Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,584
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    23Yankee
    Newest Member
    23Yankee
    Joined

1st PROBABILITY FORECAST FROM DT


Guest someguy

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

DT do you have any forecasts out for the Midwest?

Yes this is a good point, I wish all of the Mets would include the midwest in their discussions/forecasts especially winter events. You all know there are a lot more of us out here that read this blog and since it has been named "American" maybe you guys would start giving some of the midwest states at least to Kentucky a little attention. "Eastern WX" ok that name might mean the East Cost but there are more than the "13 Colonies" now a days men! Just a friendly suggestion, so I second Macintosh's request!

Thanks in advance.

RM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say that a nw shift is less likely....

I would agree with that. There is room for movement but likely much less to the NW. The bigger concern is a later or less robust phase and it slides further east. I can see the probabilities expanding to the NW but not in a large or significant way. At least that is how I see it at this point. If the 0z NAM and more so the GFS continue towards the latest Euro runs and then the 0z Euro run holds its position again tonight then DT's map will look even more golden. Of course can't help but be a little leary of a hiccup run or worse a hint at a trend east at 0z. With the system moving into Cali now the next round of 0z and 12z runs will be crucial as to if the Euro is on its game or over doing it some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave, excellent...and as others have said, this format with such leads is an excellent visual representation, without giving specific amounts.

That said, I'll quibble a bit (as my nature ;) ) and say that 100% for A and B to get 1" is rather high at this point....Maybe shaving a few percentage points off to account for the (albeit decreasing possibility) that this system swings OTS...esp. for areas north of NYC....but again....I'm just being a touchhole.....

Good luck down there, and remind me with pics, what "real" snow looks like.. :) ..Here in the SYR area, we have had record snows but as with high density....have only about 15" (out of 70) on the level....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest someguy

Yes this is a good point, I wish all of the Mets would include the midwest in their discussions/forecasts especially winter events. You all know there are a lot more of us out here that read this blog and since it has been named "American" maybe you guys would start giving some of the midwest states at least to Kentucky a little attention. "Eastern WX" ok that name might mean the East Cost but there are more than the "13 Colonies" now a days men! Just a friendly suggestion, so I second Macintosh's request!

Thanks in advance.

RM

YEAH I will bet to that tomorrow

was swamp today with the web site

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DT my only suggestion would be to cut down on the number of categories. Maybe do bigger bins of snowfalls....ie 1-4, 4-8, 8-16, 16+. That is one less bin instead of five bins.

No issues with probabilities at this time.

I like these delineations because Ive always considered 1-4 a minor event, 4-8 SECS, 8-16 MECS and 16+ HECS. Being in the B category seems to be a good place to be right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really Really would like to hear Don S latest thinking on this storm. Seems it does not have history going for it. seems that's all perhaps i'm off but i remember reading there has never been a KU when enso region 3.4 is 1 C below or more. So is this not reason to be skeptical of models?

i mean sure records are broken like last week we had the first time -4 AO and higher during enso 3.4 -1c and higher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really Really would like to hear Don S latest thinking on this storm. Seems it does not have history going for it. seems that's all perhaps i'm off but i remember reading there has never been a KU when enso region 3.4 is 1 C below or more. So is this not reason to be skeptical of models?

i mean sure records are broken like last week we had the first time -4 AO and higher during enso 3.4 -1c and higher.

Check out the NE thread for 2 "limited KU" and one very near miss that have occurred under these scenarios.... and when it comes to weather, remember never to say "never!" :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really Really would like to hear Don S latest thinking on this storm. Seems it does not have history going for it. seems that's all perhaps i'm off but i remember reading there has never been a KU when enso region 3.4 is 1 C below or more. So is this not reason to be skeptical of models?

i mean sure records are broken like last week we had the first time -4 AO and higher during enso 3.4 -1c and higher.

It seems like the last few years that the weather has been bucking what has been the norm since we have started keeping records. I have to wonder if we may be entering a new weather regime where what we used to know to be the norms no longer is valid or has to be tweaked some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like the last few years that the weather has been bucking what has been the norm since we have started keeping records. I have to wonder if we may be entering a new weather regime where what we used to know to be the norms no longer is valid or has to be tweaked some.

Careful there, that sounds dangerously like a justification for the high price of tulip bulbs and we all know how that worked out the last few times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Careful there, that sounds dangerously like a justification for the high price of tulip bulbs and we all know how that worked out the last few times.

It's hard to know what the "norms" are anyway, since some of the cyclical patterns have a periodicity longer than the recording history of many locations.

For example, our ENSO data prior to 1950 is imperfect at best, but we do know there have been some very cold/snowy east coast moderate-strong la ninas back in 1909-10, 1916-17, 1917-18..... all probably more extreme than this one. And many have said that 1955-56 could be a good match also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest someguy

well clearly the idea of the west sharp cutoff edge to the precip over western nc western va westrn/ central MD is a valid one

will wait for 12z data to make adjustments

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Careful there, that sounds dangerously like a justification for the high price of tulip bulbs and we all know how that worked out the last few times.

:lol:

Don't want to clutter up DT's thread so I will expand just a little and leave it at that.

When you look at how many years we have actually been collecting data on the weather it is a very small sample size and in only one cycle of the earths weather history. If you go back thousands or even millions of years you see the fluctuations that have occurred so I would think the norms in those cycles would somewhat differ from what we have now. I am just wondering if we may be entering a new cycle so that we may have to start expecting something other then what we consider the norm.

And just to clarify I am talking about a natural cycle and not Global warming.

Also wanted to add that even within these broad cycles you have smaller cycles and within them even smaller cycles etc. I think it's reasonable to expect that the norms would differ from one to the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I'm slower than the rest of you. I seem to be able to interpret the probabilities in multiple ways. Taking my area of "B" for example, there is a listing of 8" to 16". Then the 100% probability is 100% for 1", 90% for 2", down to 20% for 5". But that says nothing about the 8" to 16".

Try again. Let 100% be for 8", 90 be for 9", down to 20% for 12". But that leaves out the range up to 16".

Try again: Let 20% be for 16" ... but that doesn't even get down to the 8" level.

Try again. Maybe it should be "blocked" with 100% for 1" - 4", 90% for 5" - 8", ... but there is no guidance on how the blocking should be.

Could someone point out the "obviously correct" solution? Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I'm slower than the rest of you. I seem to be able to interpret the probabilities in multiple ways. Taking my area of "B" for example, there is a listing of 8" to 16". Then the 100% probability is 100% for 1", 90% for 2", down to 20% for 5". But that says nothing about the 8" to 16".

Try again. Let 100% be for 8", 90 be for 9", down to 20% for 12". But that leaves out the range up to 16".

Try again: Let 20% be for 16" ... but that doesn't even get down to the 8" level.

Try again. Maybe it should be "blocked" with 100% for 1" - 4", 90% for 5" - 8", ... but there is no guidance on how the blocking should be.

Could someone point out the "obviously correct" solution? Thanks.

It doesn't really matter. The models have made some drastic changes since that map was released.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I'm slower than the rest of you. I seem to be able to interpret the probabilities in multiple ways. Taking my area of "B" for example, there is a listing of 8" to 16". Then the 100% probability is 100% for 1", 90% for 2", down to 20% for 5". But that says nothing about the 8" to 16".

Try again. Let 100% be for 8", 90 be for 9", down to 20% for 12". But that leaves out the range up to 16".

Try again: Let 20% be for 16" ... but that doesn't even get down to the 8" level.

Try again. Maybe it should be "blocked" with 100% for 1" - 4", 90% for 5" - 8", ... but there is no guidance on how the blocking should be.

Could someone point out the "obviously correct" solution? Thanks.

The probabilities are all way lower now anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...