Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    16,974
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Sr. Fhrinse William
    Newest Member
    Sr. Fhrinse William
    Joined

Ghost of Ida Impacts Thread


WxWatcher007
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, WinterWolf said:

Thank you pal.  Holy smokes that’s incredible..I’ve never seen amounts like that in rainfall modeled.  

At least not around here.  Disconcerting to say the least when you have consensus across models for a huge rain event.  Likely the high ends are wrong but you never can rule out with a storm of tropical origins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Baroclinic Zone said:

At least not around here.  Disconcerting to say the least when you have consensus across models for a huge rain event.  Likely the high ends are wrong but you never can rule out with a storm of tropical origins.

I'm afraid the high ends may actually pan out...there is going to be a ton of convection too and precip rates will only be enhanced under convection. Going to be very ugly :yikes: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Baroclinic Zone said:

At least not around here.  Disconcerting to say the least when you have consensus across models for a huge rain event.  Likely the high ends are wrong but you never can rule out with a storm of tropical origins.

Yes, not around these parts is what I was meaning.  I should have made that clear. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, CT Rain said:

This has a lot of the hallmarks of a serious flood event. I'm pretty concerned for what unfolds tonight somewhere in CT/SE NY. 

In other words, the baby is going to decide to come overnight tonight. That trip to Danbury should be fun.

Steady rain right now, pushing 0.2" already, can't wait for an additional 4-8 inches later....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Media scrambling to find competing headlines that matches these gov agencies' hyperbole  ...

Now that's an interesting scenario, considering 2021's standardization of media ethics <-- lack thereof.  Yet, they must be at a loss to compete with the likes of this, "Widespread, highly unusual, highly confident deadly and life threatening flood risk..."   

I'm not impugning WPC/NOAA .... NASA or SETI signals telling them for driving that risk along ... It is what it is. But, what can the headlines of CNN do to out-knee jerk their constituency that is more than a statement like that. 

It's an event to be at that cross roads in itself.  LOL

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Cyclone-68 said:

Is this literally a once a decade type of rain event as modeled?

Mm hm...  'as modeled,'     ... but a apparently a Millennial event in the imagination of the zeitgeist doom addiction -

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, WinterWolf said:

Actually The NWS said in their discussion, that this is at the 95th percentile for an average reoccurrence of a once in a century type event.  Their words not mine lol. 

it's important to always put "as modeled" on the end of those turn of phrases and sentences.

It's easy to say, ...that is assumed; we all know that.   But people then don't act like they did when the rareness proves why it is rare.  That is where the gap starts to widen.  When ever predicting something that rare, that inherently means we are considering something that takes very fine/precarious interaction of physical components, not perturbing the delicate machinery. Simply put, it is hard to get water that big. That's why these things are so rare; they usually fail. 

Just for muse: Sometimes ( even ) the advancing model tech gets into a kind of parity/or uncertain principle it even sometimes seems.  Where the more accurate they get, they start to permutate weird solutions.  Like the ECM blown blizzard into NYC back in ... 2016?   There was really no way in reality to find the reason why the virtual realm of the model's vision ended up with such a crisis in error. That one had NWS with strongly worded Blizzard Warnings clear to Newark, and I think they may have gotten 2-4" of snow fins around parked car tires and tree trunks in a breath-arresting frigid wind toting cryo miasma instead.    That's my wordy memory of it anyway LOL   Bottom line, bust -

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12z NAM was a bit NW with axis of heaviest precip compared to 06z in the NY/CT area. Agreed its a nowcast regarding numbers and actual jackpot areas. 3-5" would be a good soaking for this area but nothing too usual. 7-8"+ is a different mattter. 12Z rolls the heaviest precip through SNE 05-09z with 1-2" falling in a 1-2 hr window.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Media scrambling to find competing headlines that matches these gov agencies' hyperbole  ...

Not that's an interesting scenario, considering 2021's standardization of media ethics <-- lack thereof.  Yet, they must be at a loss to compete with the likes of this, "Widespread, highly unusual, highly confident deadly and life threatening flood risk..."   

I'm not impugning WPC/NOAA .... NASA or SETI signals telling them for driving that risk along ... It is what it is. But, what can the headlines of CNN do to out-knee jerk their constituency that is more than a statement like that. 

It's an event to be at that cross roads in itself.  LOL

The news media , They May struggle to  brain storm and find a way Bc the flooding angle is so relatively rare for here . Could be the rare “under hype “ . They may not have a “go to” template for flooding . 
 

 

  • Haha 1
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...