ADVERTISEMENT

OT: Big winter storm next weekend (01/22-01/24)?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Everyone, including the NWS, concedes that the forecast for NJ in last year's "blizzard" was a bust, although not a complete whiff like March 2001 was (where 1-2 feet were predicted from Philly to NYC and most locations got <1"), since 4-8" fell along I-95 and 8-12" fell east of the Parkway and within 10-15 miles of NYC. The storm was extremely well predicted from NYC eastward, including LI and most of New England.

And given that the models were all showing a foot or more of snow for everyone until a few hours before the event (for some/some models still showed the big snowstorm right up until late in the afternoon when the storm started), what would you have public safety professionals/govt. do? Just ignore the situation and hope for a bust? No, decisions to shut down need to be made at least a half day to a day in advance and it was the prudent thing to do. Having said that, the could've easily lifted the emergency by midnight, when it was crystal clear snowmageddon wasn't hitting 90% of NJ - not sure they could've cancelled the cancellation of schools/work so quickly though.

With regard to the rest of the dozen plus storms last year, you can't seriously consider grading them based on their 5-day forecasts. That's just effing stupid. 5-day forecasts are as accurate as 3-day forecasts were 25 years ago, which is to say, they're just ok, and they're certainly not going to be accurate for snowfall across a wide area - there's a reason no serious forecaster will publish a snowfall prediction more than 72 hours before the event and 48 hours is when they typically first publish forecasts.

Mostly for the reason I mentioned in this thread, i.e., almost any major snowstorm has energy coming ashore from the Pacific around 48-72 hours before the storm starts, just like this one, where the energy is coming ashore now, about 72 hours before the storms starts here (60 hours before it starts in NC/VA) and those systems aren't well sampled, data-wise, meaning "garbage in, garbage out" quite often for the models.

Personally, I think grading a snowfall forecast ~24 hours before an event starts is fair, since that gives people time to adjust plans. If you use that criterion, most of last year's events were reasonably well forecasted. I know, I have all my emails, which contain all the NWS maps from ~24 hours (and 48 hours usually) before the events. Have skimmed through them and they're pretty good (not perfect for every location though) - you'll just have to take my word for it for now, as I don't have time to put all that together, although the NWS might have "grades" on their forecasts - I'll see if I can find that.

I think we can agree that some media outlets way overhype storms and that's unfortunate. I don't think the NWS does and I don't think the good pros do - just listen to them talk about possibilities and uncertainties to know they're not overhyping.
I agree 100% that a 5 day forecast is nearly worthless. That's been my point all along. Don't lead the news Monday morning about a winter mega storm 5 days out. That is just complete nonsense.
As for grading the NWS they should be better. What needs to be graded is the media outlets. What CBS put up this morning shouldn't happen. But it gets eyeballs to the set. Nobody calls them out about it so they keep doing it.
 
Yeah, I used to be with 26-21, but semi-retired on account of job stuff.

I'm pretty tight with your chief (or former) who is also SBPD - initials C.M.
No kidding. Chad is as solid as they come. Great person, and his Dad Read is awesome too. Chad's bro is Chief of SBFD this year.
I'm not real active on call volume (too many CO alarms and ringing alarms), but I make it a point to attend all the training I can, and I'll make the calls when they need manpower.
 
What would you rather have the 11 o clock news lead with?

It's all sensational garbage. The day the 11 o clock news leads with a story that doesn't interest the least common denominator I'll agree with you.
 
No kidding. Chad is as solid as they come. Great person, and his Dad Read is awesome too. Chad's bro is Chief of SBFD this year.
I'm not real active on call volume (too many CO alarms and ringing alarms), but I make it a point to attend all the training I can, and I'll make the calls when they need manpower.

Chad is awesome. He has his own meme. Next time you see him, ask him to tell you the story about "I know Chad _______ !!"
 
and predictably the weenies are hugging the new gfs and in denial even tho it ticked a bit south..still giving us 10-15 verbatim but not quite as dynamic
 
Definite trends today.

Channel 7 just said the far northern suburbs may have trouble getting accumulating snow, per the way things are trending. Definitely not the historic storm models were showing just 2 days ago.
 
Definite trends today.

Channel 7 just said the far northern suburbs may have trouble getting accumulating snow, per the way things are trending. Definitely not the historic storm models were showing just 2 days ago.

Technically, there's no such thing as a "trend" in models from run to run. A run at 7 am and a run at 7 pm are completely independent events with completely separate data inputs, i.e., the newer run doesn't "know" the results of the previous run, so any "trend" is something humans observe, but isn't really there. As opposed to the observed "trend" that it gets warmer, on average, over the month of March - there's a real underlying physical explanation for that.
 
Technically, there's no such thing as a "trend" in models from run to run. A run at 7 am and a run at 7 pm are completely independent events with completely separate data inputs, i.e., the newer run doesn't "know" the results of the previous run, so any "trend" is something humans observe, but isn't really there. As opposed to the observed "trend" that it gets warmer, on average, over the month of March - there's a real underlying physical explanation for that.


I see, thanks.
 
not so much much a trend but a wait a minute on the euro and to a lesser extent gfs ticked south...now tonight we will see if a trend is developing

What does DT think..he despises the gfs..is he hugging the euro
 
Megalopolis.

And that's not a new term. The Megalopolis is the network of major U.S. cities along I-95 from DC to Boston.
Thanks. Thought it was a Marvel comic book term. [smoke] Certainly never heard it in a forecast before
 
Thanks. Thought it was a Marvel comic book term. [smoke] Certainly never heard it in a forecast before

The area of greatest social silliness (and we, admittedly, are complicit in this sin of commission) is the continued drive and desire to overpopulate the northeastern part of this country. Given 20th (and 21st) century advances in transportation and communications, it's always surprised me that we still cling to the coasts the way that we do. We should spread out, more.
 
The area of greatest social silliness (and we, admittedly, are complicit in this sin of commission) is the continued drive and desire to overpopulate the northeastern part of this country. Given 20th (and 21st) century advances in transportation and communications, it's always surprised me that we still cling to the coasts the way that we do. We should spread out, more.
But it's close to the beach :cool2:
 
The area of greatest social silliness (and we, admittedly, are complicit in this sin of commission) is the continued drive and desire to overpopulate the northeastern part of this country. Given 20th (and 21st) century advances in transportation and communications, it's always surprised me that we still cling to the coasts the way that we do. We should spread out, more.

We have spread out. In the 1930s and 1940s, New York State had 45 Congressmen; it's now down to 27. Pennsylvania had 36 Congressmen from the 1910s through the 1930s; it is now down to 18. Meanwhile the delegations from Florida, Texas and California have boomed. In other words, the proportion of people living in the northeast is sharply dropping.

anything new on the weather?
 
We have spread out. In the 1930s and 1940s, New York State had 45 Congressmen; it's now down to 27. Pennsylvania had 36 Congressmen from the 1910s through the 1930s; it is now down to 18. Meanwhile the delegations from Florida, Texas and California have boomed. In other words, the proportion of people living in the northeast is sharply dropping.

anything new on the weather?

Montana still has the same number. :)

The storm won't be fully sampled until the 00Z model runs. By tomorrow afternoon we should have a better idea of what's going to happen. 48-72 hours is always the window of best early opportunity. As many of us, RU848789 included, have always said - there's really no such thing as a "forecast" that's accurate 5 days out.
 
We have spread out. In the 1930s and 1940s, New York State had 45 Congressmen; it's now down to 27. Pennsylvania had 36 Congressmen from the 1910s through the 1930s; it is now down to 18. Meanwhile the delegations from Florida, Texas and California have boomed. In other words, the proportion of people living in the northeast is sharply dropping.

anything new on the weather?
This is a question, not stating as fact but isn't the number of people living in the Northeast at an all time high? (#, not %) And isn't the # and percentage of people living near the coast across the US (within 100 miles including the Gulf and Pacific) at an all time high as well? Going back to 4Real point that we cling to the coasts? Post WWII?
 
Montana still has the same number. :)

The storm won't be fully sampled until the 00Z model runs. By tomorrow afternoon we should have a better idea of what's going to happen. 48-72 hours is always the window of best early opportunity. As many of us, RU848789 included, have always said - there's really no such thing as a "forecast" that's accurate 5 days out.
hqdefault.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: WhiteBus
This is a question, not stating as fact but isn't the number of people living in the Northeast at an all time high? (#, not %) And isn't the # and percentage of people living near the coast across the US (within 100 miles including the Gulf and Pacific) at an all time high as well? Going back to 4Real point that we cling to the coasts? Post WWII?

I'm sure you're right, WhiteBus, that the number of people in the northeast is at an all-time high, but that's because the population of the country as a whole keeps growing. By contrast, the proportion of Americans who are in the northeast is lower than in the past. But your central point -- that people want to live near ocean water -- is right. States like Ohio and Illinois now account for a lesser proportion of the country than fifty years ago, and states like Florida and California have gone up -- and that California population is concentrated along the Pacific coast line.
 
Montana still has the same number. :)

The storm won't be fully sampled until the 00Z model runs. By tomorrow afternoon we should have a better idea of what's going to happen. 48-72 hours is always the window of best early opportunity. As many of us, RU848789 included, have always said - there's really no such thing as a "forecast" that's accurate 5 days out.

Thanks for the update. Notice that Nevada now has four Congressional districts; it had only one for the longest time.
 
GFS/GGEM (Canadian) vs. Euro/UKMET. As every pro has said, until we get the two systems in the Pacific (especially the "main one" off the Pac NW US coast, just coming ashore now) onshore and sampled much more completely by the RAOB (radiosonde - weather balloons, which provide 3-D data at various points from the surface to the upper atmosphere) system, the data inputs to the models are more suspect. We should have the much richer initial condition data set for tonight's model runs, which initialize at 7 pm. Not worth trying to "predict" what's going to happen before seeing tonight's model runs. Everything from a 2/6/10 scenario, where only south of 195 got hammered and NYC got flurries (and Edison got 6", Trenton got 18" and Philly got 28"; all due to confluence/suppression), to Jan 1996 are still on the table until then.

Comments in the AmericanWx thread that the main pieces of energy were mostly, but not completely on shore at 7 pm, which is when the 0Z models started running (and I'm assuming it takes some time to gather and input the data, so maybe the data input are from 6 pm - not sure). So, the initial conditions will be known much better than for today's 12Z models, but we might still need to wait for tomorrow's 12Z models to really get a sense for the evolution of this storm.

While the model mayhem we saw earlier today certainly means we don't have a "slam dunk" major snowstorm for our area, it doesn't mean we won't have a major snowstorm, either - jury is still out. And as we relearned with last year's "blizzard" (and which we learned well for the Feb 2010 storm, which had an even sharper gradient from 0 to 24" than last year's storm) when one is near the edge of the heaviest precip, it doesn't take much of a shift in track or precipitation shield to lead to significant changes in the actual outcome for a storm. That's what makes this stuff so fascinating and maddening at the same time. More to come tonight...
 
Comments in the AmericanWx thread that the main pieces of energy were mostly, but not completely on shore at 7 pm, which is when the 0Z models started running (and I'm assuming it takes some time to gather and input the data, so maybe the data input are from 6 pm - not sure). So, the initial conditions will be known much better than for today's 12Z models, but we might still need to wait for tomorrow's 12Z models to really get a sense for the evolution of this storm.

While the model mayhem we saw earlier today certainly means we don't have a "slam dunk" major snowstorm for our area, it doesn't mean we won't have a major snowstorm, either - jury is still out. And as we relearned with last year's "blizzard" (and which we learned well for the Feb 2010 storm, which had an even sharper gradient from 0 to 24" than last year's storm) when one is near the edge of the heaviest precip, it doesn't take much of a shift in track or precipitation shield to lead to significant changes in the actual outcome for a storm. That's what makes this stuff so fascinating and maddening at the same time. More to come tonight...
I'll go back to an earlier point. A low near the coast might very well move warmer air in from the ocean as it is warmer than it been in January in a very long time. But again still too early to tell.
 
I'll go back to an earlier point. A low near the coast might very well move warmer air in from the ocean as it is warmer than it been in January in a very long time. But again still too early to tell.

But I guess I'm in for significant flooding Sat Morning with the storm and monthly high tides right?
 
I agree 100% that a 5 day forecast is nearly worthless. That's been my point all along. Don't lead the news Monday morning about a winter mega storm 5 days out. That is just complete nonsense.
As for grading the NWS they should be better. What needs to be graded is the media outlets. What CBS put up this morning shouldn't happen. But it gets eyeballs to the set. Nobody calls them out about it so they keep doing it.

Here's the thing. A 5-day forecast for precip is generally highly uncertain, but not worthless, at least not with regard to showing a range of possibilities, but having said that meteorology has advanced significantly over the past 25 years or so, such that today's 5-day forecasts are as accurate as 3-day forecasts 25 years ago. So the NWS and the science are much better than they used to be. The question, to me, isn't why are they wrong sometimes, but how effing amazing is it that they're right much of the time? Honestly, it helps an awful lot to have to have some experience in computational fluid dynamics or atmospheric science (they're similar, except for scale) and numerical modeling of such phenomena (which I happen to have - chem eng'g and meteorology are strikingly similar in many ways) to fully appreciate how difficult it is to model the atmosphere in 3-D, globally over time, and get it right.

Also, you may or may not have noticed, 5-day forecasts in certain patterns, can be quite good - for example, there were several football game this year and previous years where even 7-day forecasts were accurate for dry conditions - if a pattern is well modeled and an area looks to be dry for a day or two before and after a target date, then even 5 to 7 days out a dry forecast can be made with pretty high confidence and we've seen that many, many times over the years for football games. But when a 7 or even 5 or 3 day forecast is showing precip near or during gametime, one has to wait, usually, until very close to gametime to see what the outcome is, since the margin for error is so much smaller relative to the accuracy of the forecast in that situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jerzey devil
But I guess I'm in for significant flooding Sat Morning with the storm and monthly high tides right?
Sadly yes. High tides strong inland winds are likely regardless of rain or snow. Stay dry and prayers to you all along the shore. So many are still recovering like you from Sandy.
 
Here's the thing. A 5-day forecast for precip is generally highly uncertain, but not worthless, at least not with regard to showing a range of possibilities, but having said that meteorology has advanced significantly over the past 25 years or so, such that today's 5-day forecasts are as accurate as 3-day forecasts 25 years ago. So the NWS and the science are much better than they used to be. The question, to me, isn't why are they wrong sometimes, but how effing amazing is it that they're right much of the time? Honestly, it helps an awful lot to have to have some experience in computational fluid dynamics or atmospheric science (they're similar, except for scale) and numerical modeling of such phenomena (which I happen to have - chem eng'g and meteorology are strikingly similar in many ways) to fully appreciate how difficult it is to model the atmosphere in 3-D, globally over time, and get it right.

Also, you may or may not have noticed, 5-day forecasts in certain patterns, can be quite good - for example, there were several football game this year and previous years where even 7-day forecasts were accurate for dry conditions - if a pattern is well modeled and an area looks to be dry for a day or two before and after a target date, then even 5 to 7 days out a dry forecast can be made with pretty high confidence and we've seen that many, many times over the years for football games. But when a 7 or even 5 or 3 day forecast is showing precip near or during gametime, one has to wait, usually, until very close to gametime to see what the outcome is, since the margin for error is so much smaller relative to the accuracy of the forecast in that situation.
But like last year's Penn State game even rain events are way off within hours of the forecast. And yes 5 days are better today than 10 years ago but still not great. What has improved greatly in the last 5 years is the prediction of long dry spells.
What the long range prediction on temps? This reminds me of 2006 and early 2007. Mild winter. I remember it well as I got my dog right after the Texas Bowl. Was lucky to walk her almost everyday to train her in 40 degree temps for a majority of the winter.
Any similarities in your view?
 
But I guess I'm in for significant flooding Sat Morning with the storm and monthly high tides right?
Unfortunately, yes, although a suppressed storm with less snow would also mean less coastal flooding as the storm center would be further from the coast (less winds, too). Here's what the NWS had to say at 4 pm:

.TIDES/COASTAL FLOODING...
A COASTAL STORM HAS THE POTENTIAL TO PRODUCE MULTIPLE EPISODES
OF COASTAL FLOODING AROUND THE TIMES OF HIGH TIDE FRI NIGHT INTO
SAT NIGHT. ASTRONOMICAL TIDES WILL BE RUNNING HIGH WITH THE FULL
MOON COMING UP ON JAN 23...WHICH IN COMBINATION WITH A PROLONGED
PERIOD OF NE GALES OR EVEN STORM FORCE WINDS COULD PRODUCE
SIGNIFICANT STORM SURGE AND COASTAL FLOODING.

http://forecast.weather.gov/product...&format=CI&version=1&glossary=1&highlight=off

Also the NWS hazardous weather briefing has more details on potentially moderate to major coastal flooding. They noted tides being 2-3 feet above normal being likely (way, way less than Sandy, which had 8-10 foot departures, if I recall correctly), but that number could still change as the storm evolves.

http://www.weather.gov/media/phi/current_briefing.pdf
 
Unfortunately, yes, although a suppressed storm with less snow would also mean less coastal flooding as the storm center would be further from the coast (less winds, too). Here's what the NWS had to say at 4 pm:

.TIDES/COASTAL FLOODING...
A COASTAL STORM HAS THE POTENTIAL TO PRODUCE MULTIPLE EPISODES
OF COASTAL FLOODING AROUND THE TIMES OF HIGH TIDE FRI NIGHT INTO
SAT NIGHT. ASTRONOMICAL TIDES WILL BE RUNNING HIGH WITH THE FULL
MOON COMING UP ON JAN 23...WHICH IN COMBINATION WITH A PROLONGED
PERIOD OF NE GALES OR EVEN STORM FORCE WINDS COULD PRODUCE
SIGNIFICANT STORM SURGE AND COASTAL FLOODING.

http://forecast.weather.gov/product...&format=CI&version=1&glossary=1&highlight=off

Also the NWS hazardous weather briefing has more details on potentially moderate to major coastal flooding. They noted tides being 2-3 feet above normal being likely (way, way less than Sandy, which had 8-10 foot departures, if I recall correctly), but that number could still change as the storm evolves.

http://www.weather.gov/media/phi/current_briefing.pdf

Sea Bright had an 8' surge during Sandy. (Full disclosure, I advise Sea Bright at a fairly high level (so see, you're not alone, bleh. :) ) Mt. Holly's suggestion this afternoon that total departure could be in excess of 6' (storm surge plus astronomical high tide) is a HUGE deal for them. It bears very close watching.
 
Sea Bright had an 8' surge during Sandy. (Full disclosure, I advise Sea Bright at a fairly high level (so see, you're not alone, bleh. :) ) Mt. Holly's suggestion this afternoon that total departure could be in excess of 6' (storm surge plus astronomical high tide) is a HUGE deal for them. It bears very close watching.
Isn't this the bigger story of this system?
 
But like last year's Penn State game even rain events are way off within hours of the forecast. And yes 5 days are better today than 10 years ago but still not great. What has improved greatly in the last 5 years is the prediction of long dry spells.
What the long range prediction on temps? This reminds me of 2006 and early 2007. Mild winter. I remember it well as I got my dog right after the Texas Bowl. Was lucky to walk her almost everyday to train her in 40 degree temps for a majority of the winter.
Any similarities in your view?

The NWS forecast for the PSU game, was actually superb, IMO, from a medium range perspective. Noted the chance for showers in the afternoon/evening of the game 6-7 days out and while the chance was always considered low, that chance never completely disappeared from their forecast or discussions. The only "surprise" was that the showers that hit near halftime into the 2nd half were heavier than expected the day before (but not much heavier than expected the day of), not that they fell at all. Such instability driven showers are mesoscale phenomena that humans will likely never be able to forecast with high accuracy - simply too much energy in the atmosphere in summer, leading to too much uncertainty.

https://rutgers.forums.rivals.com/threads/weather-for-ru-psu.30409/

With regard to temps or precip, any forecasts beyond 7 days are usually complete crap, given the chaotic nature of weather, meaning the range of solutions that far out is so wide as to be barely helpful, except with regard to trends, like above/below normal. It's why I chuckle at the analog-based seasonal forecasts, which nobody does well that I know of (other than Dr. Gray's tropical activity seasonal forecasts).
 
So we're looking at some Blondie action down the shore.
 
I live in Gloucester County. Do I need to get the snow shovels down from the attic? Somebody simplify...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT