powderfreak Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 3 minutes ago, The 4 Seasons said: I think 4-8" is fine, even 3-6". 5-10" seems high a bit too high to me though, i would be a bit shocked if anyone went that high for a first call. Yeah for the most part those are pretty much the same ranges, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damage In Tolland Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 11 minutes ago, codfishsnowman said: why would the valley be screwed unless the heaviest qpf is across the southern 50% of sne?....should not be any big down slope issues with this Not screwed, but I do think there are BL issues at play . Initially anyway . Not rain, but it could have trouble accumulating well in low spots first couple hours. Maybe it’s not an issue, but models have lowlands borderline initially Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUNNAWAYICEBERG Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 41 minutes ago, powderfreak said: Yeah for the most part those are pretty much the same ranges, IMO. Not a fan of doubling ranges above 2-4”. Keep it at 2” intervals until you get to 12”, then go with 4” intervals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powderfreak Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 11 minutes ago, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said: Not a fan of doubling ranges above 2-4”. Keep it at 2” intervals until you get to 12”, then go with 4” intervals. I like the 3" ranges... 3-6"/5-8/7-10 then go to 4" intervals. I think trying to nail it to 2" is over-confident haha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JC-CT Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 1 minute ago, powderfreak said: I like the 3" ranges... 3-6"/5-8/7-10 then go to 4" intervals. I think trying to nail it to 2" is over-confident haha. I don't like any intervals that start lower than 8". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TauntonBlizzard2013 Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 1 hour ago, Baroclinic Zone said: Harv just split the difference between high and low models. This is a good call... I’d prob shave off an inch in each zone though. Im fairly positive euro and NAM are too amped. A blend of the the two camps would probably yield this result Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 4 minutes ago, TauntonBlizzard2013 said: This is a good call... I’d prob shave off an inch in each zone though. Im fairly positive euro and NAM are too amped. A blend of the the two camps would probably yield this result Of course Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 9 minutes ago, powderfreak said: I like the 3" ranges... 3-6"/5-8/7-10 then go to 4" intervals. I think trying to nail it to 2" is over-confident haha. It's always been 2 to 4 4 to 6 6 to 8 8 to 10 in individual zones. These broad color maps TV Mets use rarely verify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TauntonBlizzard2013 Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 2 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said: Of course Maybe they are right. But it would be the least surprising news of all time if they are over aggressive. Only so good this can get Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoarfrostHubb Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 I’d agree with Harv for my area. 2-4” seems reasonable. Very meh. Gone in a day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT Rain Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 26 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said: It's always been 2 to 4 4 to 6 6 to 8 8 to 10 in individual zones. These broad color maps TV Mets use rarely verify. How is a broad range harder to verify? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 4 Seasons Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 5 minutes ago, CT Rain said: How is a broad range harder to verify? it's not.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baroclinic Zone Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 Love how some are ripping on Harvey maps. He was just throwing out a # that was a best 1st guess. He showed one model showing no snow for the area to the other extreme showing upwards of 10", so he split the 2. That was all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdxken Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 2 minutes ago, Baroclinic Zone said: Love how some are ripping on Harvey maps. He was just throwing out a # that was a best 1st guess. He showed one model showing no snow for the area to the other extreme showing upwards of 10", so he split the 2. That was all. Everybody is a critic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8611Blizz Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 No problem with his amounts, just pointing out the line is exactly through the city. That's an old pro move right there. Either could verify and he will be right. Just tells me at this range he's being cautious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baroclinic Zone Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 2 minutes ago, kdxken said: Everybody is a critic. Yup. And Harv is the best so his uncertainty showed in the broadcast. 00z tonight he'll start making adjustments as he sees fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powderfreak Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 44 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said: It's always been 2 to 4 4 to 6 6 to 8 8 to 10 in individual zones. These broad color maps TV Mets use rarely verify. See I think the 2-inch ranges that step up are harder to verify. No way you'll nail a forecast with tightly packed 2" gradients vs. a larger 3-4" or more broad range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 2 minutes ago, powderfreak said: See I think the 2-inch ranges that step up are harder to verify. No way you'll nail a forecast with tightly packed 2" gradients vs. a larger 3-4" or more broad range. I am talking about county zones. NWS has a great product Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 17 minutes ago, The 4 Seasons said: it's not.. Remember the forecasts for March 13, you have those maps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 28 minutes ago, CT Rain said: How is a broad range harder to verify? I prefer the NWS county zone maps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUNNAWAYICEBERG Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 4 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said: I prefer the NWS county zone maps Agree. But I understand why on air mets go with a bigger range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baroclinic Zone Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 Holding snow ranges to one range limits the ability to broadcast uncertainty in areas and for events that are smaller or larger in scale, small or large scales may be warranted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 1 minute ago, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said: Agree. But I understand why on air mets go with a bigger range. Yea I guess, I look at them as a broad brush statement. A tiny state like CT has huge differences . Anyone have the ranges forecasted for this storm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUNNAWAYICEBERG Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 26 minutes ago, The 4 Seasons said: it's not.. I always enjoy your pre and post maps but for 2-9-17 id prefer 8-12”, 12-16” and 16-20” colors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 3 minutes ago, Baroclinic Zone said: Holding snow ranges to one range limits the ability to broadcast uncertainty in areas and for events that are smaller or larger in scale, small or large scales may be warranted. I like the 0 to 10 myself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 Harvey's range is fine. There is still uncertainty and it's a reasonable first call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUNNAWAYICEBERG Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 1 minute ago, Ginx snewx said: Yea I guess, I look at them as a broad brush statement. A tiny state like CT has huge differences . Anyone have the ranges forecasted for this storm Why did you have to bring back brutally horrid memories.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 1 minute ago, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said: Why did you have to bring back brutally horrid memories.... Lol I had to troll you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 If I was on air no way would I put out numbers today. Tomorrow night maybe. The rush to be first is obv in the TV world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dryslot Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 8 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said: Yea I guess, I look at them as a broad brush statement. A tiny state like CT has huge differences . Anyone have the ranges forecasted for this storm Better then 78 and 93 here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.