Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

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

Winter Begins Jan 20th AWT


40/70 Benchmark
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Yea, its fair to question how much we are availing of this weak el nino at the moment.

We'll just have to revisit when all is said and done.

Good post.

Agreed.  Keep doing what you're doing and I'll butt into the discussion every so often when I'm bored in my head and need some mental stimulation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dendrite said:

I'll take the over on the Euro 2m temps. MEX is 14F at BDL. Maybe shave a few off of that for the anomalous low level cold?

ECMWF is -25C at 925 on Monday midday here. That's pretty good. I bet we're in the single digits through the day. 

Maybe a midnight high too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CT Rain said:

ECMWF is -25C at 925 on Monday midday here. That's pretty good. I bet we're in the single digits through the day. 

Maybe a midnight high too. 

Yeah...925 is pretty anomalous. There will be fresh pack upstream as well so little modification of the cold and any sun on Monday will be working against a high albedo. I'd probably lean with the midnight high there and the daytime peaking around 8-10F. BDL only has a little over a handful of days with highs under 5F on record though. Looks like 8F is the record from 1985.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Lava Rock said:

Can we start pulling down those 18-24" total now? what a hype storm. 9" modeled is a joke from where we were

shouldn't have bought any hype anyways.  most on here were cautioning against such totals.

regardless, classic Lava "meh-ing" a storm before it even gets underway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Lava Rock said:

Can we start pulling down those 18-24" total now? what a hype storm. 9" modeled is a joke from where we were

shouldn't have bought any hype anyways.  most on here were cautioning against such totals.

regardless, classic Lava "meh-ing" a storm before it even gets underway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, CT Rain said:

ECMWF is -25C at 925 on Monday midday here. That's pretty good. I bet we're in the single digits through the day. 

Maybe a midnight high too. 

Yeah one of those deals where the advection terms almost entirely dictate the diurnals ...   daily low at 1pm ha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lava Rock said:

then why do news places including Gutner at wcsh show 18-24" amounts. Does he really believe what he is forecasting or is he looking for ratings like TWC.

The quest for ratings factors in.  All of the TV news stations are well aware of what their competition is forecasting for snow totals. Even in less competitive markets people at the station  are well aware that more people are going to watch the broadcast if the forecast is for 18-24 as opposed to 8-12. At one time it cost more to place a commercial leading into or coming out of the weather segment. The higher the ratings for that segment means the more money that can be charged. I'm not sure if that is still the case or not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

leading into the weather portion of the 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Great Snow 1717 said:

The quest for ratings factors in.  All of the TV news stations are well aware of what their competition is forecasting for snow totals. Even in less competitive markets people at the station  are well aware that more people are going to watch the broadcast if the forecast is for 18-24 as opposed to 8-12. At one time it cost more to place a commercial leading into or coming out of the weather segment. The higher the ratings for that segment means the more money that can be charged. I'm not sure if that is still the case or not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

leading into the weather portion of the 

Where i do tend to agree with some of the above, The credibility factor comes in to play as well, Mets already get a bad rap, But to be consistently wrong to try to drive up the ratings, In time would have a negative effect.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dryslot said:

I've had 12-18" for here for the last few days, No reason to change, We will have a few hours of 12:1+ ratios, Then 10:1.

Lots of people among "the public" up here throwing around 18-24 totals, probably based on one forecast or range they heard about -- and/or TWC hype. Once those numbers are out there it's hard to walk them back. Sensible impacts will obviously be about the same, and it'll probably blow around so much that it'll be hard to tell the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PWMan said:

Lots of people among "the public" up here throwing around 18-24 totals, probably based on one forecast or range they heard about -- and/or TWC hype. Once those numbers are out there it's hard to walk them back. Sensible impacts will obviously be about the same, and it'll probably blow around so much that it'll be hard to tell the difference.

I made the mistake of sharing the mega BOX map  here at work.  I put in a line about don't expect these totals, cut them in half, etc.

Many were still asking me today if we were going to get 2+ feet...

:axe:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Lava Rock said:

then why do news places including Gutner at wcsh show 18-24" amounts. Does he really believe what he is forecasting or is he looking for ratings like TWC.

You'd have to ask him why he is forecasting that much.  It's not a surprise models are ratcheting down the qpf if you pay attention to the knowledgeable folks here.  12" is great, let's enjoy it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PWMan said:

Lots of people among "the public" up here throwing around 18-24 totals, probably based on one forecast or range they heard about -- and/or TWC hype. Once those numbers are out there it's hard to walk them back. Sensible impacts will obviously be about the same, and it'll probably blow around so much that it'll be hard to tell the difference.

Duration and amount of qpf drives the bus, Those are the two limiting factors that dictate final amounts, The ratios need to be factored, But if you looking at 1.3" qpf and you think your getting 24" out of that's 18.5:1, Not happening James, Especially the closer one gets to the coast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Great Snow 1717 said:

The quest for ratings factors in.  All of the TV news stations are well aware of what their competition is forecasting for snow totals. Even in less competitive markets people at the station  are well aware that more people are going to watch the broadcast if the forecast is for 18-24 as opposed to 8-12. At one time it cost more to place a commercial leading into or coming out of the weather segment. The higher the ratings for that segment means the more money that can be charged. I'm not sure if that is still the case or not.

 

 

I don't know any mets who would purposefully forecast incorrect snowfall amounts for ratings. Credibility matters too. I could see putting out some prelim snowfall totals to drive interest, but you want to try and make them accurate as possible.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, HoarfrostHubb said:

I made the mistake of sharing the mega BOX map  here at work.  I put in a line about don't expect these totals, cut them in half, etc.

Many were still asking me today if we were going to get 2+ feet...

:axe:

I can't help but think that's one reason some outlets put out those aggressive maps: they know people are going to copy/paste and send them around to their family and friends. Obviously that's not a motivation for NWS, but I can't help but think that it factors into the local news stations' thinking. Weather is one of the few reasons many people watch local programming anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dryslot said:

Where i do tend to agree with some of the above, The credibility factor comes in to play as well, Mets already get a bad rap, But to be consistently wrong to try to drive up the ratings, In time would have a negative effect.

There is a difference being consistently wrong and starting out with a high total and scaling back.  Happens all the time. The general public is happier when snow totals verify lower than forecasted as oppose to higher than forecasted.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

I don't know any mets who would purposefully forecast incorrect snowfall amounts for ratings. Credibility matters too. I could see putting out some prelim snowfall totals to drive interest, but you want to try and make them accurate as possible.

I don't think they're intentionally incorrect, but in my experience there often seems to be a tendency to go with wide ranges that include eye-popping high ends. This morning, for example, I saw a few maps showing the majority of the state of Maine in a "10-20" band. That's quite a range, and people will naturally fixate on the 20.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Great Snow 1717 said:

There is a difference being consistently wrong and starting out with a high total and scaling back.  Happens all the time. The general public is happier when snow totals verify lower than forecasted as oppose to higher than forecasted.  

The general public has no idea how to even interpret a forecast in general and they like to be the one that says “I heard we’re getting 30 inches “ . 

They watch a few different forecasts , they recall a few different lines from each , many don’t kno geographically exactly where they are on a map ( very serious ) and they are left repeating non sense . 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, MaineJayhawk said:

You shouldn't have bought those amounts.  I think 10-15 is a virtual lock though

Yeah I agree.  Any mid level fronto bands will Punch better snow growth too.  I could see a wide swath of 12-18".  13-15:1 ratios on 1" QPF.   But I bet any 700-850mb frontogenesis in NNE gets up to 20:1 ratios.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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