Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

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

Following a Miller A/B hybrid type coastal potential, Feb 13th ... As yet untapped potential and a higher ceiling with this one


Typhoon Tip
 Share

Recommended Posts

Interesting... she's a politician and not a scientist, but I'm sure the thought crossed people's minds here too... as with lots of things here, too microscopic a sample size to say anything conclusively (and not intending to start a whole CC debate here, just relaying a reaction while the puddles are still drying):

“I think it goes to show not only is our climate changing in general that we haven’t had a significant snowstorm now in more than two years, but also the predictability of the weather — every storm can change so quickly on its path, the projections, the amounts,” Wu said. 

image.png.fff07337bb2affcbe5f06c085e7809a0.png

https://www.boston.com/news/weather/2024/02/13/what-mayor-wu-had-to-say-about-bostons-snow-forecast-bust/?p1=hp_featurestack

  • Haha 5
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr. Windcredible! said:

Only 3" here near the shoreline. Torched BL really killed us. Not really terribly surprising...but still disappointing. Over 2 years (1/29/22) since last warning event and counting. At least this one put us over last year's pitiful season total.

really? there is a 5" report from Clinton at 210PM but might have been more inland you must be right at the beach?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, wxsniss said:

Interesting... she's a politician and not a scientist, but I'm sure the thought crossed people's minds here too... as with lots of things here, too microscopic a sample size to say anything conclusively (and not intending to start a whole CC debate here, just relaying a reaction while the puddles are still drying):

“I think it goes to show not only is our climate changing in general that we haven’t had a significant snowstorm now in more than two years, but also the predictability of the weather — every storm can change so quickly on its path, the projections, the amounts,” Wu said. 

image.png.fff07337bb2affcbe5f06c085e7809a0.png

https://www.boston.com/news/weather/2024/02/13/what-mayor-wu-had-to-say-about-bostons-snow-forecast-bust/?p1=hp_featurestack

Classic. Short term busts have become rarer and rarer, but then when one happens, it’s because of CC. No shame at all. :lol:

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mr. Windcredible! said:

Only 3" here near the shoreline. Torched BL really killed us. Not really terribly surprising...but still disappointing. Over 2 years (1/29/22) since last warning event and counting. At least this one put us over last year's pitiful season total.

It's amazing how quickly things tend to decrease once you get east of Guilford. My parents had 7.5" in Guilford only 2 miles from the Sound. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The 4 Seasons said:

really? there is a 5" report from Clinton at 210PM but might have been more inland you must be right at the beach?

I'm a few miles inland. But another mile or two NW could've been all it took to grab another couple inches. Maybe if someone was using a snowboard and cleared it mid-way...that could've helped too. But I never went above 3" on any surface I tried measuring on. 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

Classic. Short term busts have become rarer and rarer, but then when one happens, it’s because of CC. No shame at all. :lol:

And this passes the smell test for most of the educated in the area bc they don’t understand the nuances of forecasting , intellectual sell outs 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, CT Rain said:

It's amazing how quickly things tend to decrease once you get east of Guilford. My parents had 7.5" in Guilford only 2 miles from the Sound. 

yeah I was surprised by that too. For many years I thought as long as you were west of the river along the shoreline things tended to work out pretty good in marginal situations. Last few years have been rough though, definitely have become a snow hole just like NL county. Watching the radar, seemed the best banding pushed just north of here after 7:30am or so...and we lost a couple critical hours. By the time we got back into some decent returns temp was up to 32.7 and it was all over. Crazy that literally a degree colder and it could've been a completely different story here it terms of totals.  Seeing CC verify warning criteria also stings. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

Classic. Short term busts have become rarer and rarer, but then when one happens, it’s because of CC. No shame at all. :lol:

Pseudo-science. If the mayor is going to speak broadly for meteorologists, would be nice if she said something like:

"This was a more difficult forecast than usual, and meteorology can be an extremely challenging science. While forecasting has improved significantly, it still has imperfections. Also we are putting the horse down."

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any speculation as to why the near term guidance almost uniformly did so poorly in at least hinting in the QPF output the response to the strong h7 f-gen? From only cursory glances within past few days, it looked like all the QPF was focused along the lower level fgen axis and then subsidence north of it.

In reality, you had the subsidence north of the h7 "death band", so still a sharp cutoff but shifted farther north. It's certainly not uncommon for the models to struggle with the location and magnitude of response to fgen circulations in the QPF fields, but usually you do see hints at least.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RCNYILWX said:

Any speculation as to why the near term guidance almost uniformly did so poorly in at least hinting in the QPF output the response to the strong h7 f-gen? From only cursory glances within past few days, it looked like all the QPF was focused along the lower level fgen axis and then subsidence north of it.

In reality, you had the subsidence north of the h7 "death band", so still a sharp cutoff but shifted farther north. It's certainly not uncommon for the models to struggle with the location and magnitude of response to fgen circulations in the QPF fields, but usually you do see hints at least.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
 

I think this kind of event happens quite often in NNE in coastals that hit all of SNE hard. There almost always is a sneaky and unmodeled band that drops 6-12” + way north. Sometimes along the -8C line . With the storm shifting south yesterday that zone  ended up south of where you’d normally see it 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Bryan63 said:

After shoveling the driveway with my shovel that worked while living in North Carolina, I am grateful we did not get anymore. If it snows again it may be time to finally upgrade.

I'd be in traction if I had to shovel todays snow, 7 inches of heavy wet snow, if I was a degree or two cooler, I would have had 10 inches.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, wxsniss said:

Pseudo-science. If the mayor is going to speak broadly for meteorologists, would be nice if she said something like:

"This was a more difficult forecast than usual, and meteorology can be an extremely challenging science. While forecasting has improved significantly, it still has imperfections. Also we are putting the horse down."

Well done on the bolded. Lol

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said:

I think this kind of event happens quite often in NNE in coastals that hit all of SNE hard. There almost always is a sneaky and unmodeled band that drops 6-12” + way north. Sometimes along the -8C line . With the storm shifting south yesterday that zone  ended up south of where you’d normally see it 

I was originally expecting it over my head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, RCNYILWX said:

Any speculation as to why the near term guidance almost uniformly did so poorly in at least hinting in the QPF output the response to the strong h7 f-gen? From only cursory glances within past few days, it looked like all the QPF was focused along the lower level fgen axis and then subsidence north of it.

In reality, you had the subsidence north of the h7 "death band", so still a sharp cutoff but shifted farther north. It's certainly not uncommon for the models to struggle with the location and magnitude of response to fgen circulations in the QPF fields, but usually you do see hints at least.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
 

IDK but don't we always say the best banding sets up north and west of where the h7 fronto?  I feel so blessed to be the jackpot of that map.......best band since Feb 2013......though didn't last as long.......

  • Like 2
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...