Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,607
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    NH8550
    Newest Member
    NH8550
    Joined

Vendor Forecast Discussion


am19psu

Recommended Posts

420pm update from JB

 

He sees the core of the heaviest snow in the I70 corridor in the mid west but the worst part of this may be over NJ because of the wind that can develop. The big cities of southern New England should end up a miss, with PHL BWI. IAD beating NYC, but he says he likes the 4 inch line right over the CPK. He will have his new numbers at around 6pm on his site - he already told his commercial clients

 

If central park get 4 inches, I would be very impressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I certainly respect your opinion. I would point out that the statement was made several hours ago with model data that was much more aggressive than what we have now.  I disagreed with the forecast and not with the ability of the forecaster. Otherwise, I would not like to turn this into the NY forum, where people spend more time criticizing each other than they do forecasting the weather. 

 

OK, I provided the rationale behind belief that DT's forecast amounts for SE PA were sound, but you gave no reason for your 4-6" and your disagreement with DT's forecast, and when you do that, you just come across as a weenie.

So what was your rationale for this statement?:

 

According to that map, DYL gets only 1"-2". I don't buy it. I'll stick to 4"-6" in that area and wouldn't be surprised to bust with even higher amounts there

 

You mentioned that you were reacting to the models at the time.  I'm sure DT saw the same models and you were commenting on DT's forecast.  If you can give a realistic reason why you think DT's forecast was unreasonable, then I could respect that opinion. Otherwise, it just comes across as a wishcast.   By the way, unacceptable rationale is 1)  "the NAM has it"  and 2)  "JB said so".

 

Improperly-conrolled weenies destroy the NYC forum.   Could the storm surprise?  Sure, just like Mar 31-Apr 1, 1997, when we picked up 8".   But the bulk of that came overnight.  I watched it snow, heavy at times, all afternoon Mar 31 with very little accumulation, even on grassy surfaces.  Toward nightfall, it started to accumulate and we were fortunate to be stuck in that narrow deformation band most of the night.   This storm's timing seems to be less "fortuitous" for SE PA with most of the precip falling through the daylight hours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those waiting with baited breath!

JB paraphrase

He sees a major late winter storm centered in the Midwest and Mid Atlantic. He says snow accumulating areas have to be thought of with a bigger range at this time of the year because of melting problems, and the fact that where ratios are still under 32 can still be high.  He  believes this is the biggest snowstorm of the year for DC to Philadelphia, but not in NYC because of the earlier snow and the core of the heaviest snow to the south. This should produce in the cities, though not as much as in the suburbs. His map looks like 4 to 8 for most of SC PA and into the Western Philly burbs . It looks like  8"+ on a line from the nearby western Philly burbs straight east to the coast say 40 miles either side of a West Chester to AC line (at least that is my read of his map...which I can't post here)

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those waiting with baited breath!

JB paraphrase

He sees a major late winter storm centered in the Midwest and Mid Atlantic. He says snow accumulating areas have to be thought of with a bigger range at this time of the year because of melting problems, and the fact that where ratios are still under 32 can still be high.  He  believes this is the biggest snowstorm of the year for DC to Philadelphia, but not in NYC because of the earlier snow and the core of the heaviest snow to the south. This should produce in the cities, though not as much as in the suburbs. His map looks like 4 to 8 for most of SC PA and into the Western Philly burbs . It looks like  8"+ on a line from the nearby western Philly burbs straight east to the coast say 40 miles either side of a West Chester to AC line (at least that is my read of his map...which I can't post here)

 

 JB is going out on a limb.8 inches for the PA TPK east is a bold call.

Hopefully he is correct. Would be nice if someone in the Mt Holly zone gets 8 +

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a tough time seeing anyone below 500ft seeing even 6" out of this....and tough to see anyone below the fall line at more than 4"....but what do I know....I leave it to the professionals

 JB is going out on a limb.8 inches for the PA TPK east is a bold call.

Hopefully he is correct. Would be nice if someone in the Mt Holly zone gets 8 +

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Latest FB post from Steve D at NJPA weather..

Based on the latest observations and model guidance, I decided to lower and adjust were the best potential for snowfall accumulation will be located.

The storm is still forming after producing a surprise snowfall over portions of northern Virginia with snowfall amounts over 3 inches. The development of this snowfall is a great example of what can happen when you have very strong dynamics at play. However, this snowfall primarily developed away from the coast, not on the Virginia or Maryland coast. As such, to assume the same for southern New Jersey is going to be a mistake because unlike northern Virginia, southern New Jersey is far more under the influence of a warm Atlantic Ocean which will have strong easterly wind in play.

As such, the forecast along the coast (yes even with the NWS Winter Storm Warning) is still a trace to 3″ of snow with most accumulation on grassy and cold surfaces. The latest 00Z NAM and several runs of the RAP guidance project temperatures in the mid to upper 30′s throughout the Philadelphia and New York City metropolitan areas and that is with strong lifting involved. Say hello to that strong March sun! As such, plenty of snow in the air but not much actually accumulating, especially on the pavement.

I dropped snowfall totals in the Hudson Valley, northwestern New Jersey, and much over northeastern Pennsylvania to 2 to 4 inches from the original 3-6″ or 4-8″ due to moisture transport thus far being suppressed and a very dry air mass in place so far. I have no doubt snow will fall and will accumulate, especially for elevations above 700 feet. However the problem is a lack of moisture, thus lowering snowfall totals here.

For locations like Lancaster and Reading, Pennsylvania (basically west of Philadelphia); I still like my 3″ to 6″ snowfall forecast but most locations near the 3″ mark.

I will continue to keep an eye on this storm and update through tomorrow!

Post to Facebook

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

Add to Tumblr

Send via Gmail

Post to Google+

Add to LinkedIn

Send via E-mail program

Post to Twitter

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

Comments

Share Article Save to Instapaper

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Latest FB post from Steve D at NJPA weather.. Based on the latest observations and model guidance, I decided to lower and adjust were the best potential for snowfall accumulation will be located. The storm is still forming after producing a surprise snowfall over portions of northern Virginia with snowfall amounts over 3 inches. The development of this snowfall is a great example of what can happen when you have very strong dynamics at play. However, this snowfall primarily developed away from the coast, not on the Virginia or Maryland coast. As such, to assume the same for southern New Jersey is going to be a mistake because unlike northern Virginia, southern New Jersey is far more under the influence of a warm Atlantic Ocean which will have strong easterly wind in play. As such, the forecast along the coast (yes even with the NWS Winter Storm Warning) is still a trace to 3″ of snow with most accumulation on grassy and cold surfaces. The latest 00Z NAM and several runs of the RAP guidance project temperatures in the mid to upper 30′s throughout the Philadelphia and New York City metropolitan areas and that is with strong lifting involved. Say hello to that strong March sun! As such, plenty of snow in the air but not much actually accumulating, especially on the pavement. I dropped snowfall totals in the Hudson Valley, northwestern New Jersey, and much over northeastern Pennsylvania to 2 to 4 inches from the original 3-6″ or 4-8″ due to moisture transport thus far being suppressed and a very dry air mass in place so far. I have no doubt snow will fall and will accumulate, especially for elevations above 700 feet. However the problem is a lack of moisture, thus lowering snowfall totals here. For locations like Lancaster and Reading, Pennsylvania (basically west of Philadelphia); I still like my 3″ to 6″ snowfall forecast but most locations near the 3″ mark. I will continue to keep an eye on this storm and update through tomorrow! Post to Facebook 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Add to Tumblr Send via Gmail Post to Google+ Add to LinkedIn Send via E-mail program Post to Twitter 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Comments Share Article Save to Instapaper

 

Latest tweet from Steve D.....@nynjpaweather: New forecast looks very good. NWS, your move!....he was not a fan of warning snows for South Jersey

 

He can say all he wants, but I do not get why he tends to forecast snow amounts such as "trace to 3 inches". Does he not realize a trace of snow is simply, for example, flurries? A trace is non-measurable snow, therefore he would verify with flurries all the way up to 3 inches. I suspect his trace is probably a coating, but if that is the case then state that and do not use "trace".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He can say all he wants, but I do not get why he tends to forecast snow amounts such as "trace to 3 inches". Does he not realize a trace of snow is simply, for example, flurries? A trace is non-measurable snow, therefore he would verify with flurries all the way up to 3 inches. I suspect his trace is probably a coating, but if that is the case then state that and do not use "trace".

Mike, just think about how we get to laugh at JB one more time, and it'll make you feel better :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike, just think about how we get to laugh at JB one more time, and it'll make you feel better :lol:

 

It just gets frustrating when you see some people, especially professional's, basically calling out the NWS but then look at the forecast they themselves have going. Trace to 3 inches of snow? Come on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just gets frustrating when you see some people, especially professional's, basically calling out the NWS but then look at the forecast they themselves have going. Trace to 3 inches of snow? Come on!

 

They'd be better to just put that 0-16 map that was used for Snowquester. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just gets frustrating when you see some people, especially professional's, basically calling out the NWS but then look at the forecast they themselves have going. Trace to 3 inches of snow? Come on!

 

Obviously I am not unbiased with this event; nevertheless I thought that was an unprofessional and cheap shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JB's subscriber base that continue to pay for his content (Paul excluded, I understand the approach/desire to consume as many wx inputs as possible) must be something like the folks that used to call the pshyic hotlines that were always advertised in the 90s. Or like the people that go to a John Edwards show expecting legit comms with the deceased. He's seem to get even more spectacularly worse as the years go on, but stills manages to ride whatever may be left of his rep...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was not sure where to post this, but figured I would place it here for now. This is from Mike Smith's blog. Those of you who do not know Mike Smith, he works for AccuWeather. The blog linked below is him pretty much slamming the NWS Impact Based Warnings. These are being tested in the NWS Central Region (started last year at some offices, but now is being expanded to all Central Region NWS offices this season). Granted there are some issues with it, but it is an experiment. Anyhow, I thought some may be interested in what he had to say.

 

http://meteorologicalmusings.blogspot.com/2013/03/ill-conceived-storm-warning-experiment.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For 3/1-3/27, since 1963:

 

Rank  Value   Year
  1    35.0   1984
  2    37.3   1967
  3    37.6   1965, 1978, 1993, 1981
  7    38.2   2005
  8    38.3   1996, 1970
 10    39.2   1980
 11    39.4   1969
 12    40.1   1989
 13    40.4   1972, 1971
 15    40.5   2013
 16    40.7   1992
 17    40.9   1999, 1963
 19    41.1   2001, 1975
 21    41.3   1982
 22    41.9   1998
 23    42.2   1968
 24    42.3   1994, 1997
 26    42.4   1986, 2007
 28    42.5   2009
 29    42.8   1985
 30    43.1   1966
 31    43.2   1988
 32    43.3   2006, 1964
 34    43.6   1974
 35    44.0   1983
 36    44.1   2003, 1987
 38    44.4   2002
 39    44.7   2011, 2008
 41    44.9   2004
 42    45.4   1979
 43    45.5   1991, 1976
 45    46.7   1990, 1977
 47    47.0   1995
 48    47.1   1973
 49    47.7   2000
 50    48.1   2010
 51    52.5   2012

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was not sure where to post this, but figured I would place it here for now. This is from Mike Smith's blog. Those of you who do not know Mike Smith, he works for AccuWeather. The blog linked below is him pretty much slamming the NWS Impact Based Warnings. These are being tested in the NWS Central Region (started last year at some offices, but now is being expanded to all Central Region NWS offices this season). Granted there are some issues with it, but it is an experiment. Anyhow, I thought some may be interested in what he had to say.

 

http://meteorologicalmusings.blogspot.com/2013/03/ill-conceived-storm-warning-experiment.html

It's pretty sad to see such attacks, especially as the product is experimental. NWS deserves credit for piloting new forecasting products.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love the experiment.  Kudos for trying new things.  I guess we do have to worry about "crying wolf syndrome" when the tornado misses areas mentioned in the forecast.  The wording does come across as way over the top when it says "mass Devastation is highly likely, making the area unrecognizable to survivors." and then a tornado doesn't hit the area at all.  Could actually end up increasing warning fatigue.

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...