• Member Statistics

    15,683
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    RB1986
    Newest Member
    RB1986
    Joined
Sign in to follow this  
Baroclinic Zone

Winter Re-Awakening - February 12-14th Redeveloper

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, CT Rain said:

Agreed with that. 

HREF pretty torchy in mid levels. 

 

25 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

GFS a bit warmer aloft, but still stubborn. 

Wild that model doesn't have sleet getting into NH until after 06z. At 03z it's off from the HREF by about 100 miles. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

It was notable for the positive bust....most were under a WWA for 2-4/3-5....and 8-10 fell north of the pike.

I had 9 south of the pike also link to all area totals lol Tolland https://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/winter_storm_summaries/2007/storm25/stormsum_8.html

RHODE ISLAND...
NORTH SMITHFIELD                      10.5
CUMBERLAND                             9.5
NORTH FOSTER                           9.2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, BrianW said:

Who does the observations at the airports? The FAA? Are they actually paid to do it like it's in their job description? Or are they just sort of doing a favor for the NWS?

I'm pretty sure we cannot require the FAA to take observations for us. They do hire companies or observers themselves to take manual obs at the larger airports though. The NWS hires observers to take our snow obs for LCD sites (as long as we can find someone that lives near enough the airport). We pay someone to do CON and PWM, GYX obviously we take care of, MHT we use the FAA contract observer so the quality is a little lower than our standards (since the FAA does not require 6 hourly snowfall), and AUG we can't find anyone willing.

7 hours ago, dendrite said:

I mean, I guess you could make an argument of changing the criteria to liquid equivalent of frozen precip. 6” of 10:1 with 2” of sleet is more impactful than 12” of 20:1. That’s a difference of like 1.20” QPF versus 0.60”.

We tried this once and Eastern Region was not a fan. ALY actually had a local policy that was exactly this, combo of snow, sleet, freezing rain equaling warning criteria (e.g. 3" of snow is 50% and 0.25" ice is 50%, therefore you had 100% warning). Even though it was still written in the regional directive supplement they told us no and removed it from the directive with the next update. 

Ekster and I tried. It was a storm we knew had no hope of hitting 6", but it was written as an option in the directive so we went with warnings. So we were pissed that our policy document led us astray in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, OceanStWx said:

 

We tried this once and Eastern Region was not a fan. ALY actually had a local policy that was exactly this, combo of snow, sleet, freezing rain equaling warning criteria (e.g. 3" of snow is 50% and 0.25" ice is 50%, therefore you had 100% warning). Even though it was still written in the regional directive supplement they told us no and removed it from the directive with the next update. 

Ekster and I tried. It was a storm we knew had no hope of hitting 6", but it was written as an option in the directive so we went with warnings. So we were pissed that our policy document led us astray in the end.

Interesting.  And you can't issue an impact based warning...sort of like the first snowfall of the season when some offices bend the rules a bit?  

It just seems that impact wise, over 1" of frozen precipitation shouldn't be considered the same Advisory as say 0.2" QPF with good snow growth, or 30 minutes of freezing drizzle ahead of a cutter...even if that 1-1.5" QPF may not exceed 6-7" of accumulation because of IP/ZR mixing.  

Snowbanks in parking lots a day after 3-4" of sleet look the same as 8-10" of snow, does that count? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, powderfreak said:

Interesting.  And you can't issue an impact based warning...sort of like the first snowfall of the season when some offices bend the rules a bit?  

It just seems that impact wise, over 1" of frozen precipitation shouldn't be considered the same Advisory as say 0.2" QPF with good snow growth, or 30 minutes of freezing drizzle ahead of a cutter...even if that 1-1.5" QPF may not exceed 6-7" of accumulation because of IP/ZR mixing.  

Snowbanks in parking lots a day after 3-4" of sleet look the same as 8-10" of snow, does that count? :lol:

It's hard to argue impact based sub-warning criteria events in February up here. :lol:

The real question here is for places like CON on south. The GFS has the 6-7" of snow and sleet, that's a fine warning. But the NAM has 3.1" snow and sleet, that's technically not even advisory level. So our thinking was give it one more model cycle. Honestly the ME zones were probably more likely slam dunk 6" before a changeover, but the timing is later for those zones too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, OceanStWx said:

It's hard to argue impact based sub-warning criteria events in February up here. :lol:

The real question here is for places like CON on south. The GFS has the 6-7" of snow and sleet, that's a fine warning. But the NAM has 3.1" snow and sleet, that's technically not even advisory level. So our thinking was give it one more model cycle. Honestly the ME zones were probably more likely slam dunk 6" before a changeover, but the timing is later for those zones too.

Ha true on time of year and I guess sleet doesn't cause that many issues no matter how much QPF is in it.  I don't know why I was thinking Advisory was 3", not 4". Is your warning 6" or 7"?  I might have been picturing 3"/6" for the headlines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, powderfreak said:

Ha true on time of year.  And I don't know why I was thinking Advisory was 3", not 4". Is your warning 6" or 7"?  I might have been picturing 3"/6" for the headlines.

We're 6" here, I think CAR and ALY are 7", we're all 4" for advisory north of BOX and OKX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm an off-duty met from NWS LOT (Chicago). Haven't been following closely enough to know how the models have been depicting things over there, but just wanted to note that the NAM did by far the best with the warm nose here in northern IL and into eastern IA. The other models, including RAP/HRRR, were too cold aloft and not aggressive enough in pushing the warm nose steadily northward. We're now in a full on ice storm out here (I had close to 0.2" as of an hour ago where I live) and 2m temps flatlining around 31-32 with several more hours of steady precip to go.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, sbos_wx said:

2-4" final I'm riding with Harvey 

BOS is an interesting spot for this one. Most TV mets going for with a marina influence effecting the Logan measurements maybe? Then seeing on here that some people don’t think the marina influence will not apply with this one. 

I’ll play conservative and say 3” here. Who knows what will be measured for Logan though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, RCNYILWX said:

I'm an off-duty met from NWS LOT (Chicago). Haven't been following closely enough to know how the models have been depicting things over there, but just wanted to note that the NAM did by far the best with the warm nose here in northern IL and into eastern IA. The other models, including RAP/HRRR, were too cold aloft and not aggressive enough in pushing the warm nose steadily northward. We're now in a full on ice storm out here (I had close to 0.2" as of an hour ago where I live) and 2m temps flatlining around 31-32 with several more hours of steady precip to go.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 

Funny you mention that. I just looked at ORD since we have interests there, and noted the same.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, RCNYILWX said:

I'm an off-duty met from NWS LOT (Chicago). Haven't been following closely enough to know how the models have been depicting things over there, but just wanted to note that the NAM did by far the best with the warm nose here in northern IL and into eastern IA. The other models, including RAP/HRRR, were too cold aloft and not aggressive enough in pushing the warm nose steadily northward. We're now in a full on ice storm out here (I had close to 0.2" as of an hour ago where I live) and 2m temps flatlining around 31-32 with several more hours of steady precip to go.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 

That warmth aloft is always hard to stop.

00z HRRR, NAM, and GFS all have sub-warning amounts for the southern half of NH. Scooter caution flags everywhere right now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That warmth aloft is always hard to stop.
00z HRRR, NAM, and GFS all have sub-warning amounts for the southern half of NH. Scooter caution flags everywhere right now.
Was a red flag when we started off where I live in western Chicago metro as ZR/IP and not snow with SPC mesoanalysis off because of using RAP background which was too cold. Places well west and north in DVN CWA that were supposed to stay snow like CID and DBQ went over to ZR. Could see the mix line surging north on CC and knew it was all over. Good lesson today to err on the side of the warmth aloft being at least as aggressive as the most aggressive model.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funny you mention that. I just looked at ORD since we have interests there, and noted the same.  
I put together some select total ice accums as of 06z from regional ASOS sites (by adding up I6 groups in metars). Most impressive widespread ice storm in years in this area.

MLI: 0.47
DVN: 0.41
ARR: 0.32
VPZ: 0.30
DPA: 0.27
ORD: 0.22
RFD: 0.19
CID: 0.18
MDW: 0.15
PIA: 0.14
PWK: 0.09

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RCNYILWX said:

Was a red flag when we started off where I live in western Chicago metro as ZR/IP and not snow with SPC mesoanalysis off because of using RAP background which was too cold. Places well west and north in DVN CWA that were supposed to stay snow like CID and DBQ went over to ZR. Could see the mix line surging north on CC and knew it was all over. Good lesson today to err on the side of the warmth aloft being at least as aggressive as the most aggressive model.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 

Yeah I was keeping an eye on my old DVN stomping grounds and saw the forecasts getting upgraded for FZRA. 

I've also noticed that here in the Northeast anyway, all the offices are forecasting snow ratio grids and deriving snow from that. And well modeling is not great with that (usually too high), and snowfall trends that way as a result.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah I was keeping an eye on my old DVN stomping grounds and saw the forecasts getting upgraded for FZRA. 

I've also noticed that here in the Northeast anyway, all the offices are forecasting snow ratio grids and deriving snow from that. And well modeling is not great with that (usually too high), and snowfall trends that way as a result.

My office started with just metro counties and west in an advisory, then expanded 1 tier south earlier today, then eventually CWA wide with 2 updates this evening. Finally we upgraded to warnings in part of the CWA then just a little while ago expanded the ice storm warnings we had issued late evening to now include most of Chicago metro except far north/northwest.

 

We have the same issue out here with the snow ratio grids used to derive the snow output. It's been less of an issue in this area this winter from what I've seen but last year we had several events with low snow ratios despite cold temps due to the lift being above the DGZ and over forecast snow amounts as a result of ratios being too high. We try to account for the ptypes in the snow amount forecast with the prob of weather type (powt) methodology (using modified bourgoin energy technique), so that when there's low hourly snow probs and/or 2m temps AOA 35, we don't accumulate snow that hour and it subtracts it out of the 6 hour snow grid.

 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to many you look at models night before a storm i dont . that why i listen some people jb brad field and some others . every time  i seen  we more snowfall than forecast because weather models to warm to fast and cold stays stronger .

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, RCNYILWX said:

My office started with just metro counties and west in an advisory, then expanded 1 tier south earlier today, then eventually CWA wide with 2 updates this evening. Finally we upgraded to warnings in part of the CWA then just a little while ago expanded the ice storm warnings we had issued late evening to now include most of Chicago metro except far north/northwest.

 

We have the same issue out here with the snow ratio grids used to derive the snow output. It's been less of an issue in this area this winter from what I've seen but last year we had several events with low snow ratios despite cold temps due to the lift being above the DGZ and over forecast snow amounts as a result of ratios being too high. We try to account for the ptypes in the snow amount forecast with the prob of weather type (powt) methodology (using modified bourgoin energy technique), so that when there's low hourly snow probs and/or 2m temps AOA 35, we don't accumulate snow that hour and it subtracts it out of the 6 hour snow grid.

Oh we stole PoWT a long time ago. ;)

It's tough when modeling always has us in 15-20:1 ratios, but at least it knocks things back when we go over to predominately something other than snow.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that BOX has Cambridge,Ma under Winter storm Warning and Worcester Ma under WWA

Box going 4-7 w .2 tenths icing of some sort In warning areas , respecting the deeper cold putting up Resistance In Essex county down to N shore 

Seems like a town such as Amesbury has best shot of Warning  snows to Me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, moneypitmike said:

BOX is pretty aggressive on totals for out here.  My zone is for 6-10", and my P/C goes with a 4-8/1-3.

We're going to need some pretty heavy rates  during the day and a slow taint if we want to get much over 5-7".

Yeah, based on mid-level warm push we might need to knock a 1/3 off.  Interestingly our "expected snowfall" and "max potential snowfall" maps from BOX are the same up here.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, HIPPYVALLEY said:

Yeah, based on mid-level warm push we might need to knock a 1/3 off.  Interestingly our "expected snowfall" and "max potential snowfall" maps from BOX are the same up here.  

It doesn't make sense to me to have wording in the WSW product that contradicts what you're saying in the ZFP and PnC.    The WSW is less aggressive than either of those.

Quote

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, HIPPYVALLEY said:

Yeah, based on mid-level warm push we might need to knock a 1/3 off.  Interestingly our "expected snowfall" and "max potential snowfall" maps from BOX are the same up here.  

I love the low (10%) end... <1"  lol

That would be a kick in the nether regions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.