April Discussion

[weatherwiz]

1 minute ago, dendrite said:

Well a piece of the SPV kinda backs in and drops in to phase with it. It's not really the same entity being closed off, opening, and closing back off. It's just a progression of a closed low with another eventually phasing in. Of course it'll change on the next run.

ahhh gotcha...I see what you're talking about. There is alot going on with s/w so I'm sure we'll see about a hundred different solutions between now and Monday. 

[Damage In Tolland]

While that would be great and welcomed by all here... that has no support. Euro nothing, EPS nothing and GEFS nothing. It’s a 50 degree week next week overall after the Monday torch 

[Typhoon Tip]

1 minute ago, weatherwiz said:

I can see the system opening up...makes sense given the evolution of the upper-level jet, but I'm not so sure about closing it back off with new circulations so quick. Looks like that aspect may be tied into a secondary LLJ max developing off the coast. using cod and the GFS only out to 186 hours, but looks like this could be something where this becomes cut off and we get a horrifically crappy and cold week.

Oh .. okay - yeah I was referring to the more general look ... 

Yeah, as to the details of the trough space handling ... Brian mentioned some timing with stream interaction ... it's all good -

[HoarfrostHubb]

Just now, Typhoon Tip said:

I think that sentiment is ... or should be, shared by all - yes... 

But, we have to keep in mind that anomalous ...at times even 'historic' shit happens.  I'm sure if they are ever modeled ... they may look easily dispensable. 

I've often thought about that before ... how, most of the ginormous events that are in the annuls of the "Holy Shit" tomb of all things crazy that have happened in the past have not taken place during this post modern era of ever more accurately ... at least "improving" technology.   There have been a few ... 1993, 2015 ...etc... but it's still sort of new and the general 'feel' for big event handling isn't really built into the zeitgeist/familiarity on how well the bigger SD events are really seen as a behavior to do so... 

True...true.  It would be neat to time-machine back to 1888, 1978 or even 1993 with today's (2019) technology and see what exotic solutions are spit out 5-7 days in advance.  

[Typhoon Tip]

1 minute ago, Damage In Tolland said:

While that would be great and welcomed by all here... that has no support. Euro nothing, EPS nothing and GEFS nothing. It’s a 50 degree week next week overall after the Monday torch 

Untrue... I already pointed out that there is some tepid support from that cluster - 

Also, the Canadian is not hugely different, it's just situated/evolving everything along a more N axis...  

[dendrite]

2 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Untrue... I already pointed out that there is some tepid support from that cluster - 

Also, the Canadian is not hugely different, it's just situated/evolving everything along a more N axis...  

Well he is all AWATT right now except he still has one toe hanging back in the cold room...just in case a biggie pops up.

[Torch Tiger]

6 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said:

While that would be great and welcomed by all here... that has no support. Euro nothing, EPS nothing and GEFS nothing. It’s a 50 degree week next week overall after the Monday torch 

2" of ice for one and all

[Torch Tiger]

LC special incoming

[Typhoon Tip]

14 minutes ago, HoarfrostHubb said:

True...true.  It would be neat to time-machine back to 1888, 1978 or even 1993 with today's (2019) technology and see what exotic solutions are spit out 5-7 days in advance.  

Oh ..if I could break into the Labs at NOAA and parameterize those model runs in experimental setting and then break out the kleenex and hand lotion..

AS to 1993, that one may be the exception that's not as dependent upon era .. If I recall, that event was like a "Sandy" in the charts, picked up at an unworldly long lead.   

In fact, some 10 days out I recall the TWC started dropping hints in those in between moments of banter ... Then D7 rolled around they were already painting white on their extended segment charts.  It was one of those deals where the parametric physics were so hugely audible in the otherwise noisy din of the global circulation maelstrom, the system staked into the holy charts like angry stigmata - 

Sandy was kinda sorta like that too... There was eerie long lead ensemble support that was actually led by index suggestions ...all converging on the MA ... some two weeks (literally!) out in time...  By the time that sucker was 10 days out...everything had it...  In all, it was like a meme put into effect a month earlier -

 

[dendrite]

10 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Oh ..if I could break into the Labs at NOAA and parameterize those model runs in experimental setting and then break out the kleenex and hand lotion..

AS to 1993, that one may be the exception that's not as dependent upon era .. If I recall, that event was like a "Sandy" in the charts, picked up at an unworldly long lead.   

In fact, some 10 days out I recall the TWC started dropping hints in those in between moments of banter ... Then D7 rolled around they were already painting white on their extended segment charts.  It was one of those deals where the parametric physics were so hugely audible in the otherwise noisy din of the global circulation maelstrom, the system staked into the holy charts like angry stigmata - 

Sandy was kinda sorta like that too... There was eerie long lead ensemble support that was actually led by index suggestions ...all converging on the MA ... some two weeks (literally!) out in time...  By the time that sucker was 10 days out...everything had it...  In all, it was like a meme put into effect a month earlier -

 

I agree about '93. I almost feel like modeling may have handled it worse today than back then. It was almost a planetary scale storm that was well modeled even with the coarse resolution. Add in the high res and convective allowing models of today and there would've been some wacko solutions.

[Damage In Tolland]

21 minutes ago, Dr. Dews said:

LC special incoming

Deal with it 

- Cosgrove 

[WinterWolf]

34 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Untrue... I already pointed out that there is some tepid support from that cluster - 

Also, the Canadian is not hugely different, it's just situated/evolving everything along a more N axis...  

Most everything he says is "Untrue"  Lol.

[Typhoon Tip]

22 minutes ago, dendrite said:

I agree about '93. I almost feel like modeling may have handled it worse today than back then. It was almost a planetary scale storm that was well modeled even with the coarse resolution. Add in the high res and convective allowing models of today and there would've been some wacko solutions.

...Add in normalization smoothing .. 

I mean, isn't that what the Euro ultimately does in that 4-D variable business ?   I've read about it .. the gist of which was that it's to 'dampen out unwanted emergent noise' so to speak, which given time to propagate ...goes on to spurious this that or the other thing...  blah blah.  'Least the way I interpreted it.  Ha.  'Light reading'.

Maybe they have a way of knowing what is legit noise versus bs...  don't know.  

I think you're right to suspect the models might surprisingly fumble around and f it up though.  Over kill assessing shit and ending up with a busted ravioli hot mess...  ( yeah I said it...)  Mike Ekster and I were discussing this some five years ago how the NAM actually had a kind of hay-day back in the early 2000's ...it's ending days when it was known as the "ETA".  But, it "improved" the resolution and it's performance attenuation seemed to follow - ...it's like it's "too good" in a way, but not good enough...and in that region there's poorer performance with inventions and or negations that are false in the ongoing handling of fractals.  Fascinating really ... 

[HoarfrostHubb]

5 minutes ago, WinterWolf said:

Most everything he says is "Untrue"  Lol.

Your fascination with him is unending...

[Typhoon Tip]

8 minutes ago, WinterWolf said:

Most everything he says is "Untrue"  Lol.

yeeeeah... heh... Don't drag me into any of that. 

I was just speaking to what I've seen of those products today  

[WinterWolf]

Just now, HoarfrostHubb said:

Your fascination with him is unending...

 Chill, there's no fascination.  Just the nonsense that he spews many times needs a comment now and again.  It's a weather forum...that's what we do here, we comment on things.  It's ok when Tip says it's "untrue" what he said???  I just followed it up with another fact.  

[WinterWolf]

Just now, Typhoon Tip said:

yeeeeah... heh... Don't drag me into any of that. 

I was just speaking to what I've seen of those products today  

Oh nobody is dragging anybody into anything.  You were correct in saying what you said, and so was I.  Nothing more or less.  Moving on.

[powderfreak]

2 hours ago, J.Spin said:

Things are probably a touch leaner right in the town of Stowe vs. my site, but the average number of 12”+ storms for us is right around 3 per season.  So in my data, the leanest stretch for 12”+ storms was 2011-2012 – 2015-2016, similar to that stretch you mentioned above.  Probably not coincidentally, those five seasons in there marked the notable stretch of below average snowfall we had around here.  We seem to be making up for it over the past three seasons though, with an average or above average number of 12”+ storms.

That's true for your location JSpin...but is there a time constraint on those numbers? 

I guess I'd try to seperate it out a bit to say 12" in 24 hours or something.  We probably have more 12" storms than I think if expanded to 48 hours or something.  Like if a SWFE drops 6-8" then there's a dry slot for 12-18 hours before the westerly flow kicks in and brings another 4-6" of some sort of mesoscale snow in 24 hours or something...ending up with 12" in 36-48 hours or something.  

I was more trying to compare to what would happen in SNE where a 12" storm would come mostly in one continuous shot.  

[powderfreak]

33 minutes ago, dendrite said:

I agree about '93. I almost feel like modeling may have handled it worse today than back then. It was almost a planetary scale storm that was well modeled even with the coarse resolution. Add in the high res and convective allowing models of today and there would've been some wacko solutions.

Sounds about right.  Can you imagine a 3km NAM-WRF output for March 1993 when tornados are flying through Florida and convection is going insane.  Probably would've tracked the storm to Cleveland.  GGEM would probably be 930mb and just sucked itself into a black hole.

[SouthCoastMA]

10 minutes ago, HoarfrostHubb said:

Your fascination with him is unending...

He has to get alert notifications of DIT posts. Sorta like a bluecheckmark on twitter after a Trump tweet

[HoarfrostHubb]

7 minutes ago, WinterWolf said:

 Chill, there's no fascination.  Just the nonsense that he spews many times needs a comment now and again.  It's a weather forum...that's what we do here, we comment on things.  It's ok when Tip says it's "untrue" what he said???  I just followed it up with another fact.  

Just kidding around. As a casual observer it gets funny sometimes.  He's been doing it for the 9+ years I've been on the boards.  We all know it.  You know it.  I'll let it be.

[WinterWolf]

1 minute ago, HoarfrostHubb said:

Just kidding around. As a casual observer it gets funny sometimes.  He's been doing it for the 9+ years I've been on the boards.  We all know it.  You know it.  I'll let it be.

Agreed.  It's all good.  

[powderfreak]

3 minutes ago, HoarfrostHubb said:

Just kidding around. As a casual observer it gets funny sometimes.  He's been doing it for the 9+ years I've been on the boards.  We all know it.  You know it.  I'll let it be.

Yeah it's funny how some always jump on him.  Occasionally it's worth pointing out but his style is what it is and it can be highly entertaining.  Best advice for the Wolfie is just let it go 99% of the time.  He's going to discuss the 10% probability exciting outcome like it's a lock and every time he hooks someone it's entertaining.  

[Typhoon Tip]

I wouldn't trust the Euro next week ... not that anyone does beyond D5 per se. 

But, it's plowing a nice coherent -NAO block into NE Canada ...meanwhile attempting to drive a Lakes cutter ...through a surface ridge, too... 

I just think the -NAO has legs and the models are prone. The NAO onset and exertion would transitively start/or enforce a southerly track with that bowling ball 

[tamarack]

1 hour ago, Lava Rock said:

If you're comparing to frcst range, do you you end up comparing to the low end or high end of range? Anotherwords, if frcst was for 6-10", and you got 7", is that considered "overperfomred" (compared to frcst low side of 6") or underperformed (compared to 10" high side range)?

For a storm with forecast 6-10", anything 6.0 to 10.0 is "verified", with under/overperformers outside that range.  I also note the occasional "megabust", storms which produce <50% the low end of forecast range or >150%.  Have recorded 7 of the former and 3 of the latter.  (Those "megas" are included in the under/overs in my previous post.)  One of those "megas" probably doesn't fit, because it wasn't warned, just WWA for 3-5" but verified at 13.3" (16.9" at the Farmington co-op), March 19-20, 2014.  Three of the 7 mega-unders came in 2014-15 (plus the Jan. 27 blizzard did so in SNJ while we visited there), making that winter the most frustrating of the 12 with AN snow; 2018-19 is #2 on that list.)

Things are probably a touch leaner right in the town of Stowe vs. my site, but the average number of 12”+ storms for us is right around 3 per season.  So in my data, the leanest stretch for 12”+ storms was 2011-2012 – 2015-2016, similar to that stretch you mentioned above.  Probably not coincidentally, those five seasons in there marked the notable stretch of below average snowfall we had around here.  We seem to be making up for it over the past three seasons though, with an average or above average number of 12”+ storms.

About twice what I've recorded.  Numbers for 21 winters below, with yours in parentheses for the most recent 13:

98-99   2
99-00   0
00-01   3
01-02   0
02-03   1
03-04   2
04-05   1
05-06   0  (not even a 6" storm)
06-07   2  (4)
07-08   1  (3)
08-09   2  (4)
09-10   1  (2)
10-11   1  (6)
11-12   0  (1)
12-13   1  (3)
13-14   2  (2)
14-16   2  (1)
15-16   0  (0)
16-17   3  (3)
17-18   2  (3)
18-19   0  (5)

Past 13 years, 1.3/winter compared to 2.85 at your place.  71% of winters had a 12"+ (77% for 06-07 on.)

[Cold Miser]

1 hour ago, Dr. Dews said:

LC special incoming

What is LC?
Liquid Crystal?

32 minutes ago, HoarfrostHubb said:

Your fascination with him is unending...

 

28 minutes ago, WinterWolf said:

 Chill, there's no fascination.  Just the nonsense that he spews many times needs a comment now and again.  It's a weather forum...that's what we do here, we comment on things.  It's ok when Tip says it's "untrue" what he said???  I just followed it up with another fact.  

lol. Seriously. This sh*t is still going on.  Anyone who takes one weenies forecast verbatim and holds on to said weather forecast as fact / gospel and then gets upset when it does not work out as noted as such has issues. 

[WinterWolf]

7 minutes ago, Cold Miser said:

What is LC?
Liquid Crystal?

 

lol. Seriously. This sh*t is still going on.  Anyone who takes one weenies forecast verbatim and holds on to said weather forecast as fact / gospel and then gets upset when it does not work out as noted as such has issues. 

WTF are you talking about??  Holy Sh*t how this has morphed into total BS.  I don't know what anyones forecast is, or was or what the heck you are talking about?  Go back and look at my post.  It's true, and it's nothing about holding anybody to any forecast.  Holy crap how things get twisted and misinterpreted.  

And LC is Larry Cosgrove.

[40/70 Benchmark]

9 minutes ago, WinterWolf said:

LOl...No there isn't.  

 

I didn't even comment to him, I commented on Tips post, and what I said was absolute FACT.  

 

And I've refrained plenty this season.  Most of the nonsense I ignore now.  Sometimes a good factual comment is warranted and needed.  This was one of those times.

No, just litters the board...which is why I deleted.

[WinterWolf]

Just now, 40/70 Benchmark said:

No, just litters the board...which is why I deleted.

I agree with that.  

 

And stuff that is utterly not true does too....

[tamarack]

2 hours ago, wxeyeNH said:

Just took a quick look at GFS.  The clown maps have ridiculous amounts of frozen up here next week.  Ice storms are really rare in April.  I don't know how much solar insolation gets through clouds the second week of April but perhaps even sun on dark bark branches might do some melting in well below freezing temps?  Just don't know about this stuff.  Of course heavy precip from around 5pm to 8am would have no problem accruing on surfaces.

I've seen light (0.2" accretion) ice on April 1 at 800' (Mile Hill) on my morning commute - all overnight precip.  Never seen siggy ZR later in season than that.  With heavy precip trying to freeze on contact, there would need to be a huge flow of cold flowing in from the north to offset the release of latent heat - not happening with Labor Day darkness duration and marginal surface temps.  Looks weird on the model, though, which is entertaining at least.