Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,606
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    ArlyDude
    Newest Member
    ArlyDude
    Joined

2018/19 Winter Banter and General Discussion - We winter of YORE


Baroclinic Zone
 Share

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

All coc ks all the time.

It just makes my life harder. Plus I really don't want to have to get more $3/gal oil this year and based on the forecast for the next 2 weeks I may have to. My bamboo isn't liking the below 0F + wind either. I'm interested to see how it comes up this spring. Even they're near death like one of pickle's milfs, I at least have 2 more phyllostachys nudas arriving in April. We boo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, dendrite said:

It just makes my life harder. Plus I really don't want to have to get more $3/gal oil this year and based on the forecast for the next 2 weeks I may have to. My bamboo isn't liking the below 0F + wind either. I'm interested to see how it comes up this spring. Even they're near death like one of pickle's milfs, I at least have 2 more phyllostachys nudas arriving in April. We boo.

Isn’t that invasive? We kill bamboo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, dendrite said:

Looks like -0.9F here. Not quite the -10F with an afternoon of 5F in March of 2007.

Nothing extreme here, but the window to the office shattered because I think the combination of metal frame contracting and flexing in the wind.

Security has been compromised. :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CoastalWx said:

Isn’t that invasive? We kill bamboo.

Depends on how you define it. It spreads by running rhizomes, but that's it basically for propagation. It's not truly invasive like those that also propagate from seeds or easily from cuttings. In my zone I don't think it'll be too much to contain. I'll probably get top kill of the canes every winter. Bamboo doesn't like that. It'd probably go wild in your neighborhood though. This isn't quite like that nasty japanese knotweed either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, dendrite said:

Depends on how you define it. It spreads by running rhizomes, but that's it basically for propagation. It's not truly invasive like those that also propagate from seeds or easily from cuttings. In my zone I don't think it'll be too much to contain. I'll probably get top kill of the canes every winter. Bamboo doesn't like that. It'd probably go wild in your neighborhood though. This isn't quite like that nasty japanese knotweed either.

You know what, that’s what I’m thinking of. My folks have that at the lake and it gets nuts without ripping it out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I was catching up with office verification stats yesterday for this winter ( @tamarack and @dryslot may be interested) and found some pretty interesting results for GYX.

While our probability of detecting warning events is good (88%, goal of 90%), our false alarm for warning events (events that are warned but don't happen) is 39% compared to a goal of 20%. That's bad. Really bad actually.

In addition, the "lead time" for those false alarms (time from warning issuance to the rough expected time of warning snowfall) was over 27 hours! Meaning we're issuing warnings about a full shift too soon, and suffering the consequences because of it. We are missing key hi-res guidance opportunities in the 12 to 24 hour period that could help our forecasts of QPF and ptype. 

Conversely, our numbers for a watch are great, our false alarm rate is actually lower (35%)! 

The numbers really tell me that models are great at sniffing out events at long ranges, but not great at sniffing out details of those events at those same ranges.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, OceanStWx said:

So I was catching up with office verification stats yesterday for this winter ( @tamarack and @dryslot may be interested) and found some pretty interesting results for GYX.

While our probability of detecting warning events is good (88%, goal of 90%), our false alarm for warning events (events that are warned but don't happen) is 39% compared to a goal of 20%. That's bad. Really bad actually.

In addition, the "lead time" for those false alarms (time from warning issuance to the rough expected time of warning snowfall) was over 27 hours! Meaning we're issuing warnings about a full shift too soon, and suffering the consequences because of it. We are missing key hi-res guidance opportunities in the 12 to 24 hour period that could help our forecasts of QPF and ptype. 

Conversely, our numbers for a watch are great, our false alarm rate is actually lower (35%)! 

The numbers really tell me that models are great at sniffing out events at long ranges, but not great at sniffing out details of those events at those same ranges.

Pretty much makes a lot of sense this winter, As we have got closer in to many of these events the qpf numbers have come down all the way even to verification to the end of the event, That's a good reason why we have had more nickels and dimes, But its also been due to more over running events with weak lift and poor snow growth as well as mixing with warm air intrusion aloft, In other seasons, You probably would have better numbers where we have more coastal events with a better airmass, Many of these events this winter, Looked good in the day 3-5 range, Only to shat the bed inside 36 hrs or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OceanStWx said:

So I was catching up with office verification stats yesterday for this winter ( @tamarack and @dryslot may be interested) and found some pretty interesting results for GYX.

While our probability of detecting warning events is good (88%, goal of 90%), our false alarm for warning events (events that are warned but don't happen) is 39% compared to a goal of 20%. That's bad. Really bad actually.

In addition, the "lead time" for those false alarms (time from warning issuance to the rough expected time of warning snowfall) was over 27 hours! Meaning we're issuing warnings about a full shift too soon, and suffering the consequences because of it. We are missing key hi-res guidance opportunities in the 12 to 24 hour period that could help our forecasts of QPF and ptype. 

Conversely, our numbers for a watch are great, our false alarm rate is actually lower (35%)! 

The numbers really tell me that models are great at sniffing out events at long ranges, but not great at sniffing out details of those events at those same ranges.

That's why I set my "benchmarks" late in the game, almost always <12 hours before 1st flakes, sometimes as they're beginning to float down.  This year, when 90%+ of the storms have had major p-type issues for the entire CWA south of the mountains, must be a nightmare for nailing snow amounts.  Monday's event was a fine example, even up here.  Our forecast was for essentially all snow, and with 0.8" qpf, warning criteria seemed a given.  We did have almost all snow, less than 0.1" LE in IP and a bit of ZR in our 3.9" total depth, but between riming and crummy dendrite growth even the all-snow portion had a 5:1 ratio, something more common to 32° mush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...