Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,586
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    LopezElliana
    Newest Member
    LopezElliana
    Joined

Looking beyond Feb 5-6th event


Baroclinic Zone

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I'm pretty sure Will was referring to all except the CP...He's here now so maybe he can verify

You guys are drawing semantic boundaries between 1-3 and 2-4, lol.

I don't think it matters much. If we get a nice burst of precip, it will prob be snow in any elevated areas...if its too light, there could be some BL issues down by your area. We'll see what BL looks like on the runs tonight and tomorrow morning. Sometimes the BL can torch even up there at that elevation....remember the day after MLK storm last winter? It was cold enough in the MLs for snow there but you got a driving moderate rain for 3 or 4 hours while it was ripping aggregates here and you had that meltdown, lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went with a statewide 3-6", highest east slopes of the Monadnocks and the southern Whites. A little bullish, but we'll see. I like what I see with the 18z NAM. A bit of convective feedback perhaps, and when the 00z run rolls in, probably low end warning criteria for a chunk of the interior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys are drawing semantic boundaries between 1-3 and 2-4, lol.

I don't think it matters much. If we get a nice burst of precip, it will prob be snow in any elevated areas...if its too light, there could be some BL issues down by your area. We'll see what BL looks like on the runs tonight and tomorrow morning. Sometimes the BL can torch even up there at that elevation....remember the day after MLK storm last winter? It was cold enough in the MLs for snow there but you got a driving moderate rain for 3 or 4 hours while it was ripping aggregates here and you had that meltdown, lol.

You should really just start to forecast one number and not a range... most members on here only read the higher number anyway ;) The difference in those two forecasts is 3" vs. 4" to the weenie bus drivers... but in reality, its essentially the same forecast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should really just start to forecast one number and not a range... most members on here only read the higher number anyway ;) The difference in those two forecasts is 3" vs. 4" to the weenie bus drivers... but in reality, its essentially the same forecast.

Well Kevin was talking about 3-5" and I am forecasting 1-2" (though I expect his area to pick up 2"). There is a bit of a difference because Kevin always takes what is forecasted and adds an inch or two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should really just start to forecast one number and not a range... most members on here only read the higher number anyway ;) The difference in those two forecasts is 3" vs. 4" to the weenie bus drivers... but in reality, its essentially the same forecast.

Yeah most weenies will view a 5.7" snowfall on a 5-8" forecast as a bust. The problem with putting one number out though of course is that you can look a lot worse than a range at the whim of something like mesoscale banding or subsidence zone next to said banding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went with a statewide 3-6", highest east slopes of the Monadnocks and the southern Whites. A little bullish, but we'll see. I like what I see with the 18z NAM. A bit of convective feedback perhaps, and when the 00z run rolls in, probably low end warning criteria for a chunk of the interior.

GFS continues to show a maximum of over 1/2" of liquid in southern VT... with .25-.5" widespread over New England. I think you're forecast is fine for the deeper interior where temps from 900mb to the surface will be plenty cold enough for all snow and likely higher ratios than closer to the coast. It'll be tough to hit 6", but I definitely think you're good for at least 3".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys are drawing semantic boundaries between 1-3 and 2-4, lol.

I don't think it matters much. If we get a nice burst of precip, it will prob be snow in any elevated areas...if its too light, there could be some BL issues down by your area. We'll see what BL looks like on the runs tonight and tomorrow morning. Sometimes the BL can torch even up there at that elevation....remember the day after MLK storm last winter? It was cold enough in the MLs for snow there but you got a driving moderate rain for 3 or 4 hours while it was ripping aggregates here and you had that meltdown, lol.

Yeah--if 2 or 3" verifies, either forecast can claim a win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah most weenies will view a 5.7" snowfall on a 5-8" forecast as a bust. The problem with putting one number out though of course is that you can look a lot worse than a range at the whim of something like mesoscale banding or subsidence zone next to said banding.

Haha, yeah... I was completely joking, but just reading through the exchanges between Kevin, you, and Ryan, its obvious that Kevin's approval of the forecast hinges on that top number, not the low one. I definitely think ranges are the way to go and the way to look at a range, is to split the difference and assume the average number... but it is funny on here how weenie goggles cause an intense focus on the high end of the range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man.....I have never seen a snowpack this deep be so resilient....I lost 1" today. :lol:

28" depth.

It's because of the sleet on Wednesday..Feb 2007 pack was like this, but it was only like 1\3 of the depth....I have never in my life seen a snowpack contain this kind of WE.

WOW.

High hit 39 and we are now 36.2\29

The sun hurt a lot of exposed areas. Well it's all relative, but I def noticed a loss of 4" or so in the sun areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...