Ginx snewx Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 I'm having a hard time making this out, did you snap a photo of this with your infamous cell phone camera? no it was on the web and not hosted so i had to take a screen shot of a mini image, contours run in tens from 20-30s to 80s 90s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 That BTV map is kind of embarrassing for a scientist to put out. I mean Cavendish in their own FA only averages 82 or so, their map shows 100+ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 I may be wrong, but pretty sure that map was made by Will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 I may be wrong, but pretty sure that map was made by Will. I think so but whoever hosted it on image shack took it down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dryslot Posted October 30, 2014 Author Share Posted October 30, 2014 That BTV map really needs a serious makeover, They should have verified some of those totals before they rolled it out, Just no way the coastal areas up here see that much snow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dendrite Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 I may be wrong, but pretty sure that map was made by Will.Yeah...it was. I think BTV collaborated with NWS DIT on that map. The algorithm is take your total and multiply by 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eekuasepinniW Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 pretty accurate SNE CNE how does one even take a blurry screenshot? you are truly dedicated to your craft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Yeah...it was. I think BTV collaborated with NWS DIT on that map. The algorithm is take your total and multiply by 2. Interns FTL? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powderfreak Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 That BTV map is kind of embarrassing for a scientist to put out. I mean Cavendish in their own FA only averages 82 or so, their map shows 100+ It was heavily weighted by the annual QPF map which is a problem because snowfall doesn't work like that...that's why it has southern VT with a widespread 200"+ area and you really hits SNE hard. It seemed to take a ratio of annual precip up north in BTV land and applied that to areas further south. Outside of the orographic areas you guys down south have a wetter climate...southern VT is wetter on the whole than northern VT, but that includes t-storms, tropical storms, coastal storms etc. so if you apply a similar ratio of snow to annual liquid everywhere you get something like that map I bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 It was heavily weighted by the annual QPF map which is a problem because snowfall doesn't work like that...that's why it has southern VT with a widespread 200"+ area and you really hits SNE hard. It seemed to take a ratio of annual precip up north in BTV land and applied that to areas further south. Outside of the orographic areas you guys down south have a wetter climate...southern VT is wetter on the whole than northern VT, but that includes t-storms, tropical storms, coastal storms etc. so if you apply a similar ratio of snow to annual liquid everywhere you get something like that map I bet. epic fail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 how does one even take a blurry screenshot? you are truly dedicated to your craft. Karma, it was a tiny dot image I had to blow up, fix the damn ads on the mobile site SATURDAY NIGHT...CLEAR...BREEZY...AND COOLER. LOWS 60 TO 65. 11/2 62 in 1957 64 in 1887 65 in 1993 11/3 63 in 1966 63 in 1912 65 in 1954 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreaves Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 no it was on the web and not hosted so i had to take a screen shot of a mini image, contours run in tens from 20-30s to 80s 90s how does one even take a blurry screenshot? you are truly dedicated to your craft. Was just hopping on the "eek, blurry photo" bandwagon. Sarcasm fail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powderfreak Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 epic fail Someone probably threw that together very quickly lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powderfreak Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Last night's snow at 3300ft...co-worker sent this photo...with summit temps of 32-33F he said the snow didn't make it under 3000ft. But the picnic table coatings are getting more frequent. The sign of seasons changing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreaves Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 The good thing is that Nittany88 will see this critique and advise his office mates of the map's shortcomings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dryslot Posted October 30, 2014 Author Share Posted October 30, 2014 The good thing is that Nittany88 will see this critique and advise his office mates of the map's shortcomings. I would scrap and start over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nittany88 Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 The good thing is that Nittany88 will see this critique and advise his office mates of the map's shortcomings. Honestly we're working on one, and I don't know where the person that posted that even found it. That's not what we currently have on file. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nittany88 Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Interns FTL? Um no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Honestly I'm working on one, and I don't know where the person that posted that even found it. That's not what we currently have on file. rut roh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.Spin Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 So BTV is trying to make an annual snowfall map in New England...they posted this. Any thoughts? The snowfall map looks largely interpolated from the annual precip map. With the low resolution of the images, I blew up the snowfall and rainfall maps in our area a bit for the purposes of discussion: The resolution is probably a bit low to really put in too many details on microclimates, so it seems reasonably OK along the spine in the Winooski Valley. With that said, the snowfall (8 seasons) and rainfall (4 years) averages I've recorded at our location are 157.9" and 55.58" respectively. That would in theory put the snowfall in the spine area of the Winooski Valley, which is currently in the medium blue 100"-124" range, two categories higher into the yellow 150-174" range, and the rainfall, which I can't quite see due to the text, but is presumably in the green 40.00-49.99" range, one category higher into the yellow 50.00-59.99" range. Snowfall: Since I'm often using six or twelve-hour snow collection intervals, and we get a decent amount of fluffy upslope snow, my number could come in a bit high relative to co-op sites that collect once every 24 hours. So, one could argue for that 157.9" number coming down into the top of the dark blue 125-149" range with longer collection intervals, but I can’t see it coming all the way down into the medium blue 100"-124" range that's currently represented. Without dramatic shadowing to the west or east, there just seems to be way too much upslope and synoptic snow for our location to have snowfall that low relative to other mountain valley locations in the area. Beyond that, I'd say the only other factor is just how wide the geographical area along the spine is that gets the enhanced precipitation, and is it too narrow to really be worth considering on a map like that. Rainfall: With rainfall, collection interval doesn’t matter, and I'm using a manual gauge for whatever falls as liquid, which is about as accurate as you can get. The liquid obtained from snowfall is cored, but collection interval is still irrelevant there, so there's a lot of confidence in the 55.58" average. However, that's from only four years worth of data, and in the past four years, BTV's rainfall has averaged ~117% of their 1981-2010 mean. We know that the weather/climate out in the mountains doesn't necessarily correlate with what BTV experiences, but if it's been wet out in the mountains to the same extent as it has in BTV, that could bring the long-term number down into the upper part of that 40.00-49.99" dark green range. That's a big range, so I could see that working for everywhere along the Winooski Valley through the mountains. Similar to the snowfall, there's also the factor of whether or not the area along the spine in the Winooski Valley with the enhanced precipitation is just too narrow to matter on a map like that. Hopefully these comments will be helpful for whatever version of the map is being produced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Jspin, nice analysis but will EEK call you out for blurry zoom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dryslot Posted October 30, 2014 Author Share Posted October 30, 2014 Jspin, nice analysis but will EEK call you out for blurry zoom? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nittany88 Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Um no. I was only kidding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaineJayhawk Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Maybe that map was showing annual Bastardi-predicted snowfall? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eekuasepinniW Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Karma, it was a tiny dot image I had to blow up, fix the damn ads on the mobile site SATURDAY NIGHT...CLEAR...BREEZY...AND COOLER. LOWS 60 TO 65.11/2 62 in 1957 64 in 1887 65 in 1993 11/3 63 in 1966 63 in 1912 65 in 1954 Yeah it's pretty devastating. It's the wind that will really make things unpleasant along the waterfront. Dinner on the sunset pier is rather challenging with even a little wind. Jspin, nice analysis but will EEK call you out for blurry zoom? He gets 50 points for having a readable legend though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Yeah it's pretty devastating. It's the wind that will really make things unpleasant along the waterfront. Dinner on the sunset pier is rather challenging with even a little wind. He gets 50 points for having a readable legend though. annoying ads on mobile? Seriously hope you have a great stay in that absolutely tropical paradise. enjoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powderfreak Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 You guys are a class act for admitting it was a f-up... I had a feeling when I saw that early this morning that it would be an issue. I'm just surprised the posting MET didn't catch how high it was showing snowfall in spots, especially BOX/GYX CWAs. But that stuff happens, I know at my place of employment there are multiple social media users and sometimes mistakes happen; or someone posts something that is wrong with regards to snow/weather, but all in good intentions. It's social media...99% of the time it's all good and 1% is a f-up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 good job, hopefully we will see an accurate one to replace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eekuasepinniW Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 annoying ads on mobile? That's Johns department. I'm useless with mobile stuff... I don't even have a real smartphone...lol. It was brought up in the staff forum yesterday so it'll get looked at shortly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.