Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,609
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    NH8550
    Newest Member
    NH8550
    Joined

February 16th-17th Obs & Nowcasting


nj2va

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I could be wrong here, but seems like it wasn't not that long ago where most assumed model QPF could be exaggerated, so mets always shaved like 25 percent off in making forecast. Now, not just here but up and down East Coast, it now seems it's always taken as truth/fact, and everyone always looking for a way to go even higher due to ratios, possible banding, etc. Now, forecasts are increasingly busting high due to not enough skepticism. GFS was like .5, right, so a forecasts could have been 3 to 6 -- which would have verified perfectly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most of the public would think that the forecasts were ok: 4-8" from most sources (yes the NWS went higher, but that's not where the general public gets snow amounts from). It's Not a bust if you look out your window and eyeball 4".

Won't be viewed as a bust by the public based on available forecasts but some of the higher totals were doomed to fail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Won't be viewed as a bust by the public based on available forecasts but some of the higher totals were doomed to fail.

Yup, and only us weatherboard folk would feel let down--- it was those Euro runs. Without them, the range in our heads would have been 3-4" in the north and 4-7" in DC/Baltimore metro and 6-9" south.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like the precip was a little less than forecast as well. DC was always on the .5 line. Maybe .1 less for everyone?

Yeah, maybe.  A slight shave in total liquid and the more typical ~10:1 ratios then what was expected.  This is why you always forecast a range of snow totals...these type of details are just always very hard to predict.  Region wide, I think the forecast was good.  Totals verified on the lower end of ranges for the most part, but wasn't a huge bust in most cases. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, and only us weatherboard folk would feel let down--- it was those Euro runs. Without them, the range in our heads would have been 3-4" in the north and 4-7" in DC/Baltimore metro and 6-9" south.

When I saw some people start tossing around 10-14 for DC south I really wondered. This storm was hauling ass and those big numbers are rare down there for a reason. I said last night that 6 seemed about right for RIC based on radar and the speed of the storm and that was about what they received. I think the north crew needs to take a lesson too. There was a big band right over the PA border for several hours and the northern tier had some banding. Had ratios not sucked they would have done quite well. The whining was not based on history and climo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, maybe.  A slight shave in total liquid and the more typical ~10:1 ratios then what was expected.  This is why you always forecast a range of snow totals...these type of details are just always very hard to predict.  Region wide, I think the forecast was good.  Totals verified on the lower end of ranges for the most part, but wasn't a huge bust in most cases.

Would be interesting to know why NWS bumped to 6-10 right before the start. I think the 4-8 they had region wide was a good call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would be interesting to know why NWS bumped to 6-10 right before the start. I think the 4-8 they had region wide was a good call.

I'm not sure what my official NWS forecast was.  Zones had me at 4-6" (which was pretty good), the experimental maps bounced around but generally had me in 4-6" or 6-8" and then the warning bumped me up from 5-8" to 6-10".  They had a consistency issue yesterday for sure. 

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...