Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

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

Jan 16/17 light snow event.


clskinsfan

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 871
  • Created
  • Last Reply
21 minutes ago, Bob Chill said:

3k is acceptable too. This should help wash some of the bad euro taste out of our mouths. 

jwXj2Ol.jpg

I don't know if I would say that an inch or two in NOVA is acceptable unless it was an all-day flurries situation where we could enjoy the scenery. But the Baltimore members of the board could get 3 or so . That is completely unacceptable.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Wonderdog said:

I don't know if I would say that an inch or two in NOVA is acceptable unless it was an all-day flurries situation where we could enjoy the scenery. But the Baltimore members of the board could get 3 or so . That is completely unacceptable.  

It’s fine.  They deserve snow too.  We are all together in this.  It’s not our year plain and simple.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to believe these mesoscale models that have been dropping 0.30-0.40+" of QPF on my yard all day today, but I can't.  LWX says there is a 4 % chance here of 4".  The Euro also gives me pause.  It has shown ~0.10" here for five straight runs, in spite of all the talk of it being jumpy.  Too many times when it has been the driest model, even in the face of other models increasing totals, it has been the closest to what I actually measure.  I will keep the bar set at an inch and hope for better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, SnowGolfBro said:

When all is said and done with this one I think Bob's call of 1-3 area wide is going to be a pretty strong forecast. 

We'll see. These light events are tricky. It's much different when an area is getting painted with .25-.50 qpf. This one ranges from practically nothing to maybe .4 top end but the .1 - .3 qpf range with no "synoptic surprise" upside potential (not much hope there) is always dicey here. I honestly wish there was more that could go right other than more juice along the front. There's still a chance for some sort of coastal enhancement but that idea has been fading for 2 days. 

To get a passing grade, this is the minimum of what needs to happen:

Majority of the sub gets a clean 1"

A fair sized chunk of the area gets 2" (like 33% of the real estate)

Some legit reports of 2.5 or 3" come in and not from some slant sticker. lol

If half the sub gets less than 1" and few if any crack 2" then it's a fail call. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Bob Chill said:

We'll see. These light events are tricky. It's much different when an area is getting painted with .25-.50 qpf. This one ranges from practically nothing to maybe .4 top end but the .1 - .3 qpf range with no "synoptic surprise" upside potential (not much hope there) is always dicey here. I honestly wish there was more that could go right other than more juice along the front. There's still a chance for some sort of coastal enhancement but that idea has been fading for 2 days. 

To get a passing grade, this is the minimum of what needs to happen:

Majority of the sub gets a clean 1"

A fair sized chunk of the area gets 2" (like 33% of the real estate)

Some legit reports of 2.5 or 3" come in and not from some slant sticker. lol

If half the sub gets less than 1" and few if any crack 2" then it's a fail call. 

I just want 0.5” so I have 10” for the year 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Bob Chill said:

We'll see. These light events are tricky. It's much different when an area is getting painted with .25-.50 qpf. This one ranges from practically nothing to maybe .4 top end but the .1 - .3 qpf range with no "synoptic surprise" upside potential (not much hope there) is always dicey here. I honestly wish there was more that could go right other than more juice along the front. There's still a chance for some sort of coastal enhancement but that idea has been fading for 2 days. 

To get a passing grade, this is the minimum of what needs to happen:

Majority of the sub gets a clean 1"

A fair sized chunk of the area gets 2" (like 33% of the real estate)

Some legit reports of 2.5 or 3" come in and not from some slant sticker. lol

If half the sub gets less than 1" and few if any crack 2" then it's a fail call. 

Exactly. We're wanting the models to be accurate within 0.05" intervals if we're looking at 1" as a threshold. To me, that's a within-24-hours level of precision and or even less lead time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dtk said:

The entire conversation about ECMWF's model is pretty dumb.  It is demonstrably better than any other model in the world and it is not that close....and I'm not just talking about 500 hPa AC scores.  

As for the discussion on resolution, it's possible that higher resolution may result in more "jumpiness" due to the error growth rates at higher frequency parts of the spectrum, which then cascades upscale.  Nonlinearities and scale interactions become more important as we push the resolution envelope.  ECMWF has been at their current horizontal resolution since March 2016.  

I'm not denying the factual data. But I also can't ignore the very real problems it's been having regionally in our domain lately. It's had huge variability (and accuracy) issues with every system in the last month. Now as showme said that could and probably is just a temporary issue with the current pattern giving it problems. But I can't deny what my eyes see. And you know I'm not a model basher or objective data denier. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

I'm not denying the factual data. But I also can't ignore the very real problems it's been having regionally in our domain lately. It's had huge variability (and accuracy) issues with every system in the last month. Now as showme said that could and probably is just a temporary issue with the current pattern giving it problems. But I can't deny what my eyes see. And you know I'm not a model basher or objective data denier. 

Yeah, I'm not disputing people's perception of model behavior.  In fact, I'm fascinated by some of what has been observed and want to understand it better.  There is some follow up to this in the banter.  Now, back to our sNOw....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The RGEM actually looked like it slowed down a little, but it cuts off precip early near the cities, similar to what the 12z GFS and Euro did.  I think the reason for this can be seen in the 850 winds.  There's a "U"-shaped bend to the winds at 850 mb, and as it slides past us the winds shift from the south to the west.  Once they're coming from the west, it's game over.  Look at the last frame here.  You can see the 850s coming onshore south of us and north of us, but we get a dry westerly flow.

zHke0iP.gif

And this is what the precip looks like at that time.

I962CnY.gif

If that loop shifts a little north, or slows down, I think it would help us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...