Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,587
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    LopezElliana
    Newest Member
    LopezElliana
    Joined

Snow event Tuesday nite/ Wed Morning Feb 5th-6th


Damage In Tolland

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 216
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I don't see how that is very relevant. Would you ever forecast a coating to an inch? I would and almost every meteorologist does. By definition an inch is infinitely more than a coating. Or if you wanted to have a precise number...is ten times more than 0.1".

 

1" and 3" are still only 2 inches apart and if you have a small event, then both numbers could be very reasonable depending on ratios and/or banding.

lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol...is there something in everyone's water today? How is 1-3" not precise enough? At 20:1 ratios that's a range of 0.05-0.15".

 

 

Ha ha, I know it!  wow...   Let's look at things this way:  The national weather service defines categorical snow falls based upon ranges, such as 1 to 3   - hello.  

 

I think ...there is an emotive coefficient that has been willfully unaccounted for by the weather gods as of late (hahaha), and until that is fulfilled, there is going to be these electron tunneling microscopic analysis of every tedious detail imaginable. for which to ....kind of assert a sort of blame thing, in a way.   Interesting.   

 

Not a sociologist by any stretch, but when the snows are flying, and the charts are alive for the next in the series, and the pattern over the extended is rife with other potentials, and it seems we can do no storm-wrong ... the gaiety and good will toward others swells over the top, and there is this utter tsunamis of agreement about every concept of reality under the sun - or should I say, snowing clouds.  

 

But this winter? ... Heh, this ain't one of those times, to put it lightly.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perfect debate for this winter - coating - 1", 1"-3", etc.  The only reason why a 1" amount stands out so much or is even so relevant in the discussion is because that seems to become the norm this season.  Trying to figure out a way where 1" of snow vs. a coating fits into a forcast is truly lol worthy right now as many of us are just hoping for that - a 1" snow event.

...pathetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well like will said he sees the counter argument.  But feels it is weak.  I agree , there is a counter argument and it does have some points , but they dont get close to  outdoing the "points for". I think in eduggs head the only just points for are so mets can sit back and say on a recliner drinkin beers and say "meh 1-3" let's drink some beers"  but there are times when 1-2 would be forecast and like will said when uncertainty wrt to banding and ratio's warrants a wider range it's 1-3. Now eduggs may DEF have a point debating kevin who is a good poster but is more apt to give a wide range just so he can move from a point Of upgrading slightly or downgrading slightly smoothly and have the luxury of somehow saying a dusting (which may not have fallen for more than 30% is a "AWT" or on other hand a 4.5 storm is an "AWT"  based on an itial 1-3 or 1-4 forecast. but even kevin has his points when doing this i would say. lol  i'm done with this sorry .

 

hopefully euro shows some nice 1-5 snowfall wed and fri

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I obviously disagree.  Like you say, it's imprecise.  And most in the public consciously or unconsciously remember the higher number of a range.  That's why the relative magnitude of the numbers is important.  3" is - as most anyone can calculate - three times larger than 1".  If the uncertainty dictates, should 2-6 be used, or 3-9?

 

I think the 1-3 thing is a very old fashioned tradition, a hold-over from the model guessing era when nobody really knew exactly what was coming.  Yes it is common, but I think it has a very low public utility.  Even if we don't know what's coming (often the case), if we want to try to forecast snowfall accumulations, I think we should avoid ranges that are statistically, practically, and perceptively imprecise.

 

As to the uncertainty issue, I agree with you here.  I'm all for meteorologists openly expressing uncertainty about storms, snowfall, and impacts.  But I still don't think the way to express that is with a really wide magnitude range (especially on the low end of the scale).  Busting by one inch with a 1-3 forecast could mean nothing or 4", which is borderline nonsensical.  I would recommend picking a tight range (2-3, 8-14, heck even 10-20 is more acceptable than 1-3) , a single number with an error bar (like scientists do), or descriptive terms like dusting, coasting, nuissance, light, couple inches, moderate, significant, heavy etc... or even more creative terms.

Huh? Really? So there's a chance that we could get .05" to .15" of precip, and it's rather unclear at this point. What should be forecasted, and why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ski :weenie:

No, trying to be optimistic and make the best out of the bad situation that has been this winter. An inch is a realistic goal for SW CT for these two systems, and, since an inch is all i'm going to get, why not make the most of it instead of complaining because it's not more. And don't tell me an inch is unrealistic for Stamford between these two clippers, all models have me close to .1 QPF, and 10/15-1 ratios are not unrealistic.

 

-skisheep

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...