Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

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

Tulip Trouncer 5........The Comeback


Mr Torchey

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Yeah it started trending a little worse after Tuesday, but it did come in pretty nice looking the other night, especially the euro. However by yesterday morning, we knew some areas in CT might be in trouble. BOS area as well. I still thought Will and Ray (esp Will) could do a little better, but that's why we have ranges..lol. Definitely not a high confidence forecast but I think the ranges from most worked out.

It was mainly a few that were way over zealous. NOAA and the pro forecasts I saw were fine.

This s/w interference stuff is getting old fast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was mainly a few that were way over zealous. NOAA and the pro forecasts I saw were fine.

This s/w interference stuff is getting old fast.

Well it's a tough situation because if we had a bowling ball coming across the deep south, it may have really caused it to be amped up and plow right into BDR. So we give and take here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah it started trending a little worse after Tuesday, but it did come in pretty nice looking the other night, especially the euro. However by yesterday morning, we knew some areas in CT might be in trouble. BOS area as well. I still thought Will and Ray (esp Will) could do a little better, but that's why we have ranges..lol. Definitely not a high confidence forecast but I think the ranges from most worked out.

Yeah and as it turned out the area around and north of ORH did ok. I think the models did a good job showing that potential.

I think one thing that bothered me that I should have reacted better too was the dramatic cut back in omega and qpf over many areas west of Boston. This time of year meager omega and 1/3 or 1/2" of QPF probably isn't enough this time of year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it's a tough situation because if we had a bowling ball coming across the deep south, it may have really caused it to be amped up and plow right into BDR. So we give and take here.

Yeah so that's why the odds of a big hit were relatively low. Way too much could go wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was mainly a few that were way over zealous. NOAA and the pro forecasts I saw were fine.

This s/w interference stuff is getting old fast.

The thing is in general the models do a darn good job with most things. I think a lot of people (including many pro mets and myself sometimes) forget the meteorology and get too focused on the QPF or soundings or where the models are pegging the best omega. Going back to basics and looking at the track of the mid level lows and the intensity or them can really go a long way.

15 years ago when you and me and jerry were doing all this relying on relatively crude graphics and FOUS data you were forced back to basics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah and as it turned out the area around and north of ORH did ok. I think the models did a good job showing that potential.

I think one thing that bothered me that I should have reacted better too was the dramatic cut back in omega and qpf over many areas west of Boston. This time of year meager omega and 1/3 or 1/2" of QPF probably isn't enough this time of year.

Wachusett reporting 8-12".

Did you see Pete Carroll's map? Unique, but maybe he nailed it?

Did I really say Pete Carroll?!!??!

Oops, Pete Bouchard!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is in general the models do a darn good job with most things. I think a lot of people (including many pro mets and myself sometimes) forget the meteorology and get too focused on the QPF or soundings or where the models are pegging the best omega. Going back to basics and looking at the track of the mid level lows and the intensity or them can really go a long way.

15 years ago when you and me and jerry were doing all this relying on relatively crude graphics and FOUS data you were forced back to basics.

15 years ago weren't you like 12 years old?:guitar:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had to close up shop at work, We lost power around 11:00 am, Home now and we look like we are going to finnish up with 10.3" of snow here as we are on the backside of the low moving NE

Bummer about the power, seems to be a bit of that going around. But at least you hit your range. It'll be close for me - Matt had 11" and I've seen reports in Hollis and Cornish of around 9" in late morning so if I'm lucky I'll record 10" as well, though probably fall just shy. Trying to hit 90 for the year but may not quite hit that mark (needed 11.1").

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is in general the models do a darn good job with most things. I think a lot of people (including many pro mets and myself sometimes) forget the meteorology and get too focused on the QPF or soundings or where the models are pegging the best omega. Going back to basics and looking at the track of the mid level lows and the intensity or them can really go a long way.

15 years ago when you and me and jerry were doing all this relying on relatively crude graphics and FOUS data you were forced back to basics.

I still think we got the mid level low problem mentioned. We all mentioned it would probably not be closed off an SNE which means we get a WCB arc coming in, but axis of this tightened up and moved east. Remember that's how we all were calling out those insane calls of 20-24" over nrn mass and srn NH on the Feb 2 event. That event screamed dryslot and changeover. Obviously the time of year reduces ratios as well, so that needs to be considered. But good call for the Rev, he got the taint pretty hard there.

The QPF for ORH was 0.64". Logan was 0.75, but much more to the east and se.

BTW I still think FOUS data ios a great way to get a quick and dirty view of stuff. I wish NCEP would do it for the GFS. I have no clue why they never did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you're like the SNE Ji. if i still lived there i'd probably defend you. we should be buds again for the sake of the game tomorrow.

I'm the leader of SNE weenie nation. The Rev..With that comes alot of responsibility....Trolls try to attack.....but instead I've got the power ..I will attack and they don't want that

But for the sake of Uconn we can slap high five

I'm the lyrical CT Blizz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think we got the mid level low problem mentioned, We all mentioned it would probably not be closed off an SNE which means we get a WCB arc coming in, but axis of this tightened up and moved east. Remember that's how we all were calling out those insane calls of 20-24" over nrn mass and srn NH on the Feb 2 event. That event screamed dryslot and changeover. Obviously the time of year reduces ratios as well, so that needs to be considered. But good call for the Rev, he got the taint pretty hard there.

The QPF for ORH was 0.64". Logan was 0.75, but much more to the east and se.

BTW I still think FOUS data ios a great way to get a quick and dirty view of stuff. I wish NCEP would do it for the GFS. I have no clue why they never did.

Yeah the models really did a good job showing where the taint line would get (Kevin's backyard)... in general I've noticed 9 times out of 10 when the models show a very borderline (near 0c) setup the flip to sleet or rain tends to occur a bit earlier than forecast. This was a pseudo SWFE without the really wild front end thump... less omega.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm the leader of SNE weenie nation. The Rev..With that comes alot of responsibility....Trolls try to attack.....but instead I've got the power ..I will attack and they don't want that

But for the sake of Uconn we can slap high five

I'm the lyrical CT Blizz

lol...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is in general the models do a darn good job with most things. I think a lot of people (including many pro mets and myself sometimes) forget the meteorology and get too focused on the QPF or soundings or where the models are pegging the best omega. Going back to basics and looking at the track of the mid level lows and the intensity or them can really go a long way.

15 years ago when you and me and jerry were doing all this relying on relatively crude graphics and FOUS data you were forced back to basics.

Don't they still bring students back to the basics ? Dr.Koermer and his staff always had us do everything possible by hand, even though the basic models and data ( of the time) were around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...