December 2019 Discussion

[RUNNAWAYICEBERG]

2 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

I feel similar, but then think of all the horrific Decembers we have had. Puts it into perspective. 

You have a point. But if we have another peak winter stretch of rainers sandwiched by early Dec and like late Feb/March snows...it sucks. I hate wasting the meat of winter. Even if we get a good snow or two this month, if it’s washed away within a few days, just feels weak.

2 minutes ago, dryslot said:

Yea, I certainly won't rate this one very high on my list, It was an ok month but not much of a pack to speak of, Most of it getting almost completely wiped out by the cutters.

Activity is great and all but when there’s more wet vs frozen, it’s deflating. For you guys up there that rely on a good season economically, it’s even worse. At least here, me, it’s just being selfish to have as many outside snow days with my 3yr old little weenie. Bought a nice sled for him in early Dec...it hasn’t snowed since (not counting sleet). 

[Damage In Tolland]

4 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said:

I have to agree with you. That was an ice storm but just not a damaging one. By far longest I have had .4 ice on trees in Dec. The 50 plus mph winds for hours sending shards like missiles was one of the coolest wx phenomena I have witnessed.  

When Scooter misses them in S Wey, he doesn’t think they happened 

[OceanStWx]

3 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said:

Even freezing drizzle can be an icestorm ?

If you get 0.5" of ice from freezing drizzle, absolutely. 

Generally you aren't seeing significant impacts to trees/power lines until you get over about 0.33" radial ice accumulation (which is just over 0.8" flat surface accumulation, roughly 40% reduction). 

New England has traditionally always verified based on 0.5" radial, but turns out NWS wants that to be 0.5" flat. That's crazy for New England, because that's not even 0.2" radial thickness typically. I would wager on seeing criteria change in the coming years because 0.5" is too low a flat surface thresholds for these parts.

[OceanStWx]

7 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said:

I have to agree with you. That was an ice storm but just not a damaging one. By far longest I have had .4 ice on trees in Dec. The 50 plus mph winds for hours sending shards like missiles was one of the coolest wx phenomena I have witnessed.  

I think this is my point. An ice storm by definition is damaging, if it wasn't damaging it was a freezing rain event. 

[CoastalWx]

You can have ice, but it's not an ice storm. And IIRC, nrn CT missed out on the big one by HVN.  Just like I wouldn't call 3-4" of snow an all out snowstorm.  Just a weeeee bit of a stretch here.

[RUNNAWAYICEBERG]

Just now, OceanStWx said:

If you get 0.5" of ice from freezing drizzle, absolutely. 

Generally you aren't seeing significant impacts to trees/power lines until you get over about 0.33" radial ice accumulation (which is just over 0.8" flat surface accumulation, roughly 40% reduction). 

New England has traditionally always verified based on 0.5" radial, but turns out NWS wants that to be 0.5" flat. That's crazy for New England, because that's not even 0.2" radial thickness typically. I would wager on seeing criteria change in the coming years because 0.5" is too low a flat surface thresholds for these parts.

We’re a forrest region, properties and infrastructure nestled in trees. Doesn’t take a lot to disrupt...compared to, for example, Kansas.

[dryslot]

4 minutes ago, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said:

You have a point. But if we have another peak winter stretch of rainers sandwiched by early Dec and like late Feb/March snows...it sucks. I hate wasting the meat of winter. Even if we get a good snow or two this month, if it’s washed away within a few days, just feels weak.

Activity is great and all but when there’s more wet vs frozen, it’s deflating. For you guys up there that rely on a good season economically, it’s even worse. At least here, me, it’s just being selfish to have as many outside snow days with my 3yr old little weenie. Bought a nice sled for him in early Dec...it hasn’t snowed since (not counting sleet). 

I was just looking on Bishops Motels webcam in Jackman, Typically parking lots loaded with, Trucks, Trailers and sleds and not a one to be found, A bad look for there economy.

[Ginx snewx]

2 minutes ago, OceanStWx said:

I think this is my point. An ice storm by definition is damaging, if it wasn't damaging it was a freezing rain event. 

Semantics in Bureaucracy land agree, but no one in Ct would say it was a freezing rain event, they would say ice storm.  

[OceanStWx]

Just now, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said:

We’re a forrest region, properties and infrastructure nestled in trees. Doesn’t take a lot to disrupt...compared to, for example, Kansas.

The reason our criteria is higher is because our forests and infrastructure is less susceptible to damage because we get a high frequency of freezing rain events. Like I said, our power grid is rated for more than 0.25" radial ice accretion for the very reason that freezing rain happens a lot around here. 

[Ginx snewx]

Just now, OceanStWx said:

The reason our criteria is higher is because our forests and infrastructure is less susceptible to damage because we get a high frequency of freezing rain events. Like I said, our power grid is rated for more than 0.25" radial ice accretion for the very reason that freezing rain happens a lot around here. 

Might want to revisit that thought.  Trees are in terrible shape down here. 

[RUNNAWAYICEBERG]

2 minutes ago, OceanStWx said:

The reason our criteria is higher is because our forests and infrastructure is less susceptible to damage because we get a high frequency of freezing rain events. Like I said, our power grid is rated for more than 0.25" radial ice accretion for the very reason that freezing rain happens a lot around here. 

I would think our grids are more susceptible to disruptions because of the amount of trees, not the other way around. Plus, around here, they are generally in pretty bade shape as it is. I see stuff hanging over roads and wires, ready to snap off any minute.

[OceanStWx]

Just now, Ginx snewx said:

Might want to revisit that thought.  Trees are in terrible shape down here. 

Ginx I just said the 0.3-0.4" is borderline, you could argue from a utilities perspective that it was close to an ice storm for them. But CT did not have two ice storms this month. 

Everyone gets so sensitive if it doesn't fall into specific category. Sometimes it's okay to just enjoy the wintry weather you get and not need everything to be a ice storm or winter storm warning.

[ORH_wxman]

Just now, OceanStWx said:

If you get 0.5" of ice from freezing drizzle, absolutely. 

Generally you aren't seeing significant impacts to trees/power lines until you get over about 0.33" radial ice accumulation (which is just over 0.8" flat surface accumulation, roughly 40% reduction). 

New England has traditionally always verified based on 0.5" radial, but turns out NWS wants that to be 0.5" flat. That's crazy for New England, because that's not even 0.2" radial thickness typically. I would wager on seeing criteria change in the coming years because 0.5" is too low a flat surface thresholds for these parts.

Yeah often you'd see NWS refer to radial ice numbers. Like even in the 2008 ice storm report from box they'll refer to the amounts of 0.50-0.75....that was definitely radial ice because flat was easily over an inch in many spots. 

[CoastalWx]

3 minutes ago, OceanStWx said:

Ginx I just said the 0.3-0.4" is borderline, you could argue from a utilities perspective that it was close to an ice storm for them. But CT did not have two ice storms this month. 

Everyone gets so sensitive if it doesn't fall into specific category. Sometimes it's okay to just enjoy the wintry weather you get and not need everything to be a ice storm or winter storm warning.

We tried to tell them. Weenies are very sensitive. 

[OceanStWx]

2 minutes ago, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said:

I would think our grids are more susceptible to disruptions because of the amount of trees, not the other way around. Plus, around here, they are generally in pretty bade shape as it is. I see stuff hanging over roads and wires, ready to snap off any minute.

Well that's the information we get from utility companies. Their issues don't become widespread until you get ice accretion over 0.33". It's also not necessarily the amount of trees, but the type. If you have a lot of evergreens they evolved to droop branches as the weight increases, allowing snow and ice to slough off. If you have a lot of trees with crowns reaching up (like we plant in developments) they'll struggle when they accumulate ice/snow.

That doesn't mean localized areas aren't going to have it worse than others. But a single point doesn't verify warnings, you need need coverage over half a zone (typically a county).

[OceanStWx]

Just now, ORH_wxman said:

Yeah often you'd see NWS refer to radial ice numbers. Like even in the 2008 ice storm report from box they'll refer to the amounts of 0.50-0.75....that was definitely radial ice because flat was easily over an inch in many spots. 

I just recently heard about the push to make criteria flat ice (I think because the ASOS sensors are designed that way). The national directive is written specifically to include flat surface accretion of 0.25" which is more like 0.1" radial. It would be an insane criteria to have for warnings around here.

But the Eastern Region supplement that allows for higher thresholds never specifically mentioned radial. So now we're kind of stuck in no man's land. I would imagine local offices would push for something more along the lines of 0.75" flat for criteria, which would work out to around 0.3" radial. 

I think the hardest part is that the grids we create now are flat surface. But we've trained both forecasters and the public to think radial, so they see much higher totals now and get anxious. If you're accustomed to radial and we forecast 1" that's a serious event, but the reality now is that's closer to 0.4" radial and probably a low end warning.

[Ginx snewx]

8 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

We tried to tell them. Weenies are very sensitive. 

No one outside you wx Met weenie insiders would say that first storm wasn't an ice storm.  You can semantic all day long with technical jargon but cmon get real . 

[moneypitmike]

Monthly grade time:

December achieves an A-.   The early snows were incredible and we salvaged a couple events that had looked like rainers  that were converted into veritable winter events.  The only thing that kept this from being an A+ was, of course, our inability to retain any of it.  At least we begin 2020 with snow and ice on the ground.

[CoastalWx]

2 minutes ago, OceanStWx said:

I just recently heard about the push to make criteria flat ice (I think because the ASOS sensors are designed that way). The national directive is written specifically to include flat surface accretion of 0.25" which is more like 0.1" radial. It would be an insane criteria to have for warnings around here.

But the Eastern Region supplement that allows for higher thresholds never specifically mentioned radial. So now we're kind of stuck in no man's land. I would imagine local offices would push for something more along the lines of 0.75" flat for criteria, which would work out to around 0.3" radial. 

I think the hardest part is that the grids we create now are flat surface. But we've trained both forecasters and the public to think radial, so they see much higher totals now and get anxious. If you're accustomed to radial and we forecast 1" that's a serious event, but the reality now is that's closer to 0.4" radial and probably a low end warning.

They should just forego the ASOS reasoning if many people are trained radial. The majority of reports would be radial...to base the warning criteria on ASOS flat surface seems insane to me.

[Ginx snewx]

Just now, moneypitmike said:

Monthly grade time:

December achieves an A-.   The early snows were incredible and we salvaged a couple events that had looked like rainers  that were converted into veritable winter events.  The only thing that kept this from being an A+ was, of course, our inability to retain any of it.  At least we begin 2020 with snow and ice on the ground.

But hey you didn't have a winter storm warning for your foot plus so semantically did it happen?

[ORH_wxman]

15 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said:

But hey you didn't have a winter storm warning for your foot plus so semantically did it happen?

He had warning criteria snow though. So it was semantically a legit snowstorm. Doesn't matter whether he was under a warning or not. 

[OceanStWx]

8 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said:

No one outside you wx Met weenie insiders would say that first storm wasn't an ice storm.  You can semantic all day long with technical jargon but cmon get real . 

The semantics you complain about is objectivity Steve. I've looked at the obs and LSRs. The ASOSs didn't report more than 0.4" flat surface accretion and the LSRs don't report much more than 0.25" on tree branches outside of a couple reports. Maybe a zone or two could qualify as ice storm, but overall it was a solid advisory event. I'm in agreement that based on feedback from partner feedback the warning criteria should probably be something like 0.33"/0.75" radial/flat accretion. But until then, it is what it is. 

5 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said:

But hey you didn't have a winter storm warning for your foot plus so semantically did it happen?

You're a trip man, you get so wrapped around the axle on headlines sometimes. Headlines don't dictate verification and nobody has argued that wasn't a winter storm.

[Ginx snewx]

6 minutes ago, OceanStWx said:

The semantics you complain about is objectivity Steve. I've looked at the obs and LSRs. The ASOSs didn't report more than 0.4" flat surface accretion and the LSRs don't report much more than 0.25" on tree branches outside of a couple reports. Maybe a zone or two could qualify as ice storm, but overall it was a solid advisory event. I'm in agreement that based on feedback from partner feedback the warning criteria should probably be something like 0.33"/0.75" radial/flat accretion. But until then, it is what it is. 

You're a trip man, you get so wrapped around the axle on headlines sometimes. Headlines don't dictate verification and nobody has argued that wasn't a winter storm.

Lol trolling goes both ways. Wx mets can dish..... FYI this morning in NW CT 1 inch flat surface

[Ginx snewx]

9 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

He had warning criteria snow though. So it was semantically a legit snowstorm. Doesn't matter whether he was under a warning or not. 

We joke whooooosh

[OceanStWx]

1 minute ago, Ginx snewx said:

Lol trolling goes both ways. Wx mets can dish..... FYI this morning in NW CT 1 inch flat surface

Nobody is trolling. I'm telling you how verification works. In my opinion it's too often subjective, but when I do winter verification up here I try and be as objective as possible. I also agree some parts of CT will meet ice storm criteria, but claiming the state saw two this month is not accurate. You yourself even said it wasn't a damaging ice storm.

I did my masters thesis on this stuff. If you look hard enough you can always find a tree down, 6" of snow, or 0.5" ice on a tree branch to claim a successful forecast, but the reality is that helps no one. You don't improve your forecasting, and it actually taints the record if it is being used for research. 

 

[tamarack]

32 minutes ago, moneypitmike said:

Monthly grade time:

December achieves an A-.   The early snows were incredible and we salvaged a couple events that had looked like rainers  that were converted into veritable winter events.  The only thing that kept this from being an A+ was, of course, our inability to retain any of it.  At least we begin 2020 with snow and ice on the ground.

Yesterday pulled the month out of D-level, but it's still only C/C-, probably the latter.  Snowfall was 84% of the month's average and temp was essentially average (0.1° AN.)  The lack of temp extremes also pulls the grade down a bit.  Highest was 46 and lowest -9, with just that day (21st) colder than -2.  For December in this frost pocket, those minima were pretty lame.  Finishing with a nice 7" event was great but can't cover the fact that 3" was next biggest snowfall.  A decent, nothing outstanding (here), average December.

[CoastalWx]

1 minute ago, OceanStWx said:

Nobody is trolling. I'm telling you how verification works. In my opinion it's too often subjective, but when I do winter verification up here I try and be as objective as possible. I also agree some parts of CT will meet ice storm criteria, but claiming the state saw two this month is not accurate. You yourself even said it wasn't a damaging ice storm.

I did my masters thesis on this stuff. If you look hard enough you can always find a tree down, 6" of snow, or 0.5" ice on a tree branch to claim a successful forecast, but the reality is that helps no one. You don't improve your forecasting, and it actually taints the record if it is being used for research. 

 

Mic Drop.

[OceanStWx]

Just now, tamarack said:

Yesterday pulled the month out of D-level, but it's still only C/C-, probably the latter.  Snowfall was 84% of the month's average and temp was essentially average (0.1° AN.)  The lack of temp extremes also pulls the grade down a bit.  Highest was 46 and lowest -9, with just that day (21st) colder than -2.  For December in this frost pocket, those minima were pretty lame.  Finishing with a nice 7" event was great but can't cover the fact that 3" was next biggest snowfall.  A decent, nothing outstanding (here), average December.

Not too often you see the north/south gradient reversed for an entire month like it has been. A single storm sure, but to have just about every system perform better to your south is a bit of an oddity. We go from like 40" near the MA border to the high teens in your area. 

[Ginx snewx]

7 minutes ago, OceanStWx said:

Nobody is trolling. I'm telling you how verification works. In my opinion it's too often subjective, but when I do winter verification up here I try and be as objective as possible. I also agree some parts of CT will meet ice storm criteria, but claiming the state saw two this month is not accurate. You yourself even said it wasn't a damaging ice storm.

I did my masters thesis on this stuff. If you look hard enough you can always find a tree down, 6" of snow, or 0.5" ice on a tree branch to claim a successful forecast, but the reality is that helps no one. You don't improve your forecasting, and it actually taints the record if it is being used for research. 

 

I don't care at all really. It wasn't damaging in my hood, others saw damage. I never ever claimed we had 2, never.  As far as verification goes that's all your gig. Us mere mortals see thick ice, it's an ice storm.  2 to 4 inches of snow it's a snowstorm. You really want to improve research get NCDC off its ass and correct their incomplete incorrect databases.

You guys troll all the time so once in a while it's good to get you wound up. We joke 

[CoastalWx]