Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,610
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Vesuvius
    Newest Member
    Vesuvius
    Joined

Jan 7 Two-Headed Coastal Obs


40/70 Benchmark
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, wxsniss said:

Per Box twitter:

As of 1 PM, here are how our climate sites stand in terms of snowfall from the season's first major winter storm: 

#Boston - 11.2 inches
#Worcester - 6.2 inches
#Providence - 5.9 inches
#Hartford - 5.4 inches

ASOS w.e.

ORH 0.53”

BOS 0.48”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, H2Otown_WX said:

Your old place must have had more than 6". I had about 10" and I'm on the NW side of town.

nah, drove down there specifically to measure at the old place, just a tad over 6, although my BIL who lives up top of bunker hill, had close to 8.5, so maybe there was either a little elevation thing or some weird meso thing happening there... buddy in terryville also, about 7... seems like we'd have gotten more here if the growth was better, at 230 this morning it was absolutely ripping but putrid flakes, vis was below 1/4, woke back up at 5 and was less intense and similar flake size, hopefully start of a good run here, although I'll be heading to GA next Friday for a few weeks, so I'm going to miss bulk of winter.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tavwtby said:

nah, drove down there specifically to measure at the old place, just a tad over 6, although my BIL who lives up top of bunker hill, had close to 8.5, so maybe there was either a little elevation thing or some weird meso thing happening there... buddy in terryville also, about 7... seems like we'd have gotten more here if the growth was better, at 230 this morning it was absolutely ripping but putrid flakes, vis was below 1/4, woke back up at 5 and was less intense and similar flake size, hopefully start of a good run here, although I'll be heading to GA next Friday for a few weeks, so I'm going to miss bulk of winter.

Wow, that's weird...yeah I'm in BH. The depth was 8.5" at noon. I slept through the whole thing lol. Have fun down south. I may be moving to Little Rock soon so, no more snow. :(

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The 4 Seasons said:

just saw a report from Blue Hills of 15.2, thats gotta be the max so far?

 

29 minutes ago, Sey-Mour Snow said:

jc-ct?

 

yeah i guess we tied. NWS didn't like my report though, even though there were other reports in columbia of 14+ online.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The 4 Seasons said:

Reports coming in so far from CoCoRahs represent a pretty uniform 18-20:1 in that band over CT.

Would like to see all the climo sites and take a look back to see what models did well in that regard, a quick look at the GFS and it seems pretty reasonable from the 00Z run last night over CT. The past 6 runs i would say are consistent after 18Z Jan 5th run

Screenshot 2022-01-07 145559.png

gfs_apcpn24_neus_fh24_trend.gif

 

Great post. The last few GFS runs probably ended up being too wet. People love to complain about the models being inconsistent, but I thought the GFS - and guidance in general - was very consistent with both the placement and magnitude of precipitation, especially within about 72 hours.

Contrary to what most people will remember, this was a late developing storm that dumped most of its precipitation in the Gulf of Maine and the Maritimes. It did not end up significantly stronger or NW of where it was modeled several days ago. But it also clearly had a major impact because it didn't go OTS as a few model runs suggested several days ago. In the end, the high snow to liquid ratios resulted in a big overperforming snowstorm from NYC to BOS! A few people who called for big snow totals were right, but possibly not for the reasons that they thought.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, eduggs said:

 

Great post. The last few GFS runs probably ended up being too wet. People love to complain about the models being inconsistent, but I thought the GFS - and guidance in general - was very consistent with both the placement and magnitude of precipitation, especially within about 72 hours.

Contrary to what most people will remember, this was a late developing storm that dumped most of its precipitation in the Gulf of Maine and the Maritimes. It did not end up significantly stronger or NW of where it was modeled several days ago. But it also clearly had a major impact because it didn't go OTS as a few model runs suggested several days ago. In the end, the high snow to liquid ratios resulted in a big overperforming snowstorm from NYC to BOS! A few people who called for big snow totals were right, but possibly not for the reasons that they thought.

are you saying the convection was not "not real"? :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, eduggs said:

 

Great post. The last few GFS runs probably ended up being too wet. People love to complain about the models being inconsistent, but I thought the GFS - and guidance in general - was very consistent with both the placement and magnitude of precipitation, especially within about 72 hours.

Contrary to what most people will remember, this was a late developing storm that dumped most of its precipitation in the Gulf of Maine and the Maritimes. It did not end up significantly stronger or NW of where it was modeled several days ago. But it also clearly had a major impact because it didn't go OTS as a few model runs suggested several days ago. In the end, the high snow to liquid ratios resulted in a big overperforming snowstorm from NYC to BOS! A few people who called for big snow totals were right, but possibly not for the reasons that they thought.

Yea, I was just texting that to others...I had the totals pretty close on Tueaday, but I thought this would be hugging the coast.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, eduggs said:

Definitely not not. :lol:

I also think anybody mentioning convection and SLP placement should be insta-weenie tagged. That's high on the list of wishcasting obsessions. 

Well it's probably a good thing you're not a mod then, since I don't think many here would agree with you weenie-tagging mets like Will and Tip.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, JC-CT said:

 

 

yeah i guess we tied. NWS didn't like my report though, even though there were other reports in columbia of 14+ online.

dont worry NWS didnt like my report either even though ive been chatting with them privately all morning and they reporting everything up to 10.6 then stopped. I guess they didn't include @Sey-Mour Snowreport either for some reason? But they included the 12" report in wtby which is BS.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, H2Otown_WX said:

Wow, that's weird...yeah I'm in BH. The depth was 8.5" at noon. I slept through the whole thing lol. Have fun down south. I may be moving to Little Rock soon so, no more snow. :(

yeah I love winter, and all this, but I'm the only one, and so much more opportunity there, severe season should be a blast though, good luck!

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, wxsniss said:

Per Box twitter:

As of 1 PM, here are how our climate sites stand in terms of snowfall from the season's first major winter storm: 

#Boston - 11.2 inches
#Worcester - 6.2 inches
#Providence - 5.9 inches
#Hartford - 5.4 inches

There goes the futility title for this year. (1936-37 BOS)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The 4 Seasons said:

dont worry NWS didnt like my report either even though ive been chatting with them privately all morning and they reporting everything up to 10.6 then stopped. I guess they didn't include @Sey-Mour Snowreport either for some reason? But they included the 12" report in wtby which is BS.

HA! some serious horizontal measurements in wtby, no way anyone got double digits there, I didn't see my report to albany either but like I said, they changed the way they are displaying the reports, making it hard to read, so maybe I missed it, my first report this year, and reporting is done the same via email.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tavwtby said:

HA! some serious horizontal measurements in wtby, no way anyone got double digits there, I didn't see my report to albany either but like I said, they changed the way they are displaying the reports, making it hard to read, so maybe I missed it, my first report this year, and reporting is done the same via email.

try this

Text Products for PNS Issued by ALY (weather.gov)

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...