Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,584
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    LopezElliana
    Newest Member
    LopezElliana
    Joined

Oct 31- Nov 2nd Storm Disco


Damage In Tolland

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Not even the euro's back.......really just the Euro Ens' back.

 

They are much better, But the OP up this way still had some snow, Nowhere else though, Better to have this model then any other showing something to keep the flame flickering at least until it jumps ship possibly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look at the change in the op Euro runs with the h5 evolution from 12z Sunday to 00z Wednesday it's pretty astounding. Pretty dramatic change. 

Euro back to what it did last winter season of over-amplification?  My thoughts from a couple days ago still hold.  Still feel NNE may see some wintry precip out of this but looks like mostly a miss for most in SNE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look at the change in the op Euro runs with the h5 evolution from 12z Sunday to 00z Wednesday it's pretty astounding. Pretty dramatic change.

The GFS too. On Sunday it had like a 988mb low over NNE with big snows in Montreal. This whole set up looks nothing like the original flavor last weekend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Euro back to what it did last winter season of over-amplification?  My thoughts from a couple days ago still hold.  Still feel NNE may see some wintry precip out of this but looks like mostly a miss for most in SNE.

 

I wish the Euro runs from Sunday/early Monday still held with the ULL closing overhead and some nice looking snow showers/squalls streaming in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been curious about this for a while:

Does anyone know if there is statistically significant negative correlation between model verification scores and the magnitude of the height anomolies they are forecasting?

The "model says this but I'm going to hedge against climo" argument would seem to imply that the common belief is yes, but I'm wondering if it has been statistically measured.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been curious about this for a while:

Does anyone know if there is statistically significant negative correlation between model verification scores and the magnitude of the height anomolies they are forecasting?

The "model says this but I'm going to hedge against climo" argument would seem to imply that the common belief is yes, but I'm wondering if it has been statistically measured.

 

I have no numbers to back it up, but anecdotally the larger the anomaly the more likely it is for the NWP to pick up on the system. Think Sandy: large anomaly but great verification.

 

Models tend to struggle the most when forcing is weak and nebulous. This is why verification scores generally go up during our winter, because the systems are stronger and more concentrated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take requests.

 

As things stand now, it does look like consensus is a near miss. That would still give me snow in my eastern zones though.

can i request something with no precip? outdoor plans on saturday. temps don't matter, but precip would be a pain to deal with

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no numbers to back it up, but anecdotally the larger the anomaly the more likely it is for the NWP to pick up on the system. Think Sandy: large anomaly but great verification.

Models tend to struggle the most when forcing is weak and nebulous. This is why verification scores generally go up during our winter, because the systems are stronger and more concentrated.

March 93 is another good example.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4th best match is 12/07/2003, if that were to repeat this weekend it would blow October 2011 out of the water for just about everyone.

 

That was my first snowstorm after moving to Boston to attend university. I remember it well.

 

But what is the real value of mentioning this? We all know it's not going to play out like that. You're being silly and you need to be hit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was my first snowstorm after moving to Boston to attend university. I remember it well.

 

But what is the real value of mentioning this? We all know it's not going to play out like that. You're being silly and you need to be hit.

 

Because if I don't include the possibility of a major snowfall the weenies get mad.

 

It's probably worth noting though that that one storm skews the entire analog average snowfall graphics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because if I don't include the possibility of a major snowfall the weenies get mad.

 

It's probably worth noting though that that one storm skews the entire analog average snowfall graphics.

 

For SNe, the Veteran's Day '87 storm also would contribute a lot.

 

I just checked the CIPS analogs now after wondering if 10/18/09 was still there in my reply to Hubbdave, and it is...but strangely, the CIPS site has no snowfall over SNE for that storm even though there was a general 0.5-2.0"...with some isolated 3-5" amounts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For SNe, the Veteran's Day '87 storm also would contribute a lot.

 

I just checked the CIPS analogs now after wondering if 10/18/09 was still there in my reply to Hubbdave, and it is...but strangely, the CIPS site has no snowfall over SNE for that storm even though there was a general 0.5-2.0"...with some isolated 3-5" amounts.

Did they lump the 2 events (10/16?) and that together?

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...