atmosphere (physically) to be sniffed out by those modeling standards. Wasn't jan 96 modeled consistently early on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JC-CT Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 2 minutes ago, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said: I am almost too nervous to look past hr 120 today lol. Well our shortwaves are still there, the PNA is on roids, so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 1 minute ago, leesun said: Wasn't jan 96 modeled consistently early on? The storm was there, yeah....but it was way south at first. Even about 4 days out IIRC, it was barely getting DC into heavy snow and then the thing just crept north steadily along the I-95 corridor to the point where finally about 24-36 hours out it was hitting SNE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powderfreak Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 1 hour ago, dryslot said: GFSGW, Wow what a nuke......lol, But model guidance for something siggy next week is outstanding at this lead. EURO/GGEM blend would work nicely. Put the low over BOS or SNH and let it spin ;). Though that GFS run had some really good mid-level looks for the deep interior. We'll probably lose this one in the day 5 range and the NAM will be the one to bring it back at 84 hours lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dryslot Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 3 minutes ago, powderfreak said: EURO/GGEM blend would work nicely. Put the low over BOS or SNH and let it spin ;). Though that GFS run had some really good mid-level looks for the deep interior. We'll probably lose this one in the day 5 range and the NAM will be the one to bring it back at 84 hours lol. Its a decent signal on the models right now, Track and strength TBD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wxeyeNH Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 32 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said: actually...go back to 1978... The modeling standard then was ..some logarithmic factor less dependable yet and that one did pretty good. There were many that doubted it though. I think the LFM (the model of the day) had just six-layers, utilizing what by today's science compounded improvement/standards would be comparable to very primitive equations. That model only ran out to 72 hours.. yet, it pretty much nailed the Feb even here along the NE coast, as well as the big bomb in the western OV/Lake some two weeks earlier. Those two events weren't as "hemispherically" charged as 1993; nevertheless, they must have had a pretty immutable presence in the atmosphere (physically) to be sniffed out by those modeling standards. I can remember the pre Blizzard of 78 model experience. I am 60 years old. In 1978 I was in collage at the Univ of Maryland. I majored in Geography cause I was to chicken s..t to go through the math and psychics to get my Met. degree. The big Boston 78 blizzard hit on a Monday/Tuesday. On the Friday before I went over to the NWS is Silver Springs Maryland. I don't remember if I got a tour or just went in and talk to the Mets. Back then there was no security and I could just go right into headquarters. The Mets were going nuts as to what they were seeing on the progs. The LFM was the model of the day. They were talking about a historical event for New England. Sure enough 3 days later it happened. Although I grew up in the Boston area I went to school down there. I remember listening to statically WBZ and drooling over what I was missing. So even 40 years ago the model (s) nailed that storm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolMike Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 Weirdly good model agreement for the 7 day system on the 15th. I don't think we've seen agreement this good at this lead time since perhaps February 2013. Although in the middle of that big snow blitz in February 2015 I remember seeing well modeled storms pretty far out as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typhoon Tip Posted March 8, 2017 Author Share Posted March 8, 2017 12 minutes ago, powderfreak said: Yeah great post. You can be modeled for a huge storm but the devil is in the details. It is.. but it's also a different discussion entirely.. We were speaking in deference to verifying events - the specifics/detailed aspects of ex-y-z system are secondarily to that effort in the models. Most folks (in here anyway) would appreciate some semblance of consistency in modling winter storms, then...parlay as they get closer when it becomes more than figurative to figure out snow and rain lines.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leesun Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 2 minutes ago, wxeyeNH said: I can remember the pre Blizzard of 78 model experience. I am 60 years old. In 1978 I was in collage at the Univ of Maryland. I majored in Geography cause I was to chicken s..t to go through the math and psychics to get my Met. degree. The big Boston 78 blizzard hit on a Monday/Tuesday. On the Friday before I went over to the NWS is Silver Springs Maryland. I don't remember if I got a tour or just went in and talk to the Mets. Back then there was no security and I could just go right into headquarters. The Mets were going nuts as to what they were seeing on the progs. The LFM was the model of the day. They were talking about a historical event for New England. Sure enough 3 days later it happened. Although I grew up in the Boston area I went to school down there. I remember listening to statically WBZ and drolling over what I was missing. So even 40 years ago the model (s) nailed that storm. I was in NY at the time. I remember it well. The forecast the night before was for 1-3" changing to rain along the coast. Where I was on south coast of Long Island received over 30" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 GFS going boom again. Cold too, as it starts out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dryslot Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 12z GFS faster and is a little east of the 06z run, Good spot for it this far out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 Looks like GGEM is a whiff as the first system brings the baroclinic zone too far offshore...so even though the main trough is digging very deep, it's got nothing to work with. Luckily, it's kind of been an outlier with how strong the front running stuff is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damage In Tolland Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 Absolute long duration crushjob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JC-CT Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 It's not the last two runs, but it shows "generally" the same evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUNNAWAYICEBERG Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 2 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said: It is.. but it's also a different discussion entirely.. We were speaking in deference to verifying events - the specifics/detailed aspects of ex-y-z system are secondarily to that effort in the models. Most folks (in here anyway) would appreciate some semblance of consistency in modling winter storms, then...parlay as they get closer when it becomes more than figurative to figure out snow and rain lines.. Yea, the outcome in ones backyard is a different discussion then the overall verification of h5 or whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 Yeah that doesn't get better on the GFS. All downhill now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.