Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,720
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Tanner Levasseur
    Newest Member
    Tanner Levasseur
    Joined

February 2025 Disco/Obs Thread


Torch Tiger
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, ORH_wxman said:

The GFS shows you how to do a big thump for next weekend. Get that midlevel warm front really defined and slow it down just south of us and you pound town for 6-8 hours. You’ll note the vort isn’t riding up through Lake Ontario and instead comes through the Ohio valley and swings toward northern midatlantic. 

I will say that I'm not inclined to believe the Euro cluster's either intensity, nor the NW positions given this hemisphere circumstance. Yet, the mean keeps getting stronger on each run cycle. hahaha

It seems that was also dependable correction in the run-up to last night; indeed, we saw move (actually inside of 96 hours, too) toward a better 'fit' for the limitations imposed by compression. Namely curved trajectories, like early turns, and deeper lows ..etc,  are not as physically capable.   I'm not sure if this is the same scenario.

The GEFs, grudgingly having to admit LOL ... were a better conserved option for those limitations. 

So, why is the EPS mean so wildly evolved for the 16th when all those considerations are still in place?    It seems so long as we're in the same pattern, a kind of "pattern relative performance" might be useful.   

man what a headache

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is enough to make you go nuts. One day we have model consensus of an amazing next 2 to 3 weeks. The next day it's completely opposite. I'm just going to take them as they come. Today was a good example of all the things that could happen. I thought for sure we were going to get a 8 in or so. I barely got four. Just can't get a snowstorm around here. It still looked great and still had a great time outside with my daughter. 

What Will be will be!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Typhoon Tip said:

I will say that I'm not inclined to believe the Euro cluster's either intensity, nor the NW positions given this hemisphere circumstance.

It seems that was also dependable correction in the run-up to last night; indeed, we saw move (actually inside of 96 hours, too) toward a better 'fit' for the limitations imposed by compression. Namely curved trajectories, like early turns, and deeper lows ..etc,  are not as physically capable.  

The GEFs, grudgingly having to admit LOL ... were a better conserved option for those limitations. 

So, why is the EPS mean so wildly evolved for the 16th when all those considerations are still in place?    It seems so long as we're in the same pattern, a kind of "pattern relative performance" might be useful.   

man what a headache

Glad to understand how you think the correction vector will be pointing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Snowcrazed71 said:

This is enough to make you go nuts. One day we have model consensus of an amazing next 2 to 3 weeks. The next day it's completely opposite. I'm just going to take them as they come. Today was a good example of all the things that could happen. I thought for sure we were going to get a 8 in or so. I barely got four. Just can't get a snowstorm around here. It still looked great and still had a great time outside with my daughter. 

What Will be will be!

I dunno if it's completely opposite... 

First of all, I don't believe any such "consensus" contained huge confidence related to individual events - that may seem academic but still needs to be said...   That pattern was more certain than the dissemination of goodies.  However, I don't believe the limitations and so forth are as important to people's perceptions as they should be - that gets us into trouble.  We don't filter, we let our hopes up, then we are jaded - that's our own fault... I recall saying myself back a week or so ago that we may miss some of these events that were out there at the time.  

Anyway, the 6th was never a big deal...and relative to that, it became even less.  Then, this last night... I think it did okay, it just did it N of where people of expected.  Kind of reminds me of how gradient surplus back in 2001 screwed the Mid Atlantic and sent the big storm into central NE then too - altho a different non-analog, in principle, these speed saturated patterns tend to correct down stream...etc..  Point being, it was a little less...   So what we're doing is toying with the idea of a pattern relative performance.

If the first couple in the series under-perform ... how does that set our confidence in the 13th or the 16th or the 20th... ?  At least this is my take on it -

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, mahk_webstah said:

Glad to understand how you think the correction vector will be pointing

Well ... vectors are like assholes, I guess    :lol:

If I were to summarize a vector I'd say pointing toward attenuating as it approaches in time, while tending suppressed.  I don't know what that means for future model solutions containing dark blue ink and magenta QPF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, HoarfrostHubb said:

I’m thinking they weigh the GFS OP heavily. 

I’m not sure any model supports 6” of snow for anywhere in New England for Thursday. Maybe the Canadian was marginal for that since it was a little juicier and further east than other guidance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Typhoon Tip said:

That ^ bold is fact, eh ?  LOL  

Like I said in the missive, ".. It has to be at least considered to be rarefying to a low likeliness of return..."    

Not sure objective consideration needs to be interpreted as zealot.  

You say or admit that CC is real, but then if someone offers consequence as mere hypothesis to explain observation ( hint hint, the scientific approach ) you get pissy and condescending -

okay

 

 

I globe is certainly warming, but quite frankly, I think it's silly to imply that a cold winter failing to result in a seasonal surplus of snowfall (so far) in our portion of the country is attributable to climate change. I think if anything, we have observed less evidence of CC around the country this season than in any recent one...though that is not meant to imply that CC is not occurring. 

My point is, so far, I have yet to see any convincing evidence that CC has began to significantly reduce our mean seasonal snowfall. Do I reserve the right to change my mind in several more years? Absolutely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, HIPPYVALLEY said:

yes, we have a road to hit seasonal average here.  I can’t begin to interpret how March might look, but the next few weeks are going to offer chances and a lot of hand wringing over mid-range model fluctuations. 

March isn't going to let us out....at least the first half, won't.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

I’m not sure any model supports 6” of snow for anywhere in New England for Thursday. Maybe the Canadian was marginal for that since it was a little juicier and further east than other guidance. 

Yes I don’t know what models they blend.  GYX very confident in less than .5qpf Thursday 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mahk_webstah said:

After sliding lower, my Wunderground numbers have gone back up to six for Wednesday, Thursday and 12 for the weekend

 

1 hour ago, HoarfrostHubb said:

I’m thinking they weigh the GFS OP heavily. 

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a forecast of 11” a week out on wunderground. That said, I’m pretty sure it is in fact a rip and read generated from the GFS op.
 

Let’s all hope for some good breaks instead of the usual bad breaks that have happened so much recently, as we draw closer 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Prismshine Productions said:

You are slightly higher elevation than me so makes sense how you got an extra inch and a half average on me

Sent from my SM-S156V using Tapatalk
 

Our elevations aren’t the difference. I think I catch the fringes of latitude dependent storms that you just miss. Otherwise Greenfield and Brattleboro average snowfall is pretty much the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, HIPPYVALLEY said:

Our elevations aren’t the difference. I think I catch the fringes of latitude dependent storms that you just miss. Otherwise Greenfield and Brattleboro average snowfall is pretty much the same.

Yea, you are in the valley, too....the elevation is trivial.

  • 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

×
×
  • Create New...