Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,508
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    joxey
    Newest Member
    joxey
    Joined

March 2023 Obs/Disco


40/70 Benchmark
 Share

Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

Drunk. 15-16 was not a ratter. 16-17, was good. 17-18 was great, 18-19 was decent. 19-20 stunk but not necessarily ratter (less than 20"). 20-21 was decent.  21-22 good. We are talking snow, not temps. 

Of course, that differs by location!   15-16 was the least snowy here in our 25 winters and it was even worse for NVT.  16-17 was near epic and Pi Day was one of only 4 blizz criteria events here.  17-18 and 18-19 were good, 19-20 was BN, saved from ratterdom by 22" post-equinox, 20-21 ratter, 21-22 near-ratter, 22-23 avg to good.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, WinterWolf said:

Still though…it’s not the king anymore, not even close. It shows it time and time again. This was just another example. 

Yeah I know it's not utterly dominant anymore, but this really isn't a good example....since day 6-7 is fringe clown range. Nobody should expect model guidance to be consistent at this range. It honestly wouldn't be that surprising if it came back either.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

Yeah I know it's not utterly dominant anymore, but this really isn't a good example....since day 6-7 is fringe clown range. Nobody should expect model guidance to be consistent at this range. It honestly wouldn't be that surprising if it came back either.

Agreed that it’s a 6-7 day threat, and things get lost and reappear some times, but the old King would have more times than not sniffed this out, and it would have either shown a non event, or held the big storm idea from 5-7 days out like it used to do more often than not.  But not any more. But agreed it’s still a big lead time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Yes, you have. You are wrong.

Ok, I looked at the actual data from the NWS for BOS from the winter of 2007-2008 to the winter of 2014-2015, as well as the timeframe starting with the winter of 2015-2016 to the present. Since 1890, Boston has averaged 49.2 inches of snow per year, so over an average 7 year period Boston would get 344.2 inches of snow. 

2008-2015: 476 inches, for an average of 68 inches of snow per year

2016-2023: 291.8 inches, for an average of 41.69 inches of snow per year

Ok, the data didn’t exactly prove me right, but it also suggests that you are wrong in your claim that we have been lucky since 2016. During the 2016-2023, Boston averaged 41.69 inches, or 84.74% of climo snowfall. That’s a bad stretch, but anywhere near extreme like I implied in my earlier posts. So yeah, I was wrong about my claim that the recent 7 year period was “historically bad” snow wise. However, it was also wrong to say we have been “lucky” since 2016. Now the 2008-2015 timeframe? Boston averaged 68 inches, or 138.2% of climo so we hit the fucking jackpot during those years. 

In terms of snow totals, If you say we’ve been lucky the past 15-20 years? Yep we have been. If you say we’ve been lucky the past 7 years? While it hasn’t been as snowless as I implied, we’ve been getting boned too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just b/c a model goes from "storm to no storm" and vice-versa doesn't mean a model sucks. This is one reason why I think there are just too many products available to assess. In the medium range the only products that hold any weight whatsoever are mid/upper-level. Forget what the snow maps show, forget what the QPF maps show, and forget what the SLP tracks are. All those products...are useless and pointless in the medium range. 

You have to understand why a model is wavering back-and-forth. In the case of this potential, there are several key pieces at hand

1) PV and associated confluence 

2) Shortwave energy within the north stream 

You can even expand this list and focus how the energy moving into the PAC NW is influencing the evolution of the pattern downstream

It is unrealistic to expect a model to be consistent or sniff these features and their exactly evolution nearly perfect in that range. There is too much chaos involved. That will never, ever, ever happen. 

When looking into the medium range, all you want to see is how your key features are being played out by each model while using the current pattern regime to hopefully narrow down a list of potential solutions/outcomes. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, weatherwiz said:

Just b/c a model goes from "storm to no storm" and vice-versa doesn't mean a model sucks. This is one reason why I think there are just too many products available to assess. In the medium range the only products that hold any weight whatsoever are mid/upper-level. Forget what the snow maps show, forget what the QPF maps show, and forget what the SLP tracks are. All those products...are useless and pointless in the medium range. 

You have to understand why a model is wavering back-and-forth. In the case of this potential, there are several key pieces at hand

1) PV and associated confluence 

2) Shortwave energy within the north stream 

You can even expand this list and focus how the energy moving into the PAC NW is influencing the evolution of the pattern downstream

It is unrealistic to expect a model to be consistent or sniff these features and their exactly evolution nearly perfect in that range. There is too much chaos involved. That will never, ever, ever happen. 

When looking into the medium range, all you want to see is how your key features are being played out by each model while using the current pattern regime to hopefully narrow down a list of potential solutions/outcomes. 

You take models for the strengths for the ranges their intended for, Never use just one exclusively but you can weigh some in more then others once you start getting inside reasonable time frames, They all have there boundaries.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dryslot said:

You take models for the strengths for the ranges their intended for, Never use just one exclusively but you can weigh some in more then others once you start getting inside reasonable time frames, They all have there boundaries.

Right, you never want to just take one model and run with it. Understanding which model may be performing the best in a given pattern regime can help provide some great guidance too. 

But I think we've become so fixated on threats in the D6-10 and beyond range these last several years that expectations have just been cut to shreds and if some D8 "threat" doesn't verify all of a sudden a model or models are trash. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, WinterWolf said:

Agreed that it’s a 6-7 day threat, and things get lost and reappear some times, but the old King would have more times than not sniffed this out, and it would have either shown a non event, or held the big storm idea from 5-7 days out like it used to do more often than not.  But not any more. But agreed it’s still a big lead time. 

I'd really put the line more closer to day 5 when it really became more lethal against its competition....that's when the old Euro sniffed out some of the past big dogs like Jan 2011 and Feb 2013 or even Jan 2018.

These 150-174 hour storms are going to be all over the place...and it's on all guidance too just not the Euro....GFS went from basically nothing to a deep layer easterly crush job yesterday at 12z to a mid-atlantic special in 3 consecutive runs....and now back to nothing again. Canadian had nothing mostly, and then all of the sudden today it decided it wanted to play.

Some of the storms in recent years have been tracked from D7-8 which probably clouds our judgement on model skill. Dec 17, 2020 we tracked from like D9, lol...and I think a couple others we tracked from a long ways out....I know Feb 1-2, 2021 was at least 8 days and so was last January 29th.

 

 

  • Like 4
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...