Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

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

January 18-19 SWFE


HoarfrostHubb
 Share

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, MetHerb said:

Yeah, I think their reasoning in the discussion makes sense.  The BOX forecast for me in northern Tolland County is 1-3" tomorrow afternoon and 3-5" tomorrow evening.  That's 4-8".  There's just as likely a chance for 4" as 8" and I think that's a reasonable call at this time considering there may be places over 6".

Start high.  You can always adjust upward if needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, dryslot said:

Yeah, Been a slight uptick in the modeled QPF, We won't have to worry about any taint.

Gyx had a discussion about ratios this morning which I thought was interesting.   Strong lift  in the dgz for the whole area but we lose it later in the storm in snh.   My only hope for better than modeled results is that the deep cold air and snow cover force some kind of coastal low to form faster than expected.   The problem is I don’t know what the hell im talking about.

  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mahk_webstah said:

Gyx had a discussion about ratios this morning which I thought was interesting.   Strong lift  in the dgz for the whole area but we lose it later in the storm in snh.   My only hope for better than modeled results is that the deep cold air and snow cover force some kind of coastal low to form faster than expected.   The problem is I don’t know what the hell im talking about.

lol, I just read their discussion and they expect good growth in the DGZ albeit a short duration but mention 1"/hr rates in that time frame for this area back to the Lakes region in Maine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, mahk_webstah said:

Gyx had a discussion about ratios this morning which I thought was interesting.   Strong lift  in the dgz for the whole area but we lose it later in the storm in snh.   My only hope for better than modeled results is that the deep cold air and snow cover force some kind of coastal low to form faster than expected.   The problem is I don’t know what the hell im talking about.

Dude, I just LOL’d hard on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said:

Hit the Archive button for individual.  You will want to look for ne on the description . Thump getting more pronounced in CT . RGEM now showing 6 to 8 in NE CT Tolland Union area. We slope

Ah, thanks i didnt see that. What a pain in the butt to scroll through all those files though! And the GFS fronto maps dont even work, only NAM is working.

ECMWF total QPF for 6Z.Some at the very end is lost to liquid for southern areas. 80-85% is frozen though. At 3Z the 925 line makes it up to 84

ecmwf-deterministic-massachusetts-t925-9402800.thumb.png.c96eed3af251ed2ef75aafe2c1e248cd.pngecmwf-deterministic-massachusetts-total_precip_inch-9438800.thumb.png.ed70184a980fa854fd7f85f2b6513de9.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this time don't see any need to make adjustments from this. Did receive a comment yesterday that I am probably too cute with southern CT there...which I am. Sometimes I like to be cute though. I always just feel though coastal CT somehow always finds a way to flip in these setups. Could have just moved the 3-6'' line farther south and then have a 1-3'' shading 

356059400_1stcallsnowmap.png.632f5188933ba07f8f61d9c7350d6d69.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Spanks45 said:

looks like the 6z Euro bumped us up a bit too....pushing 5 inches on those clown maps now

maybe a product of QPF...gotta keep in mind those things are using a baseline of 10:1 ratios...and ratios here I'm pretty certain will exceed 10:1. 

As much as i hate the snowfall maps when I saw they were spitting out 2-3'' on 10:1 ratios I felt pretty good about going 3-6'' as I felt ratios may be more 13:1 to 15:1

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, weatherwiz said:

At this time don't see any need to make adjustments from this. Did receive a comment yesterday that I am probably too cute with southern CT there...which I am. Sometimes I like to be cute though. I always just feel though coastal CT somehow always finds a way to flip in these setups. Could have just moved the 3-6'' line farther south and then have a 1-3'' shading 

356059400_1stcallsnowmap.png.632f5188933ba07f8f61d9c7350d6d69.png

I'd agree with that. I used to use overlapping numbers like 1-3/2-4/3-6 but then through the years of forecasting and making verification maps it never really works out that way. So for the past 3 or 4 years ive just been going with numbers like 1-3/3-6 that butt up against each other. 

I think 1-3 is probably a better range than C-2 as well, as with plenty of cold air in place even the shores basement is at least 1" imo. Doubt anyone gets away with this thing with just a coating of snow, even GON.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The 4 Seasons said:

I'd agree with that. I used to use overlapping numbers like 1-3/2-4/3-6 but then through the years of forecasting and making verification maps it never really works out that way. So for the past 3 or 4 years ive just been going with numbers like 1-3/3-6 that butt up against each other. 

I think 1-3 is probably a better range than C-2 as well, as with plenty of cold air in place even the shores basement is at least 1" imo. Doubt anyone gets away with this thing with just a coating of snow, even GON.

Yeah I should start doing that more...1-3'' going into the 3-6'' range would be more than ideal here. I don't get why I like to get too cute with it. I think it's more to illustrate gradients and such perhaps. But I'm going to start canning this...unless of course it was a situation which really warranted it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using max temp in profile on BUFKIT, NAM/GFS start out high around 18:1 then they crash after a couple hours down to 12:1 then eventually 10:1, the average is right around 12:1 for the event.

I don't use Cobb3 or 6 or 11 or whatever numbers that have been changing because i dont know what cobb is. Ill use max temp in profile to get an idea or use the slider for a straight 10:1 or 12:1. If anyone knows what Cobb ratio method is id be interested to hear it. 

(The blue line is snow ratio, the grey bars is snow falling (totals by the hour).

bufkitsnowratioCapture.thumb.PNG.34c8f22cd9bf96010f037b5d530db3d0.PNG

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, The 4 Seasons said:

Ah, thanks i didnt see that. What a pain in the butt to scroll through all those files though! And the GFS fronto maps dont even work, only NAM is working.

ECMWF total QPF for 6Z.Some at the very end is lost to liquid for southern areas. 80-85% is frozen though. At 3Z the 925 line makes it up to 84

ecmwf-deterministic-massachusetts-t925-9402800.thumb.png.c96eed3af251ed2ef75aafe2c1e248cd.pngecmwf-deterministic-massachusetts-total_precip_inch-9438800.thumb.png.ed70184a980fa854fd7f85f2b6513de9.png

I'll take that .65" and some good ratios, please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't get caught up in like one tenth changes to the qpf either. They could be meaningless. Look at h5 and midlevels instead to see if there's any support. Like I think the bump on the rgem is a little spurious. We're seeing a slightly better h5 shortwave not getting ground up quite as quickly, but I'm not sure I'd buy like a 2 tenth increase in qpf in spots. Some of it is the models trying to align a good leading fronto band too...and that could end up 30 miles either direction. Guidance typically isn't accurate enough to nail that with any consistency. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

I'm pretty skeptical of warning snows anywhere that is widespread enough for WSW but who knows. I suppose 6" might be common enough if this thump ticks up a little bit. 

Yeah I don't think 6" will be widespread.  It is a watch and at this lead time isn't a bad decision I think.  They can always switch that to an advisory tomorrow.

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...