Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,609
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    NH8550
    Newest Member
    NH8550
    Joined

Feb 18/19 Disco/Obs


nj2va
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Wetbulbs88 said:

So you're cherry picking data points, congrats. 

The pros at NWS specifically mentioned the NAM's temperature profiles. And many received this QPF, just not our area.

Try again. 

We are discussing the storm, right?  Precip was the issue, especially this morning.  I don't doubt the warm nose at all and was never expecting big snow amounts, but precip will be way underdone. The "pros" still thought that some accumulation would happen.  It was a miss of the big precip.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

I went with 2-5" along 95.  At the time with all the doom posting about the NAM's showing no snow I kind of considered that a positive bust.  Even that looks high though, although remember sleet accumulation counts.  But I really thought with heavier banding it would mix with snow enough...but the heavy banding (again) set up NW of 95 so that didn't work out.  It was close...you can see during some of the heavy banding places pretty far SE did mix with snow.  I wanted to be optimistic.  Figured we were due for something to break good for once.  I was wrong about that.  But my "fear" all along for what could wreck this turned out to be correct.  Even up here I have mixed with a lot of sleet and its holding down accumulations.  

I think you were pretty realistic for the most part. Even with that 2-5", that came with the assumption that a good bit of that zone would get .8"-1" of QPF, which was what basically every model had as it's output. Even if it's all sleet, that narrowly hits the bottom part of the forecast.  I had an old page from the storm thread still open from Tuesday, and checking back in it, you were pretty clear about the potential warm nose issues. 

dbc8859ae2a123d1dbf9884452d302a1.thumb.png.dc10521dd6de205d9cc7cb0f35f6010d.png

Regardless, yeah now we know why the forecast played out the way we did. One of the things that might've calmed people's nerves was the airmass we had going into the event, but of course that's only considering surface temps. I think most expected our fail scenario to be either warmer 850s, or less precip, but the two coinciding was not a recipe for a fun time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Wetbulbs88 said:

So you're cherry picking data points, congrats. 

The pros at NWS specifically mentioned the NAM's temperature profiles. And many received this QPF, just not our area.

Try again. 

But which areas received 1" of QPF? Also, I don't see that this area has widespread 0.6"-1.00" of QPF, but I'm happy to be proven wrong.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LP08 said:

We are discussing the storm, right?  Precip was the issue, especially this morning.  I don't doubt the warm nose at all and was never expecting big snow amounts, but precip will be way underdone. The "pros" still thought that some accumulation would happen.  It was a miss of the big precip.

No, they didn't. I can go back and grab the disco for you. They absolutely mentioned the speed of the storm and the overdoing of QPF. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Wetbulbs88 said:

So you're cherry picking data points, congrats. 

The pros at NWS specifically mentioned the NAM's temperature profiles. And many received this QPF, just not our area.

Try again. 

Uhm... This is a geographically-based sub-forum. What matters to us is how well a model performs in our area. I'm not especially interested in whether or not the NAM nailed QPF in NYC. I'm not saying the NAM is bad. It's been REALLY good this year, but 3k and 12k both busted. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well never being in an actual sleet event it was sort of cool but uh it was a bust only around an inch of sleet. My forecast issued to some friends during the 12z runs of yesterday said 3-6 inches of snow and sleet maybe even mostly sleet and almost no snow but unlikely. Total we got 1 inch of sleet that sort of stinks not to mention my forecast was horribly off all because of 1 degree. Did any model do well at the 12z suit with the temp issues and the QDF? Oh well we still got March. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Wetbulbs88 said:

No, they didn't. I can go back and grab the disco for you. They absolutely mentioned the speed of the storm and the overdoing of QPF. 

They mentioned speed, but not qpf that i can find.  Look, i think we can both agree the Nam was correct in honking the warm layer, but all guidance was pretty poor with precip.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SnowDreamer said:

Uhm... This is a geographically-based sub-forum. What matters to us is how well a model performs in our area. I'm not especially interested in whether or not the NAM nailed QPF in NYC. I'm not saying the NAM is bad. It's been REALLY good this year, but 3k and 12k both busted. 

I disagree. First of all, very pedantic scrutiny of the word area. By area, I meant our area. Not sure how you derived otherwise, or how that's relevant.

Secondly, the 0z NAM last night was by far the most accurate solution. The pros specifically singled it out. If you took the snow maps verbatim that's on you. But the mix line and soundings were damn near right. 

  • Weenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, mattie g said:

But which areas received 1" of QPF? Also, I don't see that this area has widespread 0.6"-1.00" of QPF, but I'm happy to be proven wrong.

Why is everyone cherrypicking QPF? If you took any other model you could pick practically every other data point and it would be a disaster. And many other models were showing similar QPF. And many areas to our NW got similar QPF. 

The NAM was on an island with mix line and warm nose. It wasn't even close. That's why the pros preferred it in their disco. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, LP08 said:

They mentioned speed, but not qpf that i can find.  Look, i think we can both agree the Nam was correct in honking the warm layer, but all guidance was pretty poor with precip.

So many other models showed similar QPF. I don't know what else to say. This just doesn't make any sense to me. It's one data point that many others corroborated. Not to mention that the QPF verified maybe a bit shy in other areas. We got the typical DC hole. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, LP08 said:

They mentioned speed, but not qpf that i can find.  Look, i think we can both agree the Nam was correct in honking the warm layer, but all guidance was pretty poor with precip.

While, we may have not had a QPF bomb mainly because of the duration, imo the QPF or rates wasnt the problem. It was the warm nose. Period...Most areas still saw pretty solid rates of preciptation. It was just sleet instead of snow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Wetbulbs88 said:

So many other models showed similar QPF. I don't know what else to say. This just doesn't make any sense to me. It's one data point that many others corroborated. Not to mention that the QPF verified maybe a bit shy in other areas. We got the typical DC hole. 

What "DC hole?" There was accumulation, pretty much in line with the mixing model. The warm nose was real and never went away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...