rb924119 - 33andrain Jump to content

rb924119

Meteorologist
  • Content Count

    625
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

rb924119 last won the day on June 18 2018

rb924119 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,877 Excellent

1 Follower

About rb924119

Personal Information

  • Location
    Greentown, Pa/Fishkill, NY

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. That’s why I have been so adamant about such low numbers. There was literally nothing supporting the idea of any resistance to the warm advection. The only coherent forcing we had to work in our region with was the lower-level isentropic lift, which is also the warm front aloft. That’s why now that the moisture (being forced by that lift) is coming into our region it’s already too warm for snow.
  2. About five minutes of light snownroght over to wintry mix here in Fishkill, NY.
  3. Just got a report of snow/sleet in Dobbs Ferry.
  4. God darn it, I keep forgetting the Meso-analysis Page has the critical thickness plots ahaha thank you for reminding me!!
  5. Just be careful with taking the precip types verbatim, as it’s already raining as far north as Allentown, Pa, and sleeting in Hazleton, Pa. not sure where the warm nose is, though.
  6. Haha amen to that, brother! Excel is a beautiful thing lmao highly versatile
  7. Oh ok. Yeah, that’s so fun to do when it comes to snowfall forecasts!! It’s also incredibly helpful. I started doing self-verifications a couple years ago, and it really helped me to pick out smaller-scale regional biases such as the topographical influences for various types of events, and general storm-type snowfall ranges, among other things. The ECMWF regulations are ridiculous and really hurt the weather community overall, in my opinion. That said, the best way to do it would be to contact them directly so you could gain access to their raw data. The problem with that would be having the know-how to be able work with the raw datasets to achieve your desired results. And speaking from experience, computer coding isn’t for everybody ahaha not to mention if they’d even let you purchase it since you aren’t a “company” or “large enough”company, or if they did, how cost effective it would be lol still, running it on US-based data sources would still be highly useful for the same reasons.
  8. For your own curiosity, or to actually assist with forecasting? If it’s the later, you may not need even need to, as general observations for various types of events/times of year would pretty nicely guide you in assessing the sign of variable bias (+/-) which you could then just fine tune with further observation. If you want hard data, then unfortunstely there’s no other option but to run your own verifications lol and that’s where it gets tough, because the system (atmospheric column) is linked. As you said, analyzing one variable, or in your case, one level may not tell the whole story, so isolating the “real” bias will be very difficult. Now technically, you could analyze each level depending on the amount of time you wanted to devote to this project and your computational abilities (or dedication if you aren’t well-versed with technology), but something tells me that might be a bit too adventurous lmao talk to @burgwx, though, as he’s been involved with verifications for his Grad work.
  9. Completely agree. It would also help to confirm or nullify any anecdotal biases if they broadened the verification dataset and published them. We can dream, at least aha
  10. You really think they’d admit otherwise? Lol the GFS is their baby; they’d throw the NAM to wolves instead.
  11. Oh yeah, it definitely has merit in these types of setups because your precipitation is entirely governed by that same warm advection that leads to the precipitation change. There are no synoptic forcing mechanisms in play (strong mechanisms). I’m just saying that the rate/extent of the advection of air that’s “too warm” can be influenced by the other factors. The way I look at things and analyze them regarding how the hemispheric and tropical modes is a very hard thing to try to explain lol it’s not exactly “textbook” or straightforward; it’s rather abstract to be completely honest aha so I apologize for that. Regarding Wednesday’s evolution, from the little I’ve looked at pertaining to our discussion and what I recall seeing in the ensembles a few days ago, you know where I stand lol but without looking more deeply, I cannot really provide any comment or valuable discussion of details, or any follow-up to your thoughts at this moment. Either way, your ideas are centainly plausible, and I fully agree with your remark concerning the degree of impact.
  12. Let me preface my comments with a concurrence that we are largely on the same page haha I would be careful with saying that warm air advancement aloft being undermodeled is a “rule”, as this is entirely governed by larger-scale hemispheric and even tropical alignments/modes. If you have a particular background state such that these factors are supportive of a colder evolution overall, then the advancement of the warmth will be blunted (the degree to which this occurs is determined by how strongly the cold is favored, ala November). However, the opposite regarding warmth is also true. Secondly, it’s not necessarily all about the strength of the lower-level high/cold air, but location, location, location. In our current setup, look where the high is; due east of us with a weakness to our north. When you look at that in the context of cold air sourcing, we don’t have any. Think of your ageostrophic/isallobaric flow in the lower-levels: They aren’t coming from continental polar air masses either from Canada or the Great Lakes/Upper Midwest AT ALL. They’re actually coming from a modified Maritime Polar airmass from the due east. Higher dewpoint and warmer versus the former. Without any other help (synoptically), this is essentially meaningless to us, even if it was a 1050 hPa high. The source region is all wrong.
  13. I think it’s safe to say this discussion was within the context of snowfall, not general frozen precipitation types. If you want to argue those semantics, then fine, I will yield to you if discussing general frozen versus not frozen QPF totals. But pure snowfall will be very limited, in my opinion, just as it has been for the last several events for the same reasons. Even general frozen QPF will likely be limited here.
  14. They were low for the last one and they will be low for the one tonight, and look at the results. It doesn’t matter what the surface does; it’s the advancement of the warm nose aloft that matters. In all three cases, the modeling of that warm nose was/is underdone due to the overall background state. This is not the November setup, and neither was the last one nor will tonight’s be; totally different synoptic and global alignments. You cannot count on the same thing to save you, in my opinion. The warmth is largely favored to quickly advance here lock in step with the precipitation, not substantially behind it.
  15. With a high in that position and given the background state, I wouldn’t get your hopes up. It would again be a brief start as snow then quickly to slop.
×