Wednesday 12/11 SNE Snow Threat

[MJO812]

Models failed for alot of areas

[CTWeatherFreak]

about 2.5" here

[bristolri_wx]

2 minutes ago, eduggs said:

There's too much gambling and gut "calls" is "meteorology." It does a disservice to professional forecasters who have a lot riding on their decisions.  Stupid "calls" should be called out for what they are.  And as far as I can tell (been following this thread for days), you guys really dropped the ball in this regard.  

My call was model consensus.  It worked out very well this time and almost always beats human forecasters.

Which models? Because the models I’ve been looking at were not showing the QPF required for a widespread 3-6” event up until the very last minute IMO...

[Ginx snewx]

2 minutes ago, Snow88 said:

Models failed for alot of areas

Meteorology not modeology. Ha. How much Ant?

[radarman]

3 hours ago, HIPPYVALLEY said:

Berkshire East reporting no new snow and light rain.  

 I am a little surprised they got no snow at their elevation? 

I frickin love the place, but they are horrible at the internet.  Just glad they installed a webcam, which actually updates from time to time.

 

2 hours ago, w1pf said:

just a dusting here in Amherst.

 

2 hours ago, Damage In Tolland said:

There’s your jack 

MASSACHUSETTS

...Hampden County...
   Brimfield              6.0   635 AM 12/11  Broadcast Media
   Palmer                 5.0   626 AM 12/11  Broadcast Media
   Monson                 5.0   625 AM 12/11  Broadcast Media

 

1 hour ago, HIPPYVALLEY said:

Pretty insane gradient if you had 2.5” and Northampton had trace. 

2.5" in Btown, wedged in between the apparent jack one town south and the dusting on the valley floor at UMass.

[MJO812]

1 minute ago, bristolri_wx said:

Which models? Because the models I’ve been looking at were not showing the QPF required for a widespread 3-6” event up until the very last minute IMO...

Every model yesterday had the bulk missing sne

[MJO812]

Just now, Ginx snewx said:

Meteorology not modeology. Ha. How much Ant?

Colder surfaces covered

Snowing good now

[bristolri_wx]

This was a nice little event. Just drove down to Newport from Bristol for work. Moderate to heavy almost all the way down. Wish I had shot of all the surfers in the snow at Sachusest/2nd Beach. Definitely 2-3” all the way down to the coast.

[MJO812]

55 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

I'm at 20"   ... 

I'm at 1 

[eduggs]

3 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

Well not always. We had an event in Mar 2015 that wasn't far off. Models way too generous near BOS with snow for the same reason. But this one had better dynamics in the same area. 

Models get it "wrong" almost always because of a combination of the relative coarseness of data ingestion and parametrization.  But model physics is incredibly sophisticated these days.  We can create a very accurate representation of geophysical parameter evolution.  Forecast errors are almost always attributable to input errors (outside of the meso/micro scale).

[Lava Rock]

Nice job sne. At least it's white and snowy somewhere in NE.

[bristolri_wx]

Just now, Snow88 said:

Every model yesterday had the bulk missing sne

For clarification I was replying to the other post. yes I agree, not sure what models actually showed this outcome, even if blended. This was definitely a storm where experience and skill (which I admittedly don’t have) would win out over modeling output.

[Baroclinic Zone]

Coming up on just about 60min of 1/4mi vis at TAN.

[eduggs]

6 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said:

Um I had 3 to 6 for 4 days, which thread where you following again?

No.  I'm not saying that everyone agreed with a forecast of C-1".  I mean that very few people expressed the view that that was a non-scientific and unreliable forecast... basically a guess.  Kind of like a forecast of persistence or default.

[Damage In Tolland]

2 minutes ago, Snow88 said:

Every model yesterday had the bulk missing sne

No they didn’t . Only 6z did that and we mentioned to stay the course and 12z would amp back up (which they did)

[Ginx snewx]

1 minute ago, Damage In Tolland said:

No they didn’t . Only 6z did that and we mentioned to stay the course and 12z would amp back up (which they did)

Tossed models up until 0Z last night 

[HIPPYVALLEY]

6 minutes ago, radarman said:

I frickin love the place, but they are horrible at the internet.  Just glad they installed a webcam, which actually updates from time to time.

 

 

 

2.5" in Btown, wedged in between the apparent jack one town south and the dusting on the valley floor at UMass.

Weird gradient. 

[HIPPYVALLEY]

Sun coming out to the west, should be a nice day.  Sad that we missed the snow but happy that roads and driveways are clear and dry.

[rclab]

3 minutes ago, Snow88 said:

Colder surfaces covered

Snowing good now

My postage stamp UHI yard in the Hill/Hook has gone from wet to white to wet to white to wet to now white. It sort of like our NY Metro forum thread with at 69 foot model output tug of war between S88 and S19. As always ......

[eduggs]

1 minute ago, bristolri_wx said:

For clarification I was replying to the other post. yes I agree, not sure what models actually showed this outcome, even if blended. This was definitely a storm where experience and skill (which I admittedly don’t have) would win out over modeling output.

Actually the precise opposite is true here.  A model blend worked out really nicely I think.  Trying to out-think the models burned a few people.  And it was relatively consistent for days.  As a result, there were some really good amateur forecasts on this forum.

[CoastalWx]

9 minutes ago, eduggs said:

Models get it "wrong" almost always because of a combination of the relative coarseness of data ingestion and parametrization.  But model physics is incredibly sophisticated these days.  We can create a very accurate representation of geophysical parameter evolution.  Forecast errors are almost always attributable to input errors (outside of the meso/micro scale).

Sometimes they just don't get things 100% correct. This leads to non-linear effects...IE heavy snow or much lighter snow. 

[eduggs]

Seriously though.  This board is the last bastion of knowledgable amateur meteorologists.  We rely on you guys to call out the hype and the gut-instinct and the non-scientific forecasts.  Twitter is riddled with it.  Everybody thinks their an expert.  People get really confused.

[weatherwiz]

Steve did nail this...not just the totals but I'm pretty sure he provided rational as well for his forecast. 

Even if a 3-6'' range was a tad high...IMO it still worked perfectly b/c that sends a message to people. Had to go to the dentist this AM and some people there said it seemed like we got more than we were supposed to...my brother's girlfriend said the same. 

One thing I always love to do after an event is go back and see did I do something wrong...overlook something...and if I had to do it again would I have done anything differently. Upon this reflection, I think the only thing I would have done is 1-3'' or maybe a C to 2''. The concerns for dry air was a very real problem...it just didn't really work in as quickly and the initial fronto band played a much larger role. This could have gone either way. 

Great job, Steve!!!

[eduggs]

8 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

Sometimes they just don't get things 100% correct. This leads to non-linear effects...IE heavy snow or much lighter snow. 

I completely agree.  And obviously they never get it completely correct.  Atmospheric physics and its cascading causal effects are incredibly complicated.  Unfortunately humans are not very good at diagnosing when and how models make errors (at least in real time).  It used to be easier when models had consistent biases and poorer skill.  But it gets harder and harder as models improve.  

And worse, there is a lot of confirmation bias and problems associated with small sample sizes.  If we think we identify a model error once and then the model busts as we expected... we often incorrectly conclude that we correctly identified the error and can apply it to future scenarios.  But more times than not it was just random chance and coincidence.  The models are extremely complicated.

In my experience, the best contributions that human forecasters make over weather models happens at the very local level... sub-regional or mesoscale.  That's where consistent biases associated with local temperature or topographical effects can be identified.  At the synoptic scale, I really don't believe humans can outforecast models in most cases.

[Greg]

31 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said:

Brimfield with a 6 from a trained spotter.  Also 

Worcester County...
Rutland 6.8 840 AM 12/11 Ham Radio
Holden 5.8 700 AM 12/11 Trained Spotter
Sterling 5.3 548 AM 12/11 Ham Radio

The Rutland amount looks a little weenish. Did they lean that stick?

[TauntonBlizzard2013]

A shade under 4.5” here.... coming down good still 

[WinterWolf]

1 minute ago, eduggs said:

Seriously though.  This board is the last bastion of knowledgable amateur meteorologists.  We rely on you guys to call out the hype and the gut-instinct and the non-scientific forecasts.  Twitter is riddled with it.  Everybody thinks their an expert.  People get really confused.

I see your point Duggs, and I can identify with it. But Perhaps it was just a tad harsh though. Sometimes the presentation is just as important as the message.  

Wiz made great points on why he thought the dry air would win out. But perhaps He let the dry air idea consume his forecast Too much?  And I’m no MET at all, and don’t claim to be. Nor do I have the understanding that Wiz or any Red Tag has.

But meteorology seems to be a very delicate balance many times.  As soon as you get consumed with looking at one thing/aspect, that’s the downfall it seems.  Something can always offset something else, and it’s different in every case.  The dry air was there..but it didn’t do what some thought it would; or at least not to the degree that it was thought it could.  
 

Credit to Kevin and Ginxy...they had the right idea on this one. 

[TauntonBlizzard2013]

Maybe we push 5”... still seems like another hour or so to go

[Ginx snewx]

5 minutes ago, weatherwiz said:

Steve did nail this...not just the totals but I'm pretty sure he provided rational as well for his forecast. 

Even if a 3-6'' range was a tad high...IMO it still worked perfectly b/c that sends a message to people. Had to go to the dentist this AM and some people there said it seemed like we got more than we were supposed to...my brother's girlfriend said the same. 

One thing I always love to do after an event is go back and see did I do something wrong...overlook something...and if I had to do it again would I have done anything differently. Upon this reflection, I think the only thing I would have done is 1-3'' or maybe a C to 2''. The concerns for dry air was a very real problem...it just didn't really work in as quickly and the initial fronto band played a much larger role. This could have gone either way. 

Great job, Steve!!!

I think not having hourly soundings can result in some missed opportunities for analysis. Also there was lift below the 850 dry air that produced some snow. Looks like 3 to 6 amounts were close to final outcome. Snowing good here now.

[weathafella]

Eduggs, wiz is a trained met who made a conjecture that ended up being wrong but is often right based on the sounding.  He’s always respectful and a very nice young man F2F.  You’re acting like a complete dick.