Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

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

NYC/PHL Potential Jan 11-14 Event Discussion


Rib

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

If there's a convincing factor that points to a storm on Tuesday, it's that the most inconsistent and progressive model (the NOGAPS) has been consistently the least progressive model.

It's not always progressive, nor is it always the farthest east (which is a separate thing) but this myth never dies. The Nogaps verification scores are only slightly below the other globals. If it had such an obvious bias it would be corrected.

Yes it's somewhat less reliable and its primary utility is not mid-latitude synoptics, but we can't always point to it when it has a wrapped up solution and say see, this thing has to come west. The situation is much too complex for such basic inferences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GFS Ensembles a tremendous hit...moreso than 18z

I find it a little weird how the op GFS runs continue to be relative dry and weak at the surface with a broad, low amplitude trof and yet a large percentage of ensemble members develop a stronger, wetter system cycle after cycle.

It's not just that the surface low tracks too far offshore, it's the overall lack of upper level dynamics to deepen the low. Precipitation is limited to weak overrunning. The only thing potentially going for the past few operation runs is the moderate duration. I'm looking for a change in the modeling that will generate heavier QPF. And also wondering how/why the ind members manage bigger hits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it a little weird how the op GFS runs continue to be relative dry and weak at the surface with a broad, low amplitude trof and yet a large percentage of ensemble members develop a stronger, wetter system cycle after cycle.

It's not just that the surface low tracks too far offshore, it's the overall lack of upper level dynamics to deepen the low. Precipitation is limited to weak overrunning. The only thing potentially going for the past few operation runs is the moderate duration. I'm looking for a change in the modeling that will generate heavier QPF. And also wondering how/why the ind members manage bigger hits.

+5

aaaaaaah, exactly my thoughts/concerns

Link to comment
Share on other sites

have you seen this yet? All I asked for was higher than Feb 4-6 2010, wish granted.

the fact that a storm that impacted such a small area with truly historic snowfall is ranked higher then a storm with one of the most massive coverage areas of 20" plus snowfall and with an area of 30" plus snowfall equal in size to the Dec 26h 20" snowfall area is just proof of how flawed and skewed towards population centers that scale is. That ranking system is useless because it weights storms based on how many people are affected not how severe the storm actually was. A 10" snowstorm that hits NYC would rank higher then a 30" snowstorm that hits rural NC. Maybe I am alone in this but when I focus on a storm, its the storm, not the people that happen to live under it that is what interests me. Why you would root for a storm with such a small area of influence over a storm that was truly historic and one of the biggest snowstorms in the history of the mid atlantic is what confuses me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the fact that a storm that impacted such a small area with truly historic snowfall is ranked higher then a storm with one of the most massive coverage areas of 20" plus snowfall and with an area of 30" plus snowfall equal in size to the Dec 26h 20" snowfall area is just proof of how flawed and skewed towards population centers that scale is. That ranking system is useless because it weights storms based on how many people are affected not how severe the storm actually was. A 10" snowstorm that hits NYC would rank higher then a 30" snowstorm that hits rural NC. Maybe I am alone in this but when I focus on a storm, its the storm, not the people that happen to live under it that is what interests me. Why you would root for a storm with such a small area of influence over a storm that was truly historic and one of the biggest snowstorms in the history of the mid atlantic is what confuses me.

I see what you are saying, but:

1 - The scale admits freely that it is skewed toward population centers.

2 - The scale's goals are impact. 20" in NYC is more disruptive than 20" in Mount Pocono.

Maybe there should also be a climo/readiness factor included... i.e., BOS is much better suited to handle 20" than DC because its much more likely to get 20", so there should be some skewing in that way as well. Right now I believe it scales population centers equally regardless of climo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...