Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,606
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    ArlyDude
    Newest Member
    ArlyDude
    Joined

Feb 13-14 snowstorm/nor’easter potential


George001
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Like I said ... I don't typically engage in the subjective tenor with this stuff, because of the semantic bullshitness of it.

I said, it got it done with the least plausible amount necessary to do so - focus on that.  Which it did, sorry!

plus, the storm left a lot on the table.

I don't understand least plausible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

Tip downplayed that too. LOL. 

No ... I did not "downplay" that event. 

I factually pointed out that it had none pervasive snow results - there were a lot of gaps.   I'm sure that in J.Q.'s backyard where 30" resulted, it seems like downplaying as a attitude or some other petty interpretation that took it personally .. but there was nothing personal - it did gap regions.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

No ... I did not "downplay" that event. 

I factually pointed out that it had none pervasive snow results - there were a lot of gaps.   I'm sure that in J.Q.'s backyard where 30" resulted, it seems like downplaying as a attitude or some other petty interpretation that took it personally .. but there was nothing personal - it did gap regions.  

 

I feel like if it did not hit someone's backyard...it seems to get downplayed. If aerial coverage is weighed in, sure. But saying something "in the least plausible way" insinuates  something limped into that category. I don't see how you can say that?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CoastalWx said:

I feel like if it did not hit someone's backyard...it seems to get downplayed. If aerial coverage is weighed in, sure. But saying something "in the least plausible way" insinuates  something limped into that category. I don't see how you can say that?

Firstly, I do not fit into that ilk of intents and purposes for what I bring this engagement, and never did.  But people will have their biases not matter what those are, and to those ... you could just as well say lollypop - they'll hear dog shit.   It is what it dealing in an open public thoroughfare like the razor sharp objective fairness of the internet ...

Secondly, when I looked over and considered those events, and compared them to other extraordinary events ... Boxing Day and this recent blizzard, they are impressive storms, but their down side regions were larger - the just had more of them.   This specific point may be proven otherwise, ...but no one's doing that with empirical data, and I'm too lazy ha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Firstly, I do not fit into that ilk of intents and purposes for what I bring this engagement, and never did.  But people will have their biases not matter what those are, and to those ... you could just as well say lollypop - they'll hear dog shit.   It is what it dealing in an open public thoroughfare like the razor sharp objective fairness of the internet ...

Secondly, when I looked over and considered those events, and compared them to other extraordinary events ... Boxing Day and this recent blizzard, they are impressive storms, but their down side regions were larger - the just had more of them.   This specific point may be proven otherwise, ...but no one's doing that with empirical data, and I'm too lazy ha.

Well I definitely agree it did not encompass a lot of geographical area for sure.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

I feel like if it did not hit someone's backyard...it seems to get downplayed. If aerial coverage is weighed in, sure. But saying something "in the least plausible way" insinuates  something limped into that category. I don't see how you can say that?

Agree... If you thumb through the KU book and use the MBY mentality as your guide, any one person could cross out about 70% of the events.  We could rename the book from 'NORTHEAST SNOWSTORMS" to something like "NORTHEAST SNOWSTORMS FOR SOME; NOT SO MUCH FOR OTHERS?" 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This recent string of it ... it's why I don't engage typically in semantic and or IMBY tinted discussion music when it comes to 'orchestrating' an unbiased accounting of which winter and or storm event(s) within, should rank x-y-z.

The one time I try -   lighting bolts!   hahaha.  Also, folks could lighten up a bit, too.  Subtleties of nuance in droll humor is gets missed too often for taking this shit too seriously.

Yeah yeah. We all got our hot takes man.  It's all good while being all bad.  Lol.

Anyway, the GGEM solution ...ICON for that matter, both are "better" at 500 mb ( NAM perhaps too - ).  But one aspect I hate about all of these solutions is the structural orientation of the escape flow at 500 mb along and off the EC, nearing 84 hours ..

It is too flat.  Not only that, it is fast fast fast...  This aspect is a negative interference.   I almost feel these 500 mb focuses risk being irrelevant altogether, if that does not start to arc more ridge-lined, with slowing velocities.  This was also present - btw - in the modeling, prior to the blizzard in those 3 or 4 days head, too.   The GFS was consummately "chasing convection" as it were... But the model was just exposing the negative interference.

  • Like 1
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...