Jump to content

  • Member Statistics

    18,603
    Total Members
    14,841
    Most Online
    eloveday
    Newest Member
    eloveday
    Joined

January 4-6 Coastal Bomb Observations/Nowcast

Baroclinic Zone

By Baroclinic Zone,
in New England

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Jebman

Jebman

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said:

When a dood has two young ones and the entire fam is vomitting and scooter sh*t streaking around the house....i don’t think precision shoveling is at the forefront. Just a hunch. 

I hope they get better soon, I see your point about the shoveling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OceanStWx

OceanStWx

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, OSUmetstud said:

East Scotia slope buoy had 56.1 ft significant seas this morning. 

Damn. That's just the mean of the top 1/3 of waves.

That means roughly 1 out of every 100 waves could have been higher than 84 feet, and theoretically the highest waves out there (1 in a 1000ish) could have been as high as 112 ft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OceanStWx

OceanStWx

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, dendrite said:

Yeah I knew it wouldn’t be enough...I just wanted to see the difference graphically. I’m starting to lean toward not caring if the obs are consecutive or not in the definition. Maybe up it to 5hrs and wherever the obs fall they fall? Impact wise, does it really matter if there’s 5hrs worth of blizz criteria, but it’s broken up by 30 mins of only 1/2SM instead of 1/4SM? Basically keep using the 5 min obs...there’s 12 of them in an hour. So make it so you need 60 qualifying obs over the course of the storm in order to meet criteria.

Someday I'll be the one making these calls, but that day is not today.

I look at that and say, wouldn't blizzard conditions be predominate from 2:25 until 5:25? But whatever, it's not my CWA (Yet. Until they roll us all up into the New England regional office).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
40/70 Benchmark

40/70 Benchmark

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, OceanStWx said:

Someday I'll be the one making these calls, but that day is not today.

I look at that and say, wouldn't blizzard conditions be predominate from 2:25 until 5:25? But whatever, it's not my CWA (Yet. Until they roll us all up into the New England regional office).

Is that in the works, Chris?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OceanStWx

OceanStWx

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Is that in the works, Chris?

Someday probably, not anytime soon though.

Immediate future (5, 10 years?) might be to have two offices handle New England. BOX south and GYX north, and the other counties/states that aren't part of those two offices get cannibalized from CAR, BTV, OKX, ALY.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bboughton

bboughton

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, ORH_wxman said:

There was another of exactly 20 minutes and maybe one more of around 15. They weren't close together though. 

The 5 minute criteria is definitely more stringent. That isn't a bad thing. It's just they have not seemed to use that more stringent criteria in the past. It makes for inconsistencies. 

For sure. To me the definition always seemed a little capricious. In terms of visibility and impact this was one of the worst storms I’ve seen in greater Boston since I’ve lived here (8 years total, 10 if you count my two year hiatus living northwest of Providence which gets similar outcomes on most storms), and I have seen several verified blizzards  

And I grew up in the New Haven CT area and again can remember several “verified” blizzards from OKX that were not as bad as this one. 

I think the rigid definition is misleading and causes confusion. Kind of the same way Sandy didn’t get a tropical storm warning in NYC. People judge impact by the severity of the watch/warning and in New England, IMO, don’t take it seriously until it’s a Blizzard. 

I remember on Tuesday morning telling my coworkers it was going to warm up just in time for a blizzard and they thought I was nuts because “winter storm warning” or watch doesn’t have the same impact on them. Regardless of what the actual product says. 

A 14” snowfall isn’t weird for Boston and is usually not all that impactful. A 14” snowstorm in 6-7 hours on the other hand is a whole different matter. And in fairness I think the meteorologists tried to convey this but unless something says 20”+ or blizzard I tend not to see the same preparedness response kick in. 

I also wonder about how it effects public officials in their decision making, since it seemed folks were unprepared to make the decisions necessary to keep people off the roads (e.g., travel restrictions, curtailed MBTA Service). Lots of business didn’t close absent the state of emergency warning which poses safety concerns as well as logistical concerns in terms of snow removal. 

I don’t know what the solution is that doesn’t sacrifice the science. But there needs to be something explicit that identifies storms as qualitatively different based on impact IMO. Most people don’t even know that Blizzard Watches aren’t s thing anymore. I tend to follow this board in the winter and I didn’t know it until a day or two before the storm. Folks used to take Blizzard Watches more seriously than Winter Storm Warnings, so that word has substantial meaning to folks beyond technical criteria. 

I had actually made a bet with my boss’s boss’s boss that we would have a Blizzard. And as I walked in to give her the $5 (petty bet) she was ready to give me $5. We called it a draw. But people will call things a blizzard based on impact to travel and property (and maybe snow totals), and so they think it’s what it means. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OceanStWx

OceanStWx

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, bboughton said:

For sure. To me the definition always seemed a little capricious. In terms of visibility and impact this was one of the worst storms I’ve seen in greater Boston since I’ve lived here (8 years total, 10 if you count my two year hiatus living northwest of Providence which gets similar outcomes on most storms), and I have seen several verified blizzards  

And I grew up in the New Haven CT area and again can remember several “verified” blizzards from OKX that were not as bad as this one. 

I think the rigid definition is misleading and causes confusion. Kind of the same way Sandy didn’t get a tropical storm warning in NYC. People judge impact by the severity of the watch/warning and in New England, IMO, don’t take it seriously until it’s a Blizzard. 

I remember on Tuesday morning telling my coworkers it was going to warm up just in time for a blizzard and they thought I was nuts because “winter storm warning” or watch doesn’t have the same impact on them. Regardless of what the actual product says. 

A 14” snowfall isn’t weird for Boston and is usually not all that impactful. A 14” snowstorm in 6-7 hours on the other hand is a whole different matter. And in fairness I think the meteorologists tried to convey this but unless something says 20”+ or blizzard I tend not to see the same preparedness response kick in. 

I also wonder about how it effects public officials in their decision making, since it seemed folks were unprepared to make the decisions necessary to keep people off the roads (e.g., travel restrictions, curtailed MBTA Service). Lots of business didn’t close absent the state of emergency warning which poses safety concerns as well as logistical concerns in terms of snow removal. 

I don’t know what the solution is that doesn’t sacrifice the science. But there needs to be something explicit that identifies storms as qualitatively different based on impact IMO. Most people don’t even know that Blizzard Watches aren’t s thing anymore. I tend to follow this board in the winter and I didn’t know it until a day or two before the storm. Folks used to take Blizzard Watches more seriously than Winter Storm Warnings, so that word has substantial meaning to folks beyond technical criteria. 

I had actually made a bet with my boss’s boss’s boss that we would have a Blizzard. And as I walked in to give her the $5 (petty bet) she was ready to give me $5. We called it a draw. But people will call things a blizzard based on impact to travel and property (and maybe snow totals), and so they think it’s what it means. 

Funny story:

The NWS Directives (which basically govern the way we issue forecasts/headlines) only states blizzard criteria (sustained or frequent gusts >= 35 mph and frequently <1/4SM visibility) for 3 hours or more. Doesn't say anything about consecutive. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
powderfreak

powderfreak

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, OceanStWx said:

Someday probably, not anytime soon though.

Immediate future (5, 10 years?) might be to have two offices handle New England. BOX south and GYX north, and the other counties/states that aren't part of those two offices get cannibalized from CAR, BTV, OKX, ALY.

Nice, then you are getting the photos of measurements of a foot of snow overnight when you have "snow accumulations less than one inch possible" in the grids lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
powderfreak

powderfreak

Posted
Posted
Just now, HoarfrostHubb said:

You need your own NWS office  for the picnic tables

That's what BTV is sometimes.  They'll dedicate entire AFDs at times to the picnic tables if theres not much going on elsewhere, haha.  

They certainly talk about the mountains more than any other office, but it also helps when you can see them from the NWS office and have things like the busiest stretch of highway in the state (I89 from MPV to BTV) run right through the mountain spine.  Not to mention the large recreational population that utilizes those forecasts probably more so than at other WFOs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
powderfreak

powderfreak

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

Call it the Moose Fart CWA. 

That's the next thing they need to use in an AFD, lol.  

I picture a GYX office getting reports from the northern Greens (there's a surprisingly large number of spotters in and around the mountains) and being like "for fukks sake we get it, it snows almost every day, stop inundating us with this crap.  It's sunny at the WFO.  We'll put in a 50% chance of snow for the next 3 months, don't email or call us because you just got 4 inches in 2 hours and want to know why the forecast says partly cloudy."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OceanStWx

OceanStWx

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, powderfreak said:

That's the next thing they need to use in an AFD, lol.  

I picture a GYX office getting reports from the northern Greens (there's a surprisingly large number of spotters in and around the mountains) and being like "for fukks sake we get it, it snows almost every day, stop inundating us with this crap.  It's sunny at the WFO.  We'll put in a 50% chance of snow for the next 3 months, don't email or call us because you just got 4 inches in 2 hours and want to know why the forecast says partly cloudy."

That’s how we treat @alex ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bboughton

bboughton

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, OceanStWx said:

Funny story:

The NWS Directives (which basically govern the way we issue forecasts/headlines) only states blizzard criteria (sustained or frequent gusts >= 35 mph and frequently <1/4SM visibility) for 3 hours or more. Doesn't say anything about consecutive. :lol:

Interesting. In a lot of ways that makes more sense. Though I imagine you’d need some upper limit on time period. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...