dryslot Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 That's ugly ice on the HRRR, Hopefully that's more IP the zr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40/70 Benchmark Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 This is the most boring obs thread since one of the Wiz severe events that wasn't. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 On 2/6/2020 at 7:51 PM, The 4 Seasons said: They definitely should increase it to .75 or even 1.00 because it seems radial ice is about 50% maybe up to 60 or 70% of that of flat ice measurements. .5 is the threshold for the majority of the Northeast. Which would translate to around .3 for branches. Expand I think radial is even lower than that...its close to 0.4 ratio to flat ice. It does vary a little bit depending on conditions, but if you take the average accretion efficiency of the two then you get around a 0.4 ratio of radial to flat. But either way...I agree 0.75 flat would be a good number because that is when damage starts to accelerate. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#NoPoles Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 And we ping Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamarack Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 On 2/6/2020 at 7:23 PM, OceanStWx said: The math checks out. It's good to remind everyone that ASOS measures an elevated flat surface, so not your typical power line or tree branch radial measurement. That conversion would be more like 0.15" ice. Expand That's the official method but I find it counterintuitive. If my bent-over gray birch has 1st-year twigs (among the skinniest of any tree) having ice the diameter of a hot dog, calling it 0.3" accretion doesn't seem to make sense. If there were 1" precip with extremely efficient accretion, the max for the record could be no greater than 1/2"? (Not that I expect any change in the standard.) Or what T4S said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40/70 Benchmark Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 Going to Montreal in a few weeks....wish it were today. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dryslot Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 On 2/6/2020 at 7:55 PM, 40/70 Benchmark said: This is the most boring obs thread since one of the Wiz severe events that wasn't. Expand I could post every 30 secs like most of the weenies in SNE do on these events if that would help the page count any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanStWx Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 On 2/6/2020 at 7:51 PM, The 4 Seasons said: They definitely should increase it to .75 or even 1.00 because it seems radial ice is about 50% maybe up to 60 or 70% of that of flat ice measurements. .5 is the threshold for the majority of the Northeast. Which would translate to around .3 for branches. Expand Will is right, flat ice to radial is 40%. On 2/6/2020 at 7:53 PM, ORH_wxman said: 0.75 would be a good number too since that would be like a third of an inch of radial ice. You start getting the power issues around that mark...I've always noticed around 1/3 to 3/8 when the damae starts accelerating....which made me think that 1/2 radial was too steep a criteria for ice storm warning. . Expand Anecdotally that's what we hear from utilities. Around 0.3" you start getting power issues. And it wouldn't be that drastic a jump from 0.5 to 0.75" vs going all the way to an inch or more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40/70 Benchmark Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 On 2/6/2020 at 8:00 PM, dryslot said: I could post every 30 secs like most of the weenies in SNE do on these events if that would help the page count any. Expand Its not the count...its the content. Its either a suicidal tirade, a tutorial on the measuring practices of radial ice, or high wind fantasies. If that doesn't say rain in sne, I don't know what does. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreaves Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 On 2/6/2020 at 8:00 PM, 40/70 Benchmark said: Going to Montreal in a few weeks....wish it were today. Expand Me too. Sabres vs. Habs on March 12th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40/70 Benchmark Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 On 2/6/2020 at 8:04 PM, 40/70 Benchmark said: Its not the count...its the content. Its either a suicidal tirade, a tutorial on the measuring practices for radial ice, or high wind fansies. If that doesn't say rain in sne, I don't know what does. Expand 38 shades of "Who Cares"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
It's Always Sunny Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 On 2/6/2020 at 7:46 PM, OceanStWx said: Well the ASOS measurements are relatively new, so we're kind of standardizing them now. We have typically forecast radial and measured that way in New England. I think part of spotter training going forward needs to focus on stating your measurement method and the NWS will have to decide how to report it on an LSR (e.g. reporting flat but remarking that it was taken radial). NWS is supposed to forecast flat ice now. This was never how it was done regionally. So ice storm criteria of 0.5" is more akin to damage expected from radial accretion. If we issued ice storm warnings for flat ice that's like 0.2" radial. That's not going to be much damage. Expand What is your runoff correction? That's a common topic of debate when forecasting ice at least during my time in the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dryslot Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 On 2/6/2020 at 8:04 PM, 40/70 Benchmark said: Its not the count...its the content. Its either a suicidal tirade, a tutorial on the measuring practices for radial ice, or high wind fansies. If that doesn't say rain in sne, I don't know what does. Expand Seeing there wasn't an obs thread, I guess that's what we have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanStWx Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 On 2/6/2020 at 7:57 PM, tamarack said: That's the official method but I find it counterintuitive. If my bent-over gray birch has 1st-year twigs (among the skinniest of any tree) having ice the diameter of a hot dog, calling it 0.3" accretion doesn't seem to make sense. If there were 1" precip with extremely efficient accretion, the max for the record could be no greater than 1/2"? (Not that I expect any change in the standard.) Or what T4S said. Expand The radial idea I believe came from original load testing on utility lines. They were rated by the radius of ice accretion. So the formula for reporting to the NWS became: (thickness on one side + thickness on the other - thickness of the branch/line)/2. Because even if you had an inch of ice on your hypothetical branch, reporting 0.5" radial accretion is still the same amount of ice and weight on that branch. However, flat ice accumulates totally differently than on branches or lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanStWx Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 On 2/6/2020 at 8:06 PM, It's Always Sunny said: What is your runoff correction? That's a common topic of debate when forecasting ice at least during my time in the field. Expand We use the FRAM method, which more or less drops to 50% run off once precip rate is over 0.1"/hour. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoalaBeer Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 36.5F here on the immediate coast with a wind driven mist. Walking the dog out on the beach wasn't pleasant and the two inches of snow on the ground this morning is already long gone. Wish I could at least rip some winds overnight into tomorrow but the setup doesn't look conductive for that either. What a monster moisture feed on satellite though! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamarack Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 On 2/6/2020 at 7:53 PM, ORH_wxman said: 0.75 would be a good number too since that would be like a third of an inch of radial ice. You start getting the power issues around that mark...I've always noticed around 1/3 to 3/8 when the damae starts accelerating....which made me think that 1/2 radial was too steep a criteria for ice storm warning. . Expand A long time forester and old-growth specialist with experience in the NNE mountains commented following the 1998 ice storm that serious tree damage began at the 20 mm mark. That has to be the flat surface, because a radial mark of 20 mm would be a repeat of 1998 in the WVL-AUG-Gardiner area. Twigs plus ice reached 1.5-2" diameter in that part of the state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanStWx Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 On 2/6/2020 at 8:13 PM, tamarack said: A long time forester and old-growth specialist with experience in the NNE mountains commented following the 1998 ice storm that serious tree damage began at the 20 mm mark. That has to be the flat surface, because a radial mark of 20 mm would be a repeat of 1998 in the WVL-AUG-Gardiner area. Twigs plus ice reached 1.5-2" diameter in that part of the state. Expand I'd say that's about ballpark what I think of in my head, 0.3" power issues, 0.75" disaster area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PivotPoint Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 18z NAM holds serve. Maybe slight tick south with best qpf from prior run Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreaves Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 On 2/6/2020 at 8:16 PM, PivotPoint said: 18z NAM holds serve. Maybe slight tick south with best qpf from prior run Expand I'd like to lock that now. Stop the presses on the other model runs. And I want it exactly as its shown here, none of that "It's the NAM cut back on the qpf by 1/3" BS. I want the whole enchilada 12" of snow fortified by some sleet and freezing rain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 Stop with those TT maps. That includes sleet and inflates those totals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HIPPYVALLEY Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 On 2/6/2020 at 7:55 PM, dryslot said: That's ugly ice on the HRRR, Hopefully that's more IP the zr. Expand You had better not steal Kevin’s ice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whineminster Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 On 2/6/2020 at 8:39 PM, CoastalWx said: Stop with those TT maps. That includes sleet and inflates those totals. Expand If NAM is right then Hubb and I might hear some cracking branches tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 On 2/6/2020 at 8:46 PM, Whineminster said: If NAM is right then Hubb and I might hear some cracking branches tonight. Expand Depends on precip amount. Not sure if that is doable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanStWx Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 On 2/6/2020 at 8:49 PM, CoastalWx said: Depends on precip amount. Not sure if that is doable. Expand That's the rub. Models notoriously overforecast QPF in the dry slot, but what does fall will likely be more efficient like drizzle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dryslot Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 On 2/6/2020 at 8:42 PM, HIPPYVALLEY said: You had better not steal Kevin’s ice! Expand Its going to be frozen of some sort, No way around it, Surface temps don't sniff 32°F Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PivotPoint Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 On 2/6/2020 at 8:39 PM, CoastalWx said: Stop with those TT maps. That includes sleet and inflates those totals. Expand You’re right. I still think it shows trend wise that the big slug of qpf distribution is not still jogging north. Gotta stop the trend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PivotPoint Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 On 2/6/2020 at 8:33 PM, mreaves said: I'd like to lock that now. Stop the presses on the other model runs. And I want it exactly as its shown here, none of that "It's the NAM cut back on the qpf by 1/3" BS. I want the whole enchilada 12" of snow fortified by some sleet and freezing rain. Expand I like where your head is at. Gotta get the next couple runs to pull her back south. Stop the mid level warm air push. Make Big Snow Storms Great Again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ma blizzard Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 18z NAM 3km shows cold tuck w/ sub 32 degree temps for a lot of E/C MA northwest of 128 overnight something to keep an eye on anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lava Rock Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 24.3F. I hate it when sleets below 32. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now