snywx Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 We just had one 2 weeks ago... Ok let me rephrase.... how about a coastal hugger with an equal precip field on its western side. Is that better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tombo82685 Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 0z euro has just begun, lets see if it moves towards its ens mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 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. I see your points as well, but I think this storm proves it is overly weighted towards pure population. Is 20" in NYC more disruptive then 20" in Philly, Baltimore, DC, and Pittsburgh as well as everyplace in between? Plus the amounts in the Feb storm were significantly more impressive. I remember looking at the totals from the mid atlantic thread and lots of places were near 40" in MD and northern VA. Lots of reports in WV of 35". I know there were a few isolated 30" amounts in December, but there was an enormous coverage of 30" snowfall in the Feb storm. I would have thought that the massive coverage of that storm combined with the fact that the snowfall amounts were greater in that storm, and it did affect several major metro areas just not NYC, would make it not even a close comparison. Seems NYC alone has enough population that if a big enough storm hits that city it will automatically rank high on the NESIS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TowsonWeather Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 lol.. ughh what does it take these dayz to get a coastal hugger around here?? Must be rough for you guys. It's been what, WEEKS since you've had a historic storm ;-) What does it TAKE, right!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-X Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 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. well how "severe" it was is also subjective. I like to use storm intensity and winds to judge storm intensity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famartin Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 I see your points as well, but I think this storm proves it is overly weighted towards pure population. Is 20" in NYC more disruptive then 20" in Philly, Baltimore, DC, and Pittsburgh as well as everyplace in between? Plus the amounts in the Feb storm were significantly more impressive. I remember looking at the totals from the mid atlantic thread and lots of places were near 40" in MD and northern VA. Lots of reports in WV of 35". I know there were a few isolated 30" amounts in December, but there was an enormous coverage of 30" snowfall in the Feb storm. I would have thought that the massive coverage of that storm combined with the fact that the snowfall amounts were greater in that storm, and it did affect several major metro areas just not NYC, would make it not even a close comparison. Seems NYC alone has enough population that if a big enough storm hits that city it will automatically rank high on the NESIS. Philly possibly, DC probably not... but Pittsburgh, certainly. Again, climo probably should be a factor too. Pittsburgh gets snow a lot more than NYC so its better prepared (even if it doesn't get big storms all that much). BTW, two other things to remember: 1 - NCDC's analysis doesn't seem to have spotter reports (last year it didn't, anyway)... it seemed to be mainly coop reports, from what I recall (memory a big vague here). This will likely lower the ranking. 2 - KU will likely do their own analysis at some point when the next book comes out (whenever that is), and the ranks could change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yankeex777 Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 I see your points as well, but I think this storm proves it is overly weighted towards pure population. Is 20" in NYC more disruptive then 20" in Philly, Baltimore, DC, and Pittsburgh as well as everyplace in between? Plus the amounts in the Feb storm were significantly more impressive. I remember looking at the totals from the mid atlantic thread and lots of places were near 40" in MD and northern VA. Lots of reports in WV of 35". I know there were a few isolated 30" amounts in December, but there was an enormous coverage of 30" snowfall in the Feb storm. I would have thought that the massive coverage of that storm combined with the fact that the snowfall amounts were greater in that storm, and it did affect several major metro areas just not NYC, would make it not even a close comparison. Seems NYC alone has enough population that if a big enough storm hits that city it will automatically rank high on the NESIS. I agree with your points, but they specifically weigh it towards areas with greater population. They dont hide that fact, so they at least adhere to their own guidelines. I agree with a different type of rating system that doesnt weigh population impact so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgerb Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 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. A bit OT, but let me chime in. You're right that the scale is intended to estimate societal impacts, and the most straightforward way to do that is to use population affected. Storms could also be evaluated by area of snowfall alone, but this hasn't been done yet. The climo/readiness factor is built in to some degree in the new "RESIS" (Regional Snowfall Impact Scale). The way this is done is that the snowfall categories (e.g., 4-10", 10-20", etc.) differ from region to region and are based on snowfall climatology. They are much lower in the SE, for instance. This isn't reflected in the NESIS map posted, but I think over coming seasons, this should become more prominent. I've actually be working on the team in developing the RESIS indexes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-X Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 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. I saw DC people admit that this storm was much better than what they had. You cant go purely by snowfall amounts alone and even if you did, they neglected to show the 30 inch amts in central and ne nj. Aside from that the wind and pressure intensity of a true blizzard is something which makes up for areal coverage. No one cares that Andrew covered such a small area and if we're going to have a purely scientific scale, we need to go by actual intensity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgerb Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Philly possibly, DC probably not... but Pittsburgh, certainly. Again, climo probably should be a factor too. Pittsburgh gets snow a lot more than NYC so its better prepared (even if it doesn't get big storms all that much). BTW, two other things to remember: 1 - NCDC's analysis doesn't seem to have spotter reports (last year it didn't, anyway)... it seemed to be mainly coop reports, from what I recall (memory a big vague here). This will likely lower the ranking. 2 - KU will likely do their own analysis at some point when the next book comes out (whenever that is), and the ranks could change. Some good news is that CoCoRaHS reports will now be incorporated into the evaluation process, so that will greatly increase observation density. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-X Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 A bit OT, but let me chime in. You're right that the scale is intended to estimate societal impacts, and the most straightforward way to do that is to use population affected. Storms could also be evaluated by area of snowfall alone, but this hasn't been done yet. The climo/readiness factor is built in to some degree in the new "RESIS" (Regional Snowfall Impact Scale). The way this is done is that the snowfall categories (e.g., 4-10", 10-20", etc.) differ from region to region and are based on snowfall climatology. They are much lower in the SE, for instance. This isn't reflected in the NESIS map posted, but I think over coming seasons, this should become more prominent. I've actually be working on the team in developing the RESIS indexes. This is true and the most bland way to put it is that a storm having impact on people trumps a storm having impact over wilderness. But that isnt even my contention; my contention is the storm was much more intense based on scientific reasons (pressure, wind.) I think it was Nikolai who witnessed both and he said which one he preferred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snywx Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Must be rough for you guys. It's been what, WEEKS since you've had a historic storm ;-) What does it TAKE, right!? lol.. Historic for who? I live no where near the coast.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ace0927 Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 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. if its the "storm" than the 960mb slp with 60 MPH winds were also more impressive than the 20"-30" that effected maybe 30 people in rural PA/MD/VA....lets be honest, if its not effecting PEOPLE than who really gives a rats ass? and i know this kills people to hear, if NYC isnt involved it will lower its standing on the scale...all feb 5-7 2010 was a glorified feb 22 1987.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 well how "severe" it was is also subjective. I like to use storm intensity and winds to judge storm intensity. how did you come up with the idea to use storm intensity to judge storm intensity? that is genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-X Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 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. Apparently, NYC wasnt so well suited to handling 20" judging by what happened here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TowsonWeather Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 "I saw DC people admit that this storm was much better than what they had." - LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-X Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 how did you come up with the idea to use storm intensity to judge storm intensity? that is genius Dude its so obvious youre biased towards your area.... completely transparent. It's completely asinine for you to start this argument two weeks after the storm happened. You got your snowstorm, we got ours, just move on..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-X Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 lol.. Historic for who? I live no where near the coast.. Relax, theyre bored with nothing going on in their own subforum they have to go and try and mess up ours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgerb Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 This is true and the most bland way to put it is that a storm having impact on people trumps a storm having impact over wilderness. But that isnt even my contention; my contention is the storm was much more intense based on scientific reasons (pressure, wind.) I think it was Nikolai who witnessed both and he said which one he preferred. Agreed. Obviously, there's a lot more to the impact of a snow storm than snow totals alone. It's just a matter of how those other factors (like wind, time of day, day of week, etc.) can be factored into an index. It's difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earthlight Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 All the height fields are backed a bit towards the coast so far on the Euro..should be at least a bit NW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 I saw DC people admit that this storm was much better than what they had. You cant go purely by snowfall amounts alone and even if you did, they neglected to show the 30 inch amts in central and ne nj. Aside from that the wind and pressure intensity of a true blizzard is something which makes up for areal coverage. No one cares that Andrew covered such a small area and if we're going to have a purely scientific scale, we need to go by actual intensity. what does wind have to do with snowfall? This is very subjective but I couldn't care less if I have a light breeze or 80mph winds. Its how much snow that matters to me. Not everyone shares your love of "intensity". If we were ranking storm pressures or "intensity" I would agree but snowfall tends to have to be a significant factor in a ranking designed for SNOWSTORMS. I fully admit I am biased because I have my own criteria and snowfall is much more important then wind or pressure in my mind, but that is just me. I do not like the NESIS because for me it factors in a lot of things that have nothing to do with a snowstorm, like how many people live where it hit and such. I guess my beef is that I would like a ranking system that measures the snowfall not societal factors or "intensity". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tombo82685 Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 through hr 66 on the euro, the northern stream is digging more, the hgts are higher on the ec... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LetItSnowInPhilly Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Dude its so obvious youre biased towards your area.... completely transparent. It's completely asinine for you to start this argument two weeks after the storm happened. You got your snowstorm, we got ours, just move on..... I don't care about the rest of your argument with him but "I like you use storm intensity to judge storm intensity" is one of the dumbest posts I've seen here. Its an impact scale. Want an intensity measure? Use MBs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-X Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Agreed. Obviously, there's a lot more to the impact of a snow storm than snow totals alone. It's just a matter of how those other factors (like wind, time of day, day of week, etc.) can be factored into an index. It's difficult. The funny thing is a week ago when this happened I agreed with them (obviously not psu because he is immature and likes to repeatedly pick fights in other people's subforums-- this isnt the first time.) but anyway, in the NESIS thread in the main forum, I agreed that 2/6/10 storm had a much wider area of coverage and said that the scale is too subjective in how it balances areal coverage vs population coverage. But for some reason psu has to repeatedly come in here and throw fits for different unimportant reasons over things he has no control over. Its a no win situation when youre trying to balance various subjective and objective properties of any given storm. Not only that, it's extremely difficult to compare storms when the properties youre using to describe them are based on judgment calls on how to weigh them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cary Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 mods, can we clean up the garbage in here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earthlight Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Way more amplified with the height lines on the east coast...by like 150 miles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-X Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 I don't care about the rest of your argument with him but "I like you use storm intensity to judge storm intensity" is one of the dumbest posts I've seen here. Its an impact scale. Want an intensity measure? Use MBs. Well duh-- youre very smart for pointing out the obvious. But apparently what you didnt understand was the fact that is the single most objective property in analyzing storms. Its not the only thing, but its part of the mix. So until you achieve some level of reading comprehension, maybe you should look in the mirror when you call someone "dumb." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Absolute Humidity Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Does the Euro show anything different from the Nam or GGEM for tomorrows coastal counties south Jersey event? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tombo82685 Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 hr 78 the northern stream is really diving down, amplifying the trof...sub 1016 low about 50 miles east of savannah, which is further west than 12z., good bit hgr hgts on the ec in response to the digging Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-X Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 mods, can we clean up the garbage in here? It's being taken care of Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.