CoastalWx Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Will i am trying to Learn what happend that is all. Box discos from 445 and 645 both busted ...mets were fooled to a degree ...good ones...yes the gradient was right but as messenger said the models were TOO juiced...all of them. I pointed out what Barcolonic instability referenced "the eviscarated pwats over the Gulf Stream " in the wake of the HUGE size storm 36 hours prior doesnt this play a apart wether regarding less deepening or weaker atlantic inflow? I think we pointed this out between this thread and the other one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40/70 Benchmark Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Not a whiff, but I think its safe to say that it was a bust to some degree. Like Scott said, a run-of-the-mill moderate winter storm, that was advertised as a blizzard. My locale was a bust inside of a bust because I have continued my trend of doing poorer than those around me, who also underachieved. I just limped into the bottom of my 4-8" call that I know 80% of folks would have dubbed as "conservative" prior to the event. Did Boston sneak into my 6-10" range? I know that my 8-12" over se MA did well. Actually, I went 10-15" over se MA.....bit too heavy. 8-12" would have been better....although there was a rouge 15" report from Sandwich on the cape. Boston had 4"?! Wow...guess I was too heavy there, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N. OF PIKE Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Coastal you disagreed and nobody else gave feedback so im not satisfied with one reply , you are on record saying the huge storm 36 hrs and the post BI made that i linked showing very depressed pwats over the Gulf Stream didnt play a part in models being over ambitious with lift and not sniffing out a more ragged system, no It seems like your over defensive like someone is calling you out on a forecast (which i dont even think u made). Im trying to learn and i want more feedback , its like pulling teeth to learn sometimes on here when your so defensive or impatient. Im not trying to be some jerk , i have a passion for wx and ive tried to learn more lately and you seem to have zero patience more and more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Coastal you disagreed and nobody else gave feedback so im not satisfied with one reply , you are on record saying the huge storm 36 hrs and the post BI made that i linked showing very depressed pwats over the Gulf Stream didnt play a part in models being over ambitious with lift and not sniffing out a more ragged system, no What are you trying to argue? That models completely missed some moisture and made up a phantom storm? Dewpoints were plenty high from what I saw in bouys off of NC and south of Long island. My point is models just aren't going to completely miss this. I think the nature f the pattern being progressive plays a role. This in turn EFFECTS MOISTURE TRANSPORT INTO THE LOW along with the progressive nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N. OF PIKE Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Honestly scott i see you as the one more emotionally enthused i am just trying to get MORE in depth reasoning , not trying to argue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Honestly scott i see you as the one more emotionally enthused i am just trying to get MORE in depth reasoning , not trying to argue. I mean perhaps PWATS were slightly underdone? Perhaps? But IMHO I really feel that has little to do with slight shifts east. If you want to look deeper, I think a faster moving s/w off of NC with a lack of phasing from the NY state s/w had a little more to do with it as Will alluded to. When lows don't slow down and stall....the "relative" inflow into things like 700mb cannot get estabished well enough to generate heavy consistent bands of snow. But, that is just me. Even if this was a 950 low..the pattern aloft would overwhelm it to a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40/70 Benchmark Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Pickles, what he's saying is pretty clear to me....the moisture was there, and if it weren't, models would have that data ingested. The storm sucked because it was so progressive, that it could not avail of the moisture by wrapping it back...nor curling closer to the coast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40/70 Benchmark Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Man, what a beast that would have been with a hint of blocking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damage In Tolland Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Hopefully we can stop talking about this soon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 And yes the RGEM worried me, but I treated it as an outlier with other models seemingly more robust including mesos. I was wrong with that. I didn't completely dismiss it..but I didn't use it 100% obviously. But, the ARW I think on 12z or 00z Saturday was rather dry and I remember thinking that was weird. Well..not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 I agree with Scott more or less...the models aren't from 1982 anymore where they can't determine if there is a band of of higher or lower PWATS...they can see this in 2014. The storm simply didn't wrap up well enough to thrust what available moisture there was back into the west side of the storm. That shortwave in NY State helped kick this a bit east and keep the main shortwave from reaching its top potential. Progressive patterns can do that. If you want to argue that the storm would not have produced 2.5" of qpf if it did wrap up tightly due to lower PWATS in the wetsern Atlantic, that is a bit of a seperate argument. I would probably agree with that. But that is not the primary factor in the difference between BOS getting 4-5" and 10"...the storm had plenty of moisture to produce 10" of snow...even in a ragged state as we saw down on the cape. A more wrapped up storm would have probably produced 12"+ in Boston. 18-24"? No probably not, but we aren't talking about missing out on a 20" snowstorm. (well at least not for most of us) Hell, SE CT nearly got 10" of snow from this ragged system...there was enough moisture to get pretty high warning criteria. It was a structural issue with this storm and not a lack of moisture which cause lesser amounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 I agree with Scott more or less...the models aren't from 1982 anymore where they can't determine if there is a band of of higher or lower PWATS...they can see this in 2014. The storm simply didn't wrap up well enough to thrust what available moisture there was back into the west side of the storm. That shortwave in NY State helped kick this a bit east and keep the main shortwave from reaching its top potential. Progressive patterns can do that. If you want to argue that the storm would not have produced 2.5" of qpf if it did wrap up tightly due to lower PWATS in the wetsern Atlantic, that is a bit of a seperate argument. I would probably agree with that. But that is not the primary factor in the difference between BOS getting 4-5" and 10"...the storm had plenty of moisture to produce 10" of snow...even in a ragged state as we saw down on the cape. A more wrapped up storm would have probably produced 12"+ in Boston. 18-24"? No probably not, but we aren't talking about missing out on a 20" snowstorm. (well at least not for most of us) Hell, SE CT nearly got 10" of snow from this ragged system...there was enough moisture to get pretty high warning criteria. It was a structural issue with this storm and not a lack of moisture which cause lesser amounts. Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 It's almost like the MJO. I see some people totally dismiss one pattern shown on a model because the MJO tells me it should be this pattern. Well, perhaps sometimes this is true...but guess what...maybe models are good enough to resolve this and actually spit out the correct pattern? We all joke around and say this models sucks or that model sucks...but truth be told...weather prediction is one of the greatest scientific achievements ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apm Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 It's almost like the MJO. I see some people totally dismiss one pattern shown on a model because the MJO tells me it should be this pattern. Well, perhaps sometimes this is true...but guess what...maybe models are good enough to resolve this and actually spit out the correct pattern? We all joke around and say this models sucks or that model sucks...but truth be told...weather prediction is one of the greatest scientific achievements ever. I agree, this is so under appreciated, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Man, what a beast that would have been with a hint of blocking. winner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N. OF PIKE Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 I appreciate the post analysis it is appreciated scott,will, ocean st wx And Scott i think your last reply was helpful bc what i was trying to get at was what were reasons this thing was ragged and why the mid level low wasn't compact. I was simply trying to figure out if the last storm had ANY influence wrt mid level low elongation of this storm (direct or indirect) and my primary questioning was wether it left behind a atmosphere less condusive to developing a compact mid level low (again directly or not) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 I appreciate the post analysis it is appreciated scott,will, ocean st wx And Scott i think your last reply was helpful bc what i was trying to get at was what were reasons this thing was ragged and why the mid level low wasn't compact. I was simply trying to figure out if the last storm had ANY influence wrt mid level low elongation of this storm (direct or indirect) and my primary questioning was wether it left behind a atmosphere less condusive to developing a compact mid level low (again directly or not) It's all good...and I like how you are curious to find out. Hell me too...lol. I have no problem answering questions. So basically, IMHO it's more of a progressive nature and less of models underestimating moisture. I think Will, Ryan, and Chris (oceanst) would agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanStWx Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 It's all good...and I like how you are curious to find out. Hell me too...lol. I have no problem answering questions. So basically, IMHO it's more of a progressive nature and less of models underestimating moisture. I think Will, Ryan, and Chris (oceanst) would agree. I do agree. I think most East Coast system if they are dynamic enough will produce the QPF, given the moisture source of the Atlantic is readily available to draw from. It's the ones that tap the deep Gulf Stream moisture that Jason referenced that have the potential to be monsters in regards to precip distribution. I do think that the scour shifted our baroclinic zone east, coupled with progressive flow this meant our low took wobbles east rather than tucking north. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JC-CT Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 I am posting my reply to a post made in the obs thread, because it is really banter: Gotcha. The game of who was right and who was wrong is mainly for weenies and you see that today in some of the posts in bringing up storms far removed from today. I've always said I have no problems admitting I was wrong, and I was partially wrong yesterday in failing to see what I believed were very clear ticks would actually become so significant it'd impact totals even under and to the east of the band. I always thought the point of "forecast discussions" was to try and determine what was going to happen before it actually happened and to support that with some actual analysis. As the mood and purpose of these boards evolves so has the posting. At one time these things were small and it was a core group of die hards, many of you went on to become pros in the business that were once just hobbyists and many of you were kids. To me those were the fun days when guys like rconsor would rip apart every system, Brian from PHL, Will, Ryan, and probably many others I'm forgetting as usual. There were some real knock down drag outs...but overall it was about the weather. The board is snow centric, extreme event oriented and I doubt many pros would disagree with that. Lost in the barrage of posts are comments from Ryan about this zooming east yesterday, or OceanStWx's great link to a very important chat about PWATs etc. I always enjoyed posting vapor loops, RAP 0h analysis vs models, 500mb animations of comparisons between runs...I don't do it any longer because all it does is bring grief if someone interprets what I saw as taking away 7 flakes from their total. What people forget is all the times I'm starkly on one side of a snowier solution and get the inverse grief. I no longer post RAP images, I no longer post radar images and do a lot of the things I really enjoyed, trend analysis etc aside of select events and when I do...or when I point out it raining before 5 flakes fell the other day would not usually be a good thing up the coast I get labeled. I think about half the posters here would prefer going to bed thinking a blizzard is coming and waking up to less than what they expected than be told before they went to bed it was unlikely to happen. That's the gradual shift IMO that's gone on here and that's fine. Perhaps Leon's greatest hit this winter will be in the realization that for me the fun has gone out of this and it's time. I get the sense you would rather have this board closed to new membership. The "good ol' boys club" and no one else allowed. Like your comment in the banter thread last night that I shouldn't have quoted a post you made in response to someone else because you were "having a conversation." It's a FORUM.And there were lots and lots of posters and posts yesterday and Friday discussing an E trend and the possibility of this being mundane outside of SE Mass, like you said above (and also from non mets too, including myself several times - I'll pull those posts for you if you want, since you blatently accused me last night of holding my opinion solely due to disappointment in my own backyard snow). But only one person managed to piss off multiple people participating and reading the thread - you. It's because of posts like this: Rgem is ugly. Under 5mm for most of ct and western ma. Maybe a little wetter in extreme eastern areas.And this: Looking at it rgem is a toaster bath for many. It's an epic gradient. Don't hold me to these numbers as I'm guesstimating off crude maps but looks like it dropped all of ct to under 5mm, all of ma west or Worcester under 5. Ri would be in the 7-8mm range. Se ma 12-15mm. Cape cod more. Taunton maybe 6mm? It looks like it backed off but now has the nam epic totals near ack And this: Rgem track was dead on from last run. Looks kind or what the chat from ostatewx posted. West of the main event rgem struggles to develop moisture. When the cumulative map is in my guess is it has more over the cape than last run, less well west about the same around Taunton etc. it's still not buying a significant hit very far west and is definitively dryer the first 12 hours west of main. So for some reason, the first thing you post about a new model run that in your words is excellent for snow on your own backyard is how "ugly" it is.But that's because you are 100% analysis, no emotions just facts. The "pure" weather enthusiast. No IMBY posts from you, no "weenie" snow-loving posts. You are above all that... Yeah...and who's to say this one doesn't continue to pedal west? I'm now more nervous about taint than I am whiff. That's a huge set of solutions so far tonight. Nice was hoping you were still up, I guess this is so short lead there isn't much waiting! How big down heree? USA vs ussr and a snowstorm. That's a great SaturdayIMHO, there was nothing wrong with the expectation that this would trend east. Obviously, in hindsight it worked out. To that same token, there was nothing wrong in thinking a west trend would continue, from a discussion standpoint. It happened to be incorrect in hindsight.There's also nothing wrong with enjoying a snowstorm, having a "jackpot fetish" or anything of the like. Most if not all on this board are here because they get a thrill from the extreme events. Most if not all mets became mets for that very reason, it's what drives the excitement and the passion behind weather. I went back and reread a lot of the model thread. The only real difference between the other posters calling for the E trend and you, is that you lack the social skills to post as much as you do without getting under people's skin. But hey, I'm just some poster who you don't know the location of, wasn't part of the predecessor board in 1995, and certainly am not a member of the "core" group here. My opinion is worth far less than yours, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbutts Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 It's the internet, there's almost always negative feedback for everything anyone posts. It's not worth getting too caught up in it. Would be much easier if we all lived in the same spot and there weren't spiking footballs in the face of cirrus smokeouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 JC, it's cool man, many opinions here with different perspectives. Keep posting. Scotts a good guy just gets wound up, soon you will be reading about how crappy the skiing is at SR, lol jk, he is up there for this week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoarfrostHubb Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 So much drama Oh noes, the models blew. We is gonna die. He said she said they said we said Go outside and play in the snow. Or whatever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JC-CT Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 JC, it's cool man, many opinions here with different perspectives. Keep posting. Scotts a good guy just gets wound up, soon you will be reading about how crappy the skiing is at SR, lol jk, he is up there for this week. Yeah, it will be old news tomorrow. I just really don't agree with his perspective about how long he's been on the board and how there were the good old days, and clearly implying that this board is being ruined by people like me. I take serious offense to that on a deeper level. I was a read-only member for a while before I started to post, because quite frankly the board didn't need any more ski-sheeps. Now that I am more familiar with the models and actually look at them and have a basic understanding of what they are saying, I am trying to be more active in the discussion when and where I can contribute. I don't think it's fair to label me or anyone else a "weenie," at least not with the negative connotation he gives it, only because they would rather be closer to an event than looking in from the outside - that label would apply to every member here, including him. The board is a great place for people who enjoy weather to come and learn and meet like-minded people. It's simply not the disaster of "weenieism" that some make it out to be. If he did still post radar images, wv loops, model image comparisons, etc., the forum would be even better. It's a bunch of baloney that posting these things would "only bring grief if someone interprets what I saw as taking away 7 flakes from their total." It's making comments like "the rgem is a toaster bath for many," without providing any of that extra analysis beyond the verbatim model run, that does people in. So who is to blame for that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice1972 Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 A nice deep winter scene.....icicles with sweet sun ring behind it..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TalcottWx Posted February 16, 2014 Author Share Posted February 16, 2014 All in all in retrospect this event kinda sucked but it is what it is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 So much drama Oh noes, the models blew. We is gonna die. He said she said they said we said Go outside and play in the snow. Or whatever Snow shoing was quite good yesterday up in Princeton. I suspect it will be even better today and then even better on Wednesday after the snow we get Tuesday. Depths were in the 16-24 inch range mostly, but I did find some weenie spots where it was 30"+...though I don't consider that "true depth" anymore than a sun torched area near a highway is considered representative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baroclinic Zone Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Sun doing it's dirty work today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Yeah, it will be old news tomorrow. I just really don't agree with his perspective about how long he's been on the board and how there were the good old days, and clearly implying that this board is being ruined by people like me. I take serious offense to that on a deeper level. I was a read-only member for a while before I started to post, because quite frankly the board didn't need any more ski-sheeps. Now that I am more familiar with the models and actually look at them and have a basic understanding of what they are saying, I am trying to be more active in the discussion when and where I can contribute. I don't think it's fair to label me or anyone else a "weenie," at least not with the negative connotation he gives it, only because they would rather be closer to an event than looking in from the outside - that label would apply to every member here, including him. The board is a great place for people who enjoy weather to come and learn and meet like-minded people. It's simply not the disaster of "weenieism" that some make it out to be. If he did still post radar images, wv loops, model image comparisons, etc., the forum would be even better. It's a bunch of baloney that posting these things would "only bring grief if someone interprets what I saw as taking away 7 flakes from their total." It's making comments like "the rgem is a toaster bath for many," without providing any of that extra analysis beyond the verbatim model run, that does people in. So who is to blame for that? Hey man I missed this but "ski sheep" is good peeps, very knowledgeable and a fair cat, bad diss here. His FB weather page is really good too, just saying that was uncalled for. By the way he is still a member in good standing here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dryslot Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Hey man I missed this but "ski sheep" is good peeps, very knowledgeable and a fair cat, bad diss here. His FB weather page is really good too, just saying that was uncalled for. By the way he is still a member in good standing here. I agree, Should not drag other posters into conversations when they know longer want to post here or can defend themselves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 A nice deep winter scene.....icicles with sweet sun ring behind it..... Nice yea the icicles have come out in big amounts, may go on a hunt like Jan 11, saw one on a house 12 foot long and about 10 inches thick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.