Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,588
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    LopezElliana
    Newest Member
    LopezElliana
    Joined

The AnaFront/Coastal Storm Disco 02/05/16


Damage In Tolland

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Still, they didn't include Tolland County in the WSW.

 

When they say no to the model consensus, it does give me pause. They have relied on mesos and been correct in the past.

They have always thought of Tolland County as western CT. Except for Ekster and Drag..they just don't understand all the geography around here..and lump us in with the valley lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still, they didn't include Tolland County in the WSW.

 

When they say no to the model consensus, it does give me pause. They have relied on mesos and been correct in the past.

 

What consensus? There are plenty of models that are lighter on the NW edge.

 

I'm guessing the current watch outlines an area where they are truly worried about warning criteria. Just because you don't have a watch now, doesn't mean you won't get an advisory later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't match their probability tables, which say 5" likely for BOS 

 

Yeah those just updated.

 

What consensus? There are plenty of models that are lighter on the NW edge.

 

I'm guessing the current watch outlines an area where they are truly worried about warning criteria. Just because you don't have a watch now, doesn't mean you won't get an advisory later.

 

Which ones? Honest question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If an advisory is issued following a watch, it is reasonably interpreted to mean that the event is expected to have less impact than it was previously thought it could have.

 

Watches obviously aren't typically issued for events that are expected to stay below the warning threshold.  So I think your upgrade, downgrade comment is misleading.  Technically the issuance of a new advisory portends a now imminent (previously uncertain) impact, but the magnitude of the potential impacts have been downgraded.

 

Not really though. It's because people interpret it wrong (which is why the system is possibly going to change).

 

A watch is a 50/50 proposition. In the truest sense, half should be upgraded to warnings, and the other half an advisory. Technically they could be dropped with no headline, but I would argue you shouldn't have issued the watch in the first place as there was 50% confidence.

 

This is another reason I hate putting hard snowfall amounts in a watch. Potential for 6 inches or more, nothing else is needed. 

 

But in my mind, a watch is potential, an advisory is hazardous, and a warning is dangerous up to life threatening. You can argue about whether the potential is greater or lesser when going from watch to advisory, but the threat has been upgraded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah those just updated.

 

 

Which ones? Honest question.

 

4km NAM, the ARW and NMM were pretty light, but I haven't checked the latest runs. NCAR ensemble didn't love this event any.

 

Could be they think global models are being too broad with QPF, and it's less exciting for the ones on the NW side. Extrapolating their forecast down into CT though, and it's a solid advisory event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4km NAM, the ARW and NMM were pretty light, but I haven't checked the latest runs. NCAR ensemble didn't love this event any.

 

Could be they think global models are being too broad with QPF, and it's less exciting for the ones on the NW side. Extrapolating their forecast down into CT though, and it's a solid advisory event.

 

Do you agree with them? I see no reason to say this can't continue to tick west.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4km NAM, the ARW and NMM were pretty light, but I haven't checked the latest runs. NCAR ensemble didn't love this event any.

Could be they think global models are being too broad with QPF, and it's less exciting for the ones on the NW side. Extrapolating their forecast down into CT though, and it's a solid advisory event.

That's my concern, nw edges can tend to be too broad by globals.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really though. It's because people interpret it wrong (which is why the system is possibly going to change).

 

A watch is a 50/50 proposition. In the truest sense, half should be upgraded to warnings, and the other half an advisory. Technically they could be dropped with no headline, but I would argue you shouldn't have issued the watch in the first place as there was 50% confidence.

 

This is another reason I hate putting hard snowfall amounts in a watch. Potential for 6 inches or more, nothing else is needed. 

 

But in my mind, a watch is potential, an advisory is hazardous, and a warning is dangerous up to life threatening. You can argue about whether the potential is greater or lesser when going from watch to advisory, but the threat has been upgraded.

Max potential has been downgraded.  Likelihood has been upgraded.  In every storm I can remember dating back decades, when an advisory replaced a watch it reflected a shift in guidance away from a significant event towards a more modest event.  Sure I wasn't privy to the internal discussions of the forecasters, but I was usually watching the models and reading the discussions.

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...