Lessons learned from this storm

[WintersGrasp]

Maybe we can all chime in and tell of any lessons we've learned from this long week of following this storm day after day right into the moments leading up to it and during the storm itself.

Me...though I have been very doubtful of following a model that is consistent in regards to a single storm JUST BECAUSE it was consistent....I have to say I'm a believer. The Euro here showed the storm for the longest time and though it went back and forth just a bit north, south, slower with the phasing, faster, etc etc...for the most part, it did have the idea nailed down. The other models had an idea, lost it, brought it back, shifted it way south, then way north, lost it, etc. So the lesson learned, though it will not always work out, I think the averages support it....GO WITH THE MODEL THAT HAS FOUND THE STORM AND HELD IT FOR SEVERAL RUNS/DAYS in regards to the basic ideas of the System's location and development...

Which leads me to the next lesson I've learned...

Extreme, crazy solutions may not be completely accurate always, or really ever, BUT....DO NOT DISCOUNT THE IDEA !! In the winter of 2010-2011, the GFS model run had the classic "initialization errors" when coming up seemingly out of nowhere with a "ridiculously insane, extreme solution"....so it was discounted immediately. It came true.....in this storm the NAM several times spit out obscene QPF totals and on the hi-res model....it actually SHOWED CRAZY banding of the likes of which I've never seen modeled. Yes, it showed it over NYC, then LI, then Boston, etc....but point is that it SHOWED IT. So therefore, in a case such as yesterday when we have such a powerhouse of a storm, so incredibly dynamic of a system....when a model shows an idea....be it insane due to crazy banding developing, or just the opposite with a dry slot developing and pushing into an area....especially if it shows this for a few or more of it's runs....This cannot be ignored ! And while the exact placement of the banding on the model, for example, cannot be used to forecast where the banding really will set up, it CAN and SHOULD be used to forecast over a larger area and mention that some areas have the chance of seeing something the likes of it. Another note....the band's appearance on the hi-res NAM before the storm and the band's appearance in reality on radar was nearly identical...looking like a huge boomerang stretching from Long Island to Maine, with the focus of the heaviest, reddest echoes over Long Island.

Additional lesson learned....

If you're not feeling very positive about model developments, etc....keep in mind that the final outcome will not be based on the model runs, but will be based on the factors that MAKE the model runs, which have the deciding factor in what a system will do, where it will go and how it will develop. I've needed to apply this lesson to myself because I was very negative and made some pretty cra**y posts as I got worked up over these model runs ! And I will keep something like this in mind....parts of Long Island that were modeled and forecasted to get a ton of rain that would hold down snow totals to half of what Boston would get....got significantly MORE than Boston got....even AFTER some rain ! Meaning...that many times the best dynamics and most exciting parts of a storm occur on the border of disappointment and jackpot. Being in the "safe zone" doesn't always yield the craziest, most impressive results

Everyone please feel free to comment and tell me what you've learned from this as well! It was such a fascinating storm and although I received only 12" from it while many others got triple that, really made me look at many things pertaining to weather and forecasting differently. I'm sure it has for many others as well

[codfishsnowman]

Maybe we can all chime in and tell of any lessons we've learned from this long week of following this storm day after day right into the moments leading up to it and during the storm itself. Me...though I have been very doubtful of following a model that is consistent in regards to a single storm JUST BECAUSE it was consistent....I have to say I'm a believer. The Euro here showed the storm for the longest time and though it went back and forth just a bit north, south, slower with the phasing, faster, etc etc...for the most part, it did have the idea nailed down. The other models had an idea, lost it, brought it back, shifted it way south, then way north, lost it, etc. So the lesson learned, though it will not always work out, I think the averages support it....GO WITH THE MODEL THAT HAS FOUND THE STORM AND HELD IT FOR SEVERAL RUNS/DAYS in regards to the basic ideas of the System's location and development... Which leads me to the next lesson I've learned... Extreme, crazy solutions may not be completely accurate always, or really ever, BUT....DO NOT DISCOUNT THE IDEA !! In the winter of 2010-2011, the GFS model run had the classic "initialization errors" when coming up seemingly out of nowhere with a "ridiculously insane, extreme solution"....so it was discounted immediately. It came true.....in this storm the NAM several times spit out obscene QPF totals and on the hi-res model....it actually SHOWED CRAZY banding of the likes of which I've never seen modeled. Yes, it showed it over NYC, then LI, then Boston, etc....but point is that it SHOWED IT. So therefore, in a case such as yesterday when we have such a powerhouse of a storm, so incredibly dynamic of a system....when a model shows an idea....be it insane due to crazy banding developing, or just the opposite with a dry slot developing and pushing into an area....especially if it shows this for a few or more of it's runs....This cannot be ignored ! And while the exact placement of the banding on the model, for example, cannot be used to forecast where the banding really will set up, it CAN and SHOULD be used to forecast over a larger area and mention that some areas have the chance of seeing something the likes of it. Another note....the band's appearance on the hi-res NAM before the storm and the band's appearance in reality on radar was nearly identical...looking like a huge boomerang stretching from Long Island to Maine, with the focus of the heaviest, reddest echoes over Long Island. Additional lesson learned.... If you're not feeling very positive about model developments, etc....keep in mind that the final outcome will not be based on the model runs, but will be based on the factors that MAKE the model runs, which have the deciding factor in what a system will do, where it will go and how it will develop. I've needed to apply this lesson to myself because I was very negative and made some pretty cra**y posts as I got worked up over these model runs ! And I will keep something like this in mind....parts of Long Island that were modeled and forecasted to get a ton of rain that would hold down snow totals to half of what Boston would get....got significantly MORE than Boston got....even AFTER some rain ! Meaning...that many times the best dynamics and most exciting parts of a storm occur on the border of disappointment and jackpot. Being in the "safe zone" doesn't always yield the craziest, most impressive results Everyone please feel free to comment and tell me what you've learned from this as well! It was such a fascinating storm and although I received only 12" from it while many others got triple that, really made me look at many things pertaining to weather and forecasting differently. I'm sure it has for many others as well

I never doubted there was going to be a big storm along the eastern sea board (the euro never ever flinched) but for a good while Friday morning i did think that the best of the goods were going to be soley in areas that jackpotted 78 and perhaps even 05 since i have seen it so many times before when a big system like with the hp to the north pulls a last inning shift east and euro/gfs were shifting east at that point.

 

every model also showed that middle finger going up and down the ct river valley and usually we really suffer in these events while we watch other places just get destroyed but we did quite well in this one with most of the valley getting 20 to 24 inches which lined up with the qpf pretty good on the euro. Anyone who lives here knows just how epic getting 12 to 15 inches is here never mind what verified.

 

But i did say to myself many times that the nam's wild qpf output had to mean something for someone along the east coast and considering the size of the system and its power, so what if it had it just a bit too far to the south west. In the big picture the Nam's qpf depiction was a major coup for the model.

 

I am so glad you made this post as I think it is one of the best posts of the entire storm!