January 26-27 Storm Disco/Obs III

[Damage In Tolland]

Dude I am wooped, LOL I saw a guy with huge banks in Sterling, thought of you, can not wait to see.

The town plow guy got out while i was out there and we were laughing about them. he told me I was nuts. Can't get to my mailbox..Too deep ..He said he's coming back around again later

[Baroclinic Zone]

http://www.erh.noaa....ow&centeron=BOX

I like this map!

[Damage In Tolland]

Did Kev paint this?

Wow, this is incredible. I'm looking ahead on the Euro, seeing three more chances for at least a light snowfall, with below normal temps just locked in place.

This is absolutely amazing. I'm having something between a "good" to "great" winter here so far. You guys are having something just indescribable.

That map id dead nuts on for MBY.. 33-35 inches OTG

[Ginx snewx]

That map id dead nuts on for MBY.. 33-35 inches OTG

It real wrong for me down to Windcredible

[Damage In Tolland]

I saw that too and then saw that his measurement was at 0520....maybe he squeezed out more after that? I have to do an "official" measurement for Stafford Springs so we can have every village in town represented but I'm closer to 16" I think.

He magically got 3 more inches from 5-6:00 even though it was just flurries

[Damage In Tolland]

Nice signal on most of the 12z models of 1-3 or maybe 2-4 on Saturday.

[Clinch Leatherwood]

In the end, the Euro verifies pretty well in the days leading up to the event. Too bad it abandoned ship in the last 24 hrs. It does much better in the medium range than in the short range (strange). One run of the GFS had it pretty well, while all the other runs failed. The NAM was an epic FAIL. Say what you want about the 2 separate areas of moisture, fact is, it still tracked the storm OTS (convective feedback). To me, Euro is still king (especially 3 days out).

And the Euro had no idea there'd be meso lows. Fail. That's why it had a regionwide huge storm and was terrible. A lot of you look at your snow piles, look back to your favorite model run and say it was king. There's not much basis in fact this time, as the other guys are pointing out to your W and N and it was pretty miserable down here on Cape Cod AGAIN. It not understanding there would be an extended low is no doubt why it and the GEM had lows so close/so far NW for days. And it was an epic bust on its depiction of how it would play out. Every model agreed there would be an epic CCB, just because it got that right....again snowbanks in your backyard don't tell the regionwide story.

Euro performed poorly up here. Kept giving out 0.75" QPF+ and in the end nobody around here saw that.

Even Will admitted it performed poorly. If you want to pick a winner this time, I think the GGEM/RGEM inside of 72 were by far the best.

It all depends upon your IMBY perspective vis-a-vis the Euro.

Here it started with a mixed precip. cutter event at day 7, shifted to a coast hugging track and major snowstorm by day 4, then shifted to a BM or CC track for a few days with still significant qpf depicted here. Then slowly cut the qpf from .75 to .5 to .3 to Zero over the last 48 hours.

exactly what it is, IMBY. The Euro gave 1-2" of QPF through a wrapped up major low that would have brought warm air up to 128 at one point. Instead we had a few inches yesterday, a break and then a storm. It's telling when people say the Euro was more right. The NAM had the right idea on a two parter, the Euro had the right idea on more QPF. People will say the Euro was more right even though at 2 days it's a split - because the euro was wrong in favor of more snow. The NAM busted at 500, the Euro busted on the meso lows. The end result this time was a great somewhat regionalized storm (For new england) versus the regionwide blizzard. If you sit where Logan/northerners are where they went from 1-2" to little or nothing....not so great. If you sit where the euro had 1-2" and you still got 10-20" of snow you'll think it "nailed it". In reverse the NAM probably never gave Logan much of anything....which turned out to be right even though it blew it around/west of ORH etc. People will always side with the model that gave the most snow in their yard and was right.

The new verification maps aren't out, but the stub low that the euro didn't really resolve off GA/SC led to the bad initial forecast.

RGEM/GGEM did well I think in laying down the edge of the most serious snows for days. In light of the performance of all other models, that's a win. The Euro at 48h 5h, was way better. It just had a hard time picking up on the meso lows, which is why it had the right general theme but blew up the details. Now that we saw it play out, we're aware of it going forward.

The NAM is useful in sniffing out dry slot and other meso issues off the EC with southern streamers. But it's only a signal and most of the time it'll have the details wrong.

The available 48 hour surface maps show neither model was great, neither terrible, but the details were important and in the end it was a compromise.

[Clinch Leatherwood]

And the Euro had no idea there'd be meso lows. Fail. That's why it had a regionwide huge storm and was terrible. A lot of you look at your snow piles, look back to your favorite model run and say it was king. There's not much basis in fact this time, as the other guys are pointing out to your W and N and it was pretty miserable down here on Cape Cod AGAIN. It not understanding there would be an extended low is no doubt why it and the GEM had lows so close/so far NW for days. And it was an epic bust on its depiction of how it would play out. Every model agreed there would be an epic CCB, just because it got that right....again snowbanks in your backyard don't tell the regionwide story.

Even Will admitted it performed poorly. If you want to pick a winner this time, I think the GGEM/RGEM inside of 72 were by far the best.

exactly what it is, IMBY. The Euro gave 1-2" of QPF through a wrapped up major low that would have brought warm air up to 128 at one point. Instead we had a few inches yesterday, a break and then a storm. It's telling when people say the Euro was more right. The NAM had the right idea on a two parter, the Euro had the right idea on more QPF. People will say the Euro was more right even though at 2 days it's a split - because the euro was wrong in favor of more snow. The NAM busted at 500, the Euro busted on the meso lows. The end result this time was a great somewhat regionalized storm (For new england) versus the regionwide blizzard. If you sit where Logan/northerners are where they went from 1-2" to little or nothing....not so great. If you sit where the euro had 1-2" and you still got 10-20" of snow you'll think it "nailed it". In reverse the NAM probably never gave Logan much of anything....which turned out to be right even though it blew it around/west of ORH etc. People will always side with the model that gave the most snow in their yard and was right.

The new verification maps aren't out, but the stub low that the euro didn't really resolve off GA/SC led to the bad initial forecast.

RGEM/GGEM did well I think in laying down the edge of the most serious snows for days. In light of the performance of all other models, that's a win. The Euro at 48h 5h, was way better. It just had a hard time picking up on the meso lows, which is why it had the right general theme but blew up the details. Now that we saw it play out, we're aware of it going forward.

The NAM is useful in sniffing out dry slot and other meso issues off the EC with southern streamers. But it's only a signal and most of the time it'll have the details wrong.

The available 48 hour surface maps show neither model was great, neither terrible, but the details were important and in the end it was a compromise.

Here is the UK and GFS. UK was too wrapped up/tight with the low which at this point led it to support the Euro on a big wrapped low. You can see it verified elongated. Meanwhile the GFS had it about as nailed as you can get it. I love the QPF maps as they paint an easy picture for all of us in making simple comparisons but the GFS verification goes to show what Scott/Will say is very true. You would not think the GFS did all that well at that range, but it did. No doubt if you want to pick a winner for surface track/strength at this range, it was the GFS OP.

EDIT: For future reference yet again, 42/48 hours on all models...beyond that they fall apart. GFS too. Inside of 48 we seem to get a good feel for the general track, beyond that look out. EDIT: I don't think the NAMs problems are convective...it just didn't graps the orientation of the 5h as it emerged from the coast. The features it spun up were legit...just not in the right place. I really believe we're throwing out convective feedback as an excuse/reason for what is just a bad model most of the time right now.

[Clinch Leatherwood]

He magically got 3 more inches from 5-6:00 even though it was just flurries

I think at this point we all realize non-official reports from NOAA stations, employees etc...they are what they are. As long as they are consistent one way or the other who really cares either way I guess?

2.6 miles from the Taunton office a noaa employee measured almost 3" more snow than at the office. I trust both measurements. Unless NOAA is going to drive around verifying every 2-3 miles, 20-30% differences will exist. Doesn't mean someone is not measuring correctly.

My only point on this ever is that 20-40 years ago the bulk of reports were not measured like they are today from the public. It was post storm OTG, in your cleared driveway etc. That distorts history somewhat. I put in a ton of reports in 95-96 for the epic winter, all were measured at the end of the storms. If I'd known better then, I'm sure the area north of Taunton would reflect 10-25% greater snows that year than it does now.

[weatherwiz]

What did BDL end up with today?

[weatherwiz]

BDL got 12''!!!!!! This makes this the 8th snowiest winter on record so far!!!!!

[mattb65]

Even Will admitted it performed poorly. If you want to pick a winner this time, I think the GGEM/RGEM inside of 72 were by far the best.

If the RGEM and GGEM didn't have those horribly ugly unreadable black and white images, I think people would claim they are the winners. But honestly I can hardly look at them so I just rely on all the others in the thread to report what they spit out lol.

Kinda weenie to admit that but I'm sure that I'm not alone.

[leesun]

To your point- The NAM may have had the right idea but it had the wrong answer. If you recall the Euro was the first model to depict this as an intense short duration storm. This storm was first progged to be a crawler. So, do you want to say that the Euro had the wrong idea but the right answer.

I think at this point we all realize non-official reports from NOAA stations, employees etc...they are what they are. As long as they are consistent one way or the other who really cares either way I guess?

2.6 miles from the Taunton office a noaa employee measured almost 3" more snow than at the office. I trust both measurements. Unless NOAA is going to drive around verifying every 2-3 miles, 20-30% differences will exist. Doesn't mean someone is not measuring correctly.

My only point on this ever is that 20-40 years ago the bulk of reports were not measured like they are today from the public. It was post storm OTG, in your cleared driveway etc. That distorts history somewhat. I put in a ton of reports in 95-96 for the epic winter, all were measured at the end of the storms. If I'd known better then, I'm sure the area north of Taunton would reflect 10-25% greater snows that year than it does now.

[leesun]

Paul, 14" here. My In laws in Southwick (12 miles NW) only got 6". Just like the 2006 storm that we talked about yesterday.

BDL got 12''!!!!!! This makes this the 8th snowiest winter on record so far!!!!!

[H2Otown_WX]

Wow, I am truly in awe of this winter. It turns out I got about 10.5" back here in southern Litchfield County. My depth is now an astounding 25"..I don't think I've ever seen anything like this except for may '95-'96 but I was too young to remember it

[CT Rain]

I took some measurements all around the yard and I got 32,33,35,38 and 42!! which is probably somewhat drifted..

So we'll call it a 33-35 inch snowpack in the yard. I told Will I thought it was 36 and certainly over 30. Just insanely deep..That map someone posted confirms it too of snowdepth.

I certainly wouldn't be surprised if you had 36".

Stafford and Staffordville were just getting rocked by a band just east of you and just west of union which could explain the difference.

Union came in with 18.8"for the storm which jives with Staffordville's 19.2" pretty well.

[weatherwiz]

Paul, 14" here. My In laws in Southwick (12 miles NW) only got 6". Just like the 2006 storm that we talked about yesterday.

Wow...you were certainly right about that.

[weatherwiz]

I certainly wouldn't be surprised if you had 36".

Stafford and Staffordville were just getting rocked by a band just east of you and just west of union which could explain the difference.

Union came in with 18.8"for the storm which jives with Staffordville's 19.2" pretty well.

Did you get a final for us? When I went to bed we had close to 11'' and the storm was virtually done so I just sent in 11'' for a final.

[Damage In Tolland]

I certainly wouldn't be surprised if you had 36".

Stafford and Staffordville were just getting rocked by a band just east of you and just west of union which could explain the difference.

Union came in with 18.8"for the storm which jives with Staffordville's 19.2" pretty well.

Will said his client in Union only had 13.1

[ORH_wxman]

Will said his client in Union only had 13.1

There was decent drifting so it could have been a bit low. BTW, front yard has 34 inches, but across the street has 24"

[Mr. Windcredible!]

only time I've seen piles of snow as high as they are on the side of the road is out in LES country...just insane!

[weatherwiz]

BDL has had almost as much snow this winter as the past two combined

The past two winter combined they had 76.1'' and they are at 71.1'' now.

[CT Rain]

Did you get a final for us? When I went to bed we had close to 11'' and the storm was virtually done so I just sent in 11'' for a final.

11 sounds about right. I did see 2 reports of 15 and 16 in Newington which sounds a bit high to me.

[CoastalWx]

Wow... Staffordville has a 34" depth!!!! 19.2" new

Where do you see snow depth, or are you looking at the co-op reports?

[weatherwiz]

11 sounds about right. I did see 2 reports of 15 and 16 in Newington which sounds a bit high to me.

That sounds way too high, I went across the street and measured in the parking lot the package store was in since the snow was totally untouched and then I went into the parking lot of Butterfly and took about 15-20 measurements...every single one was virtually on the 11'' line on the ruler...nothing higher and nothing much lower...the lowest I got was like 10.75'' on the ruler.

[ORH_wxman]

Where do you see snow depth, or are you looking at the co-op reports?

I think Staffordville has a slant sticker anyway. Though I dont necessarily doubt the 30" snow depths, I have over that in my front yard.

[CT Rain]

Where do you see snow depth, or are you looking at the co-op reports?

it was in this mornings coop report

[CT Rain]

I think Staffordville has a slant sticker anyway. Though I dont necessarily doubt the 30" snow depths, I have over that in my front yard.

Maybe but the CT DOT (usually on the conservative side) had 18.8" in Union and Staffordville came in with 19.2. That's not a huge difference.

[Clinch Leatherwood]

If the RGEM and GGEM didn't have those horribly ugly unreadable black and white images, I think people would claim they are the winners. But honestly I can hardly look at them so I just rely on all the others in the thread to report what they spit out lol.

Kinda weenie to admit that but I'm sure that I'm not alone.

I'd agree. It makes it almost impossible to tell exactly what it's showing...how many shades of green and yellow can they use?

To your point- The NAM may have had the right idea but it had the wrong answer. If you recall the Euro was the first model to depict this as an intense short duration storm. This storm was first progged to be a crawler. So, do you want to say that the Euro had the wrong idea but the right answer.

You are missing the point entirely. A couple of days ago it buried Logan11 and people up north where they got little or nothing depending on the area. If you were xx miles NW and got nothing, you'd not be saying it was best. It went from being an epic regionwide storm to being confined to coastal areas flipping from one wrong extreme to the other wrong extreme. It was just as overblown to the snowy/expansive side outside of 48 hours as it was underdone inside of 48. The only reason you're saying it's "better" than any other model is at one point two days ago it showed QPF representative of the types of snow you got. It didn't show that inside of 24/48 hours, and prior to that it was way overblown N and NW.

What's your point on the NAM? I could care less about the speed of the system, all I said was it had the right idea first on an elongated system with two stages. It was not great otherwise most of the time although about 1 out of 3 runs it generally did get the dynamics right. The point was never that the NAM was best, better or even all that good. The point was the acclaim for the euro - well it just doesn't gel with what went down for guys well W and NNW, and again what it did inside of 48 hours.

Arguing that a model got it right because 5 runs ago it nailed it...silly. I don't think it's really all that close, the RGEM had an outstanding idea of where the sharp cutoff would be and IMO did a great job indicating as others have said the banding would set up on the NW side of that line like always in addition to the second max down here.

Saying the Euro was right because it once painted a lot of precip - so did the JMA. It covered 5 states with death and destruction...it got it right in CT and parts of MA/RI...so it was good too?

[CoastalWx]

Probably a good 20-32" snowpack here overall.Some spots drifted over 4'.