March 2020 disc/obs

[CoastalWx]

Just now, Damage In Tolland said:

Ginx mentioned it way back in Jan and was tossed on here. It was close. 

I think he said 89-90

[weatherwiz]

Just now, MJO812 said:

Models have been atrocious this winter

This is actually something I think about alot. Was it the case of the models being bad or is it how information is being portrayed/relayed? I know I've said this a million times but I think it's important enough to do so. This is something you see all over social media and I saw it at school but too many folks just run to model snowfall maps, SLP maps, QPF maps and use those as a basis for a forecast or as a means to communicate weather instead of analyzing the bigger picture. (This isn't pertaining to anyone here on the board...this is geared to social media/what I've seen from those around me). But what happens is these situations don't pan out and the models get the blame and nobody wants to take responsibility for their wrong doing. 

I know you're part of many groups on facebook and active on twitter so you'll know what I'm talking about but so many people try to use a model snowfall map for however many days down the road as a basis to indicate there is potential for a storm or a big storm...now I guess in a way you can do that as it means the model is "showing a storm". But just b/c a model shows a storm doesn't automatically mean there is potential. The bigger picture needs to be analyzed. If the model is showing a storm but the pattern doesn't seem to support it or it doesn't make sense...chances are it's not going to happen. You can't assess this just by looking at a QPF map or snowfall output map. 

Before these model snow maps became a thing actual forecasting and diagnostics had to be a thing. How many of these D7-10 day storms would get the attention they did without them? Probably very few of them. I get it's fun within the weather community and it's all good fun to post them here (b/c everyone knows how to handle them) but when they get tossed around social media it becomes a big problem and it generates hype. This is leading to the public to lose confidence in meteorologists...I hear this stuff all the time from people.

IMO though winter weather forecasting has become terrible and the biggest shame is the ones out there who do a phenomenal job with it (forecasting, communicating, etc) are being overshadowed. People look at snow maps and it's off to the races. GFS snow map shows 15-25'' over a large area (even though when looking at the setup it's extremely unlikely) and it's "sound the alarms...historic storm coming". Storm happens...drops 8-12'' (still significant) and it gets labeled bust b/c a freaking map output showed 2-3x that.

I don't understand the love for the model snow maps...whether it's just pure laziness, the fact they can show a ton of snow which people love...idk. It's not like they even incorporate the most important ingredients to determining snowfall. Oh yeah let's take model QPF (which models suck at to begin with) and multiply that by a fixed constant ratio (which ratios throughout the storm are not fixed or constant) and viola that's how much snow is going to happen...and then...and then you have the maps WHICH INCORPORATE SLEET....WHO THE HELL CAME UP WITH THAT IDEA???? Take that code and slap it right across the face of the individual who did that. 

Obviously models aren't perfect and they are subject to wavering (even inside a certain amount of time) but if there was more focus in analyzing the synoptics and features aloft with enough skill and knowledge very solid forecasts can be made...this is how humans beat computers in terms of forecasting and why computers will never take over. Forecasting is much more than just rip and reading model output and making a forecast. 

[MJO812]

1 minute ago, weatherwiz said:

This is actually something I think about alot. Was it the case of the models being bad or is it how information is being portrayed/relayed? I know I've said this a million times but I think it's important enough to do so. This is something you see all over social media and I saw it at school but too many folks just run to model snowfall maps, SLP maps, QPF maps and use those as a basis for a forecast or as a means to communicate weather instead of analyzing the bigger picture. (This isn't pertaining to anyone here on the board...this is geared to social media/what I've seen from those around me). But what happens is these situations don't pan out and the models get the blame and nobody wants to take responsibility for their wrong doing. 

I know you're part of many groups on facebook and active on twitter so you'll know what I'm talking about but so many people try to use a model snowfall map for however many days down the road as a basis to indicate there is potential for a storm or a big storm...now I guess in a way you can do that as it means the model is "showing a storm". But just b/c a model shows a storm doesn't automatically mean there is potential. The bigger picture needs to be analyzed. If the model is showing a storm but the pattern doesn't seem to support it or it doesn't make sense...chances are it's not going to happen. You can't assess this just by looking at a QPF map or snowfall output map. 

Before these model snow maps became a thing actual forecasting and diagnostics had to be a thing. How many of these D7-10 day storms would get the attention they did without them? Probably very few of them. I get it's fun within the weather community and it's all good fun to post them here (b/c everyone knows how to handle them) but when they get tossed around social media it becomes a big problem and it generates hype. This is leading to the public to lose confidence in meteorologists...I hear this stuff all the time from people.

IMO though winter weather forecasting has become terrible and the biggest shame is the ones out there who do a phenomenal job with it (forecasting, communicating, etc) are being overshadowed. People look at snow maps and it's off to the races. GFS snow map shows 15-25'' over a large area (even though when looking at the setup it's extremely unlikely) and it's "sound the alarms...historic storm coming". Storm happens...drops 8-12'' (still significant) and it gets labeled bust b/c a freaking map output showed 2-3x that.

I don't understand the love for the model snow maps...whether it's just pure laziness, the fact they can show a ton of snow which people love...idk. It's not like they even incorporate the most important ingredients to determining snowfall. Oh yeah let's take model QPF (which models suck at to begin with) and multiply that by a fixed constant ratio (which ratios throughout the storm are not fixed or constant) and viola that's how much snow is going to happen...and then...and then you have the maps WHICH INCORPORATE SLEET....WHO THE HELL CAME UP WITH THAT IDEA???? Take that code and slap it right across the face of the individual who did that. 

Obviously models aren't perfect and they are subject to wavering (even inside a certain amount of time) but if there was more focus in analyzing the synoptics and features aloft with enough skill and knowledge very solid forecasts can be made...this is how humans beat computers in terms of forecasting and why computers will never take over. Forecasting is much more than just rip and reading model output and making a forecast. 

There are a few facebook pages who hype all the time ( nycweather )

[OSUmetstud]

I'm pretty sure models handle fast flow regimes considerably worse than slower, blocking regimes. The 2009-2010 winter was a benchmark for great medium range modeling. When everything is low amplitude and super fast, things can either appear or disappear pretty quickly. 

[weatherwiz]

3 minutes ago, MJO812 said:

There are a few facebook pages who hype all the time ( nycweather )

I've had to leave alot of those groups...nothing but garbage. these people hype everything up and then get all upset and blame the models...but they're the clowns who screwed up. 

Oh hey the total snowfall accumulations through 384-hours show 47.5'' from location A to location B the next 15 days is going to be epic  

[weatherwiz]

1 minute ago, OSUmetstud said:

I'm pretty sure models handle fast flow regimes considerably worse than slower, blocking regimes. The 2009-2010 winter was a benchmark for great medium range modeling. When everything is low amplitude and super fast, things can either appear or disappear pretty quickly. 

Agreed...I think I mentioned that a few times as one of the main reasons why models have struggled. When flow is fast there are usually so many moving pieces and any one of those can be the main player. 

[It's Always Sunny]

9 minutes ago, weatherwiz said:

This is actually something I think about alot. Was it the case of the models being bad or is it how information is being portrayed/relayed? I know I've said this a million times but I think it's important enough to do so. This is something you see all over social media and I saw it at school but too many folks just run to model snowfall maps, SLP maps, QPF maps and use those as a basis for a forecast or as a means to communicate weather instead of analyzing the bigger picture. (This isn't pertaining to anyone here on the board...this is geared to social media/what I've seen from those around me). But what happens is these situations don't pan out and the models get the blame and nobody wants to take responsibility for their wrong doing. 

I know you're part of many groups on facebook and active on twitter so you'll know what I'm talking about but so many people try to use a model snowfall map for however many days down the road as a basis to indicate there is potential for a storm or a big storm...now I guess in a way you can do that as it means the model is "showing a storm". But just b/c a model shows a storm doesn't automatically mean there is potential. The bigger picture needs to be analyzed. If the model is showing a storm but the pattern doesn't seem to support it or it doesn't make sense...chances are it's not going to happen. You can't assess this just by looking at a QPF map or snowfall output map. 

Before these model snow maps became a thing actual forecasting and diagnostics had to be a thing. How many of these D7-10 day storms would get the attention they did without them? Probably very few of them. I get it's fun within the weather community and it's all good fun to post them here (b/c everyone knows how to handle them) but when they get tossed around social media it becomes a big problem and it generates hype. This is leading to the public to lose confidence in meteorologists...I hear this stuff all the time from people.

IMO though winter weather forecasting has become terrible and the biggest shame is the ones out there who do a phenomenal job with it (forecasting, communicating, etc) are being overshadowed. People look at snow maps and it's off to the races. GFS snow map shows 15-25'' over a large area (even though when looking at the setup it's extremely unlikely) and it's "sound the alarms...historic storm coming". Storm happens...drops 8-12'' (still significant) and it gets labeled bust b/c a freaking map output showed 2-3x that.

I don't understand the love for the model snow maps...whether it's just pure laziness, the fact they can show a ton of snow which people love...idk. It's not like they even incorporate the most important ingredients to determining snowfall. Oh yeah let's take model QPF (which models suck at to begin with) and multiply that by a fixed constant ratio (which ratios throughout the storm are not fixed or constant) and viola that's how much snow is going to happen...and then...and then you have the maps WHICH INCORPORATE SLEET....WHO THE HELL CAME UP WITH THAT IDEA???? Take that code and slap it right across the face of the individual who did that. 

Obviously models aren't perfect and they are subject to wavering (even inside a certain amount of time) but if there was more focus in analyzing the synoptics and features aloft with enough skill and knowledge very solid forecasts can be made...this is how humans beat computers in terms of forecasting and why computers will never take over. Forecasting is much more than just rip and reading model output and making a forecast. 

Unfortunately we live in a society where television viewers and Facebook/Twitter dominate.  Those with weather knowledge know better than to buy into the stuff we see plastered all over the internet and tv but the general public latches onto that type of stuff. Those with knowledge should also know better to look at things synoptically or taking a look at the ensembles to see if the operations solution even makes sense and is feasible.

I work in an environment where they play the Weather Channel on tv and I swear half my job is to calm everyone down based off what they see.

[CapturedNature]

9 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

I think he said 89-90

Yeah, that's a better analog though we're only in early March and I'm not one for counting my chickens before they hatch.

[It's Always Sunny]

6 minutes ago, OSUmetstud said:

I'm pretty sure models handle fast flow regimes considerably worse than slower, blocking regimes. The 2009-2010 winter was a benchmark for great medium range modeling. When everything is low amplitude and super fast, things can either appear or disappear pretty quickly. 

 

4 minutes ago, weatherwiz said:

Agreed...I think I mentioned that a few times as one of the main reasons why models have struggled. When flow is fast there are usually so many moving pieces and any one of those can be the main player. 

I agree with that as well.  One setup I think that can be excluded from this assumption are Clipper systems; those are easy to track despite them being quick hitters.

[weatherwiz]

2 minutes ago, It's Always Sunny said:

Unfortunately we live in a society where television viewers and Facebook/Twitter dominate.  Those with weather knowledge know better than to buy into the stuff we see plastered all over the internet and tv but the general public latches onto that type of stuff. Those with knowledge should also know better to look at things synoptically or taking a look at the ensembles to see if the operations solution even makes sense and is feasible.

I work in an environment where they play the Weather Channel on tv and I swear half my job is to calm everyone down based off what they see.

What I find half amusing is the general public will complain about hyped weather forecasts yet they keep reverting back to the SAME sources which hype weather...it's like they're drawn in and can't escape. This is why there is truth to what Kevin says...hype sells. Hype does sell and it's an unfortunate shame. 

I've had to do that too with TWC haha...last winter someone at work sent me this article about that was written about the Polar Vortex...I had to explain what it was and what it really meant in terms of weather. 

[It's Always Sunny]

1 minute ago, weatherwiz said:

What I find half amusing is the general public will complain about hyped weather forecasts yet they keep reverting back to the SAME sources which hype weather...it's like they're drawn in and can't escape. This is why there is truth to what Kevin says...hype sells. Hype does sell and it's an unfortunate shame. 

I've had to do that too with TWC haha...last winter someone at work sent me this article about that was written about the Polar Vortex...I had to explain what it was and what it really meant in terms of weather. 

Lol I know myself and I'm sure other mets on here have had to deal with that too. That and bombogenesis.

[Typhoon Tip]

8 minutes ago, OSUmetstud said:

I'm pretty sure models handle fast flow regimes considerably worse than slower, blocking regimes. The 2009-2010 winter was a benchmark for great medium range modeling. When everything is low amplitude and super fast, things can either appear or disappear pretty quickly. 

Bingo!

Yeah... and a +AO winter ( predominating ) has meant a lot of gradient saturation between the lower Ferral latitudes and those deep cold heights associated to the former -

The lower latitude heights are also expanding across the 30 year analysis prior to this winter; it is being papered - Hadley Cell expansion. It's only on the order of 2.5 deg since the 1950s... which in scalar consideration is a small number.  But it's not that simple... throughout a a gravitationally compressed fluid medium - it means it's sensitive to mass changes in that range, and one such way is that it has to expand laterally in latitude, and that increases velocity. 

That is happening - and I realize I'm preaching to the quire here ...just saying -- while there is a ranging +AO?    Good luck... there's a reason for all these land-based velocity records being set by west to east flying commercial airlines and it's likely the combination of the two.. These land-speed records started happening more frequently some ten to fifteen years ago, but the frequency seemed to be up this season.   

[Typhoon Tip]

That extended Euro is ugly on steroids

[Hazey]

This winter was better the farther northeast you were. Cape Breton and eastern Newfoundland are having a banner winter(well above). I will be lucky to crawl my way to average or slightly below. NNE will be sub par except extreme northern areas. Obviously you guys in SNE have had it really bad. The most annoying thing for me this winter is how many teases we had. Like having the ball ripped away time after time. Just a barrage of close but no cigar misses. Just makes a crappy winter worse in my opinion. 

[CoastalWx]

1 minute ago, Hazey said:

This winter was better the farther northeast you were. Cape Breton and eastern Newfoundland are having a banner winter(well above). I will be lucky to crawl my way to average or slightly below. NNE will be sub par except extreme northern areas. Obviously you guys in SNE have had it really bad. The most annoying thing for me this winter is how many teases we had. Like having the ball ripped away time after time. Just a barrage of close but no cigar misses. Just makes a crappy winter worse in my opinion. 

We haven’t even had a tease until today lol.

[weatherwiz]

i wish I was alive in 1951...I am always mesmerized at this long tracked tornado that went through CT. Very underrated tornado. Anyways, if I was alive...I WOULD HAVE SEEN IT!!! I've marked 3 locations I've lived in West Hartford. ughhhhhhhh

 

Here's a wider view

 

[ORH_wxman]

7 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

We haven’t even had a tease until today lol.

1/7 kind of sucked. That was the storm where the cranberry bogs got 4"....but it could have been a really big event. Little nuke that actually trackd basically over the benchmark.

[CoastalWx]

4 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

1/7 kind of sucked. That was the storm where the cranberry bogs got 4"....but it could have been a really big event. Little nuke that actually trackd basically over the benchmark.

Yeah true I guess. Overall it’s been a winter where we haven’t had a big tease. Even 2012 had the s coast deformation band....you could argue it didn’t tease them. 

[Ginx snewx]

1 hour ago, Damage In Tolland said:

Ginx mentioned it way back in Jan and was tossed on here. It was close. 

89 90 

[Damage In Tolland]

1 minute ago, Ginx snewx said:

89 90 

You know me and my years. That was it I guess . I thought 81 was the bitter Nov and Dec and then it ended . Like this winter which was a bit warmer those 2 months 

[Damage In Tolland]

24 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

We haven’t even had a tease until today lol.

This wasn’t a tease. Other than a few who don’t think persistence was the was way to go after Jan, most didn’t think this had a chance other than maybe a graze . 

[CoastalWx]

10 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said:

This wasn’t a tease. Other than a few who don’t think persistence was the was way to go after Jan, most didn’t think this had a chance other than maybe a graze . 

I’m missing a blizzard by 70 miles. It’s a tease.

[forkyfork]

this always happens with the nam and capture scenarios 

[Damage In Tolland]

7 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

I’m missing a blizzard by 70 miles. It’s a tease.

Only if you bought into it and thought it had a chance. If you didn’t and didn’t track every model run, it wasn’t 

[CoastalWx]

14 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said:

Only if you bought into it and thought it had a chance. If you didn’t and didn’t track every model run, it wasn’t 

 

[40/70 Benchmark]

19 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said:

Only if you bought into it and thought it had a chance. If you didn’t and didn’t track every model run, it wasn’t 

Didn't you make a FB post about expecting snow a few days ago?

[CoastalWx]

1 minute ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Didn't you make a FB post about expecting snow a few days ago?

He did.  

[Cold Miser]

23 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said:

Only if you bought into it and thought it had a chance. If you didn’t and didn’t track every model run, it wasn’t 

Exactly. It is Scott's fault that we lose out. ...Except for maybe Nantucket.  

If it's not other regions stealing our snow it's individuals not doing enough to will it to fruition.  

[powderfreak]

4 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Didn't you make a FB post about expecting snow a few days ago?

It was a moment of weakness!  You can take the weenie out of the snow but can’t fully take the hope out of the weenie.

[Cold Miser]

4 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Didn't you make a FB post about expecting snow a few days ago?

Weasel word "possible" saved him. He is a good salesman.