March 2023 Obs/Disco

[Damage In Tolland]

17 minutes ago, Cold Miser said:

Link didn't work.

It works 

[weatherwiz]

3 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Yea, I think its referred to as the water year, or whatever...that period in the climo base is how you get a true seasonal snowfall snowfall, as opposed to yearly.

This is the crap that pisses me of. Here is BDL. Now I get the crap that happened mid 90's into the early 2000's but WHAT THE **** IS THIS? This is absolutely unacceptable and embarrassing beyond belief. How in the hell can the database with snowfall keeping be this terrible? 5 year old's do a better job organizing their Legos. 

I would love to do a bit more with understanding snowfall during ENSO BUT HOW THE HELL IS THAT POSSIBLE WHEN THE RECORD KEEPING AND DATABASE IS UTTERLY PATHETIC. This is bullshit. What a fooking embarrassment. 

[CoastalWx]

8 years ago an event that I thought would be white rain turned into 3" of snow as temps dropped below 32 during the day. LOL. 

[ORH_wxman]

15 minutes ago, weatherwiz said:

Annual snowfall period is October 1 - September 30, right? 

No it’s is July 1st to June 30th

[Cold Miser]

7 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said:

It works 

until it doesn't.

(although it could be the super ridiculous lockdown here at my work computer, where they have become so paranoid about security that simple web page navigation can be almost impossible depending on the content) 

 

[ORH_wxman]

1 hour ago, Typhoon Tip said:

But the 'marginal set ups' are ending up warmer, too -

Seems the models may be too cold then, perhaps.  

We know the GFS is anyway. 

GFS definitely has a cold bias…esp since the upgrade. Euro is still mostly king I feel like when we’re really close in on BL temps and things like that. NAM is pretty good too once inside of 36h. 

[weatherwiz]

1 minute ago, ORH_wxman said:

No it’s is July 1st to June 30th

ahh right, thanks. I don't know why I keep confusing the two. I just have to write it down in a notebook 

[40/70 Benchmark]

6 minutes ago, weatherwiz said:

This is the crap that pisses me of. Here is BDL. Now I get the crap that happened mid 90's into the early 2000's but WHAT THE **** IS THIS? This is absolutely unacceptable and embarrassing beyond belief. How in the hell can the database with snowfall keeping be this terrible? 5 year old's do a better job organizing their Legos. 

I would love to do a bit more with understanding snowfall during ENSO BUT HOW THE HELL IS THAT POSSIBLE WHEN THE RECORD KEEPING AND DATABASE IS UTTERLY PATHETIC. This is bullshit. What a fooking embarrassment. 

Is that from the Cornel site?

[ORH_wxman]

5 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

8 years ago an event that I thought would be white rain turned into 3" of snow as temps dropped below 32 during the day. LOL. 

That was the event that gave BOS their new record, right? I remember that one. Temps just plummeted midday in that band. 

[weatherwiz]

Just now, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Is that from the Cornel site?

Yes. I even went through the different types under station. The record begins 1948-1949 (which I think is when maybe the station moved from Hartford) but I know there was data going back farther then that. 

This stuff pisses me off so much. 

[CoastalWx]

Just now, ORH_wxman said:

That was the event that gave BOS their new record, right? I remember that one. Temps just plummeted midday in that band. 

That was the inv trough back on 3/15. Another insane + bust. I remember Reggie had that band just east and we all said man if that is like 5 miles west the record would fall. It did lol.

[Hailstoned]

55 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

But the 'marginal set ups' are ending up warmer, too -

Seems the models may be too cold then, perhaps.  

We know the GFS is anyway. 

At the risk of indignifying certain "clergy" on here, might this possible cold bias of the models be due to their calculations not fully accounting for the physics of our warming climate? Just a question, not a pronouncement.

[dendrite]

34 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

No it’s is July 1st to June 30th

I think it got changed to Aug 1 - July 31 (although this may depend on the location)

Edit...GYX is still using 7/1-6/30 for CON...not that it matters in our region outside of MWN some years anyway

[ORH_wxman]

2 minutes ago, Hailstoned said:

At the risk of indignifying certain "clergy" on here, might this possible cold bias of the models be due to their calculations not fully accounting for the physics of our warming climate? Just a question, not a pronouncement.

We’ve discussed this before…but the question for that hypothesis is “how does CC change the laws of thermodynamics and atmospheric dynamics?” 
 

The short answer is…”they don’t”. CC doesn’t all of the sudden mean PV = nRT is no longer true. It just means our T is higher. Same with other equations. 

Models are simply running these equations based on data input. The data being input is real time data so it should already account for the current conditions of 2023. If we input a bunch of data from 1970, you’d get a colder look but still a forecast that resembles what happened back then. Now if you’re running a climate model, you’d want to account for more CO2 each year since that will affect warming once you go out far enough. But this won’t be relevant on an operational short or medium range model. Whatever minuscule CO2 increase happens over the course of a 15 day OP run is not enough to cause meaningful temperature change. 
 

Older/Obsolete models used to have trouble with dynamical/latent cooling which is why we likely saw more positive snow busts when they thought it would be +1C aloft…now, models have gotten a lot more skilled (a lot more vertical layers are present in models now too which will catch pockets of higher lift that potentially could have been missed by their primitive predecessors), and when they say it will be +1C aloft, they are closer to correct since they are better at already accounting for dynamical and latent cooling than older versions of models.

[weatherwiz]

This is looking really fun tomorrow evening

[Typhoon Tip]

36 minutes ago, Hailstoned said:

At the risk of indignifying certain "clergy" on here, might this possible cold bias of the models be due to their calculations not fully accounting for the physics of our warming climate? Just a question, not a pronouncement.

I understand the 'intuitive' thought process behind the question ... however, I'm inclined to think no?

See, the physics are just processing input parameters - they are not like "remembering" the old atmosphere in lieu of changing atmospheric chemistry, and then error processing based on where we've been... These are based upon thermodynamic laws operating in a fluid dynamical law defined system. 

Having said that ... if the chemistry of the medium being modeled changed literally within a guidance cycle outlook frame ( typically two weeks worth of projection), then perhaps the results might bias ( warm)(cold) when then compared to the original outlook from two weeks earlier.

However, that can be all but ruled out in this case because the atmospheric constituency gases and so forth are not actually changing at that rate.  

My personal gripe about this winter was that the models might have been too aggressive with cold boundary layers in the mid and ext ranges ... yes. However, that is likely for origin flaws in other areas of the model's complex construction of counter acting, interfering forces.  Digression a bit, but these models have to simultaneously manage in a single process effort, a truly dizzying array of interacting "secondary field mechanics," which in turn, interacting aspects --> emergent properties.  That's probably approaching something like incomprehensible to even a polymathic savant. 

It can't be ruled out to 100% certainty - seldom in nature can 100% of anything be. That's like a theoretical unicorn state.  Black holes are only 99.999999999999999 % cut off from the Universe, as Hawking Radiation demonstrates - quantum uncertainty principle allows for spontaneous particle creation in duality pairs, and the escape of one near the even horizon steels energy from the 'hole' ...effectively reducing it's mass by some ungodly small amount. Do that over trillions of years, and BH's evaporate.  

hahaha...  happy now? 

 

[tamarack]

1 hour ago, weatherwiz said:

Yes. I even went through the different types under station. The record begins 1948-1949 (which I think is when maybe the station moved from Hartford) but I know there was data going back farther then that. 

This stuff pisses me off so much. 

A significant proportion of New England sites (perhaps other places as well) have PORs that began Augus 1, 1948.

Touched 50 yesterday, first time since Nov 30.  Clouds will keep temps to mid 40s today.  Pack down to 17".

[ORH_wxman]

5 minutes ago, tamarack said:

A significant proportion of New England sites (perhaps other places as well) have PORs that began Augus 1, 1948.

Touched 50 yesterday, first time since Nov 30.  Clouds will keep temps to mid 40s today.  Pack down to 17".

He can access the threaded data here:

https://xmacis.rcc-acis.org
 

The climod2 site doesn’t thread the data so it will break off when a site like BDL moved from Hartford to Windsor Locks CT, but the xmacis site threads it all together. 

[weatherwiz]

7 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

He can access the threaded data here:

https://xmacis.rcc-acis.org
 

The climod2 site doesn’t thread the data so it will break off when a site like BDL moved from Hartford to Windsor Locks CT, but the xmacis site threads it all together. 

Ahhh this is one of the sites I had but lost within my bookmarks somehow. I like how it doesn't break the data. It's great to know when the sites change location but that can be just noted. I still think it's stupid they have nothing for BDL 2005-2006 through 2009-2010. That's absurd. I know a few were terrible but come on. Absolutely unbelievable. 

[ORH_wxman]

5 minutes ago, weatherwiz said:

Ahhh this is one of the sites I had but lost within my bookmarks somehow. I like how it doesn't break the data. It's great to know when the sites change location but that can be just noted. I still think it's stupid they have nothing for BDL 2005-2006 through 2009-2010. That's absurd. I know a few were terrible but come on. Absolutely unbelievable. 

I have no idea why they don’t have 2005-2010 data at BDL. NWS site doesn’t have it either. They definitely reported snowfall during that time. They just keep showing up as a bunch of traces. 
 

I should have all 5 seasons though because I made snow maps during that time and kept data. I’ll just have to wait until I’m back on my home computer to check. I’ll post them here when I get the chance. 

[The 4 Seasons]

44 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

I have no idea why they don’t have 2005-2010 data at BDL. NWS site doesn’t have it either. They definitely reported snowfall during that time. They just keep showing up as a bunch of traces. 
 

I should have all 5 seasons though because I made snow maps during that time and kept data. I’ll just have to wait until I’m back on my home computer to check. I’ll post them here when I get the chance. 

 

3 hours ago, weatherwiz said:

This is the crap that pisses me of. Here is BDL. Now I get the crap that happened mid 90's into the early 2000's but WHAT THE **** IS THIS? This is absolutely unacceptable and embarrassing beyond belief. How in the hell can the database with snowfall keeping be this terrible? 5 year old's do a better job organizing their Legos. 

I would love to do a bit more with understanding snowfall during ENSO BUT HOW THE HELL IS THAT POSSIBLE WHEN THE RECORD KEEPING AND DATABASE IS UTTERLY PATHETIC. This is bullshit. What a fooking embarrassment. 

Something is definitely up because that wasn't like that just a few months ago. It must have just changed. Because i know for a fact i used the NWS site to create this graphic and 04-05 to 09-10 was there. The only ones i had trouble with i remember were the early 2000s from around 00-01 to 03-04. Also it looks like 10-11 and 11-12 changed. I had 86.4" and 26.7" now it showing it as 74.9" and 14.4". Everything from 12-13 to present looks the same. 

Very weird. I just made this graphic on 12/07/22 and i'm positive all the data was there except late 90s to early 00s. I probably saved the screen shot but i can't find it right now. 

 

[ORH_wxman]

3 minutes ago, The 4 Seasons said:

 

Something is definitely up because that wasn't like that just a few months ago. It must have just changed. Because i know for a fact i used the NWS site to create this graphic and 04-05 to 09-10 was there. The only ones i had trouble with i remember were the early 2000s from around 00-01 to 03-04. Also it looks like 10-11 and 11-12 changed. I had 86.4" and 26.7" now it showing it as 74.9" and 14.4". Everything from 12-13 to present looks the same. 

Very weird. I just made this graphic on 12/07/22 and i'm positive all the data was there except late 90s to early 00s. I probably saved the screen shot but i can't find it right now. 

 

Yes. It was very recent when the 2005-2010 data disappeared for BDL. I remember looking at it within the last year and it was all there. Only the ASOS outage years from like 1996-2002 were missing. 
 

Really bizarre and not sure why it’s gone. Your numbers look correct…I remember some of them from when I made maps now that I see them. 

[CoastalWx]

Nothing else to talk about, but I like the snorecho modeled tomorrow night.    All kidding aside, some impressive parameters. Might get briefly nasty in the high terrain. 

[Damage In Tolland]

4 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

Nothing else to talk about, but I like the snorecho modeled tomorrow night.    All kidding aside, some impressive parameters. Might get briefly nasty in the high terrain. 

Any damage?

[ORH_wxman]

2 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

Nothing else to talk about, but I like the snorecho modeled tomorrow night.    All kidding aside, some impressive parameters. Might get briefly nasty in the high terrain. 

Flash freeze potential in the hills especially. The squall line will need to maintain strength for that to be a risk, but there’s a realistic chance it does. 

[CoastalWx]

5 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said:

Any damage?

84 in Tolland already closed.

[Damage In Tolland]

19 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

84 in Tolland already closed.

Lol.. let’s knock some tree and lines down. 

[WinterWolf]

32 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

Nothing else to talk about, but I like the snorecho modeled tomorrow night.    All kidding aside, some impressive parameters. Might get briefly nasty in the high terrain. 

What’s a snorecho? Like Derecho? 

[STILL N OF PIKE]

The fukkin Hills, I’m as excited as Ray is to hear that 

[ma blizzard]

if only we could get those mid lvl lapse rates in May or June