Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,607
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    NH8550
    Newest Member
    NH8550
    Joined

November 2019 discussion


weathafella
 Share

Recommended Posts

It also depends on what the Atlantic is doing too WRT the PNA sign and what we want....if we have a big NAO block, I actually want a -PNA.

 

I mean, this is a strongly negative PNA pattern, but nobody around here will complain about this setup (or this winter)

 

2010-2011_H5.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ORH_wxman said:

It also depends on what the Atlantic is doing too WRT the PNA sign and what we want....if we have a big NAO block, I actually want a -PNA.

 

I mean, this is a strongly negative PNA pattern, but nobody around here will complain about this setup (or this winter)

 

2010-2011_H5.png

Yea, of course...meant indendent of Atlantic.

Agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Yea, of course...meant indendent of Atlantic.

Agree.

Sometimes the ultimate weenie +PNA/-NAO pattern can actually suppress us like Jan 1985....but it delivers too sometimes like 1976-1977.

But we rarely get screwed in a -PNA/strong -NAO pattern. It can actually cause storms to try and cut and redevelop south of us ala Jan 11, 2011. IT's one reason that no one index can be the golden nugget....you have to look at all of them together and see what the pattern looks like. EPO is definitely the best one for temperatures....for storms, a +PNA is good, but then again, a -PNA can be really good with a -NAO, because -PNA tends to be very active and then the -NAO will force them underneath us keeping us on the snowy side.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

If you play with the URL, you can go back. It's bee steady for last 3 years, but had a few brief issues. When did they move it? 

It was probably 3 years ago now.

Just for a visual... I drive by this at least a couple times a week, and I'm convinced the new location is a tick colder because it's also where your car thermometer sort of bottoms out.

The old site was the circle to the north literally next to the road and the airport driveway.  If you drove off the road there you'd go right through the ASOS, it was as close as a mailbox to the road there.

Now the airport does angle slightly south to north... so by moving it down south it lost about 20-30 feet of elevation and it now borders the lowest lying water route through the field.  The blue line is the stream path through there.

Now if I wanted to find a "cold" spot at that air field, I'm looking for that low spot on the south end of the runway where the water drains.

MVL2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, powderfreak said:

It was probably 3 years ago now.

Just for a visual... I drive by this at least a couple times a week, and I'm convinced the new location is a tick colder because it's also where your car thermometer sort of bottoms out.

The old site was the circle to the north literally next to the road and the airport driveway.  If you drove off the road there you'd go right through the ASOS, it was as close as a mailbox to the road there.

Now the airport does angle slightly south to north... so by moving it down south it lost about 20-30 feet of elevation and it now borders the lowest lying water route through the field.  The blue line is the stream path through there.

Now if I wanted to find a "cold" spot at that air field, I'm looking for that low spot on the south end of the runway where the water drains.

MVL2.jpg

That certainly would help night temps cool for sure. That's something where the environment could cause it to be a tick or two cooler at night., but at least that is a plausible reason. I'm pulling my hair out with Logan. It's warm with every wind direction and every weather regime we have. NWS claims it's not the instrument, but I question that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CoastalWx said:

That certainly would help night temps cool for sure. That's something where the environment could cause it to be a tick or two cooler at night., but at least that is a plausible reason. I'm pulling my hair out with Logan. It's warm with every wind direction and every weather regime we have. NWS claims it's not the instrument, but I question that. 

Yeah BOS stands out like a sore thumb.  Like I said earlier, I think the departures from the 30-year normals compared to other sites is the really telling factor.  It's how we know there's been changes at BTV and it's why BOS stands out so much in SNE.  The various different climates of each station should be baked into the means already, so seeing really large differences in departures stands out.

BOS at -3.5 but PVD at -6.0?  That is an enormous difference.  That's almost now exceeding the difference between BTV and the interior Vermont ASOS up here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

That certainly would help night temps cool for sure. That's something where the environment could cause it to be a tick or two cooler at night., but at least that is a plausible reason. I'm pulling my hair out with Logan. It's warm with every wind direction and every weather regime we have. NWS claims it's not the instrument, but I question that. 

They didn't physically move the ASOS site at Logan did they? That's all I can really come up with to explain the differences if it's not the instrument itself. 

If it was something like dark rocks around the site you would think the error would almost disappear during very strong CAA or something similar but it doesn't. I suppose if there were a large enough area of dark rocks or different surface then it could withstand strong CAA but that's the only way I can think of. 

It does seem like bad instrumentation is the easiest way to explain it but if they tested it and it checked out then we have to start thinking g alternative explanations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, weathafella said:

So no one is even thinking about the siting?

what are they doing about the snow measurement?

I want to think environmental, but then why are we seeing these errors with all sorts of different wx regimes, wind directions etc. I honestly can't understand what is going on. New pavement on runways would be one reason, but I would expect the summertime with better solar insolation to have that really stand out. It seems like this is an issue no matter what. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Baroclinic Zone said:

So much hatred over what an observer measures for snowfall

First order climate data and not to mention decisions being made on that data such as snowfall. It definitely does matter even with the errors in snow measurement. This isn't just margin of error....it's all out egregious. 

  • Like 1
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...