Nor'easter Monday or not?

riverat · 01-09-2008, 10:19 PM

I understand some models are predicting a possible storm for Monday, any thoughts?

Resident 2B · 01-09-2008, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by riverat

I understand some models are predicting a possible storm for Monday, any thoughts?

Models are still inconsistent, but it is still early. It does not look like anything huge right now and it could go out to sea to the south of us.

Give it a few more days. This is not cut and dry, yet.

R2B

chipj29 · 01-10-2008, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

Models are still inconsistent, but it is still early. It does not look like anything huge right now and it could go out to sea to the south of us.

Give it a few more days. This is not cut and dry, yet.

R2B

Yesterdays euro model had it going west of us, which would give us a mix at the very least. This mornings gfs has it sitting just off of Cape Cod, which would give us a foot of snow. The models are having a tough time figuring this one out, as they have had most of this year.

GTO · 01-10-2008, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by riverat

I understand some models are predicting a possible storm for Monday, any thoughts?

Are these the same models used in the polls in NH that were picking Obama as the winner? If so, it will be sunny and warm on Monday.

Resident 2B · 01-10-2008, 12:30 PM

Just spent some time with the models.....weather models that is. Life is not that exciting!

The models are still all over the place, but it is looking like they are beginning to converge to some extent, as long as you completely disregard the GFS.

My opinion is the ECWMF has the best handle on the situation. That is because it forms the storm where one would expect a storm to form when you consider the frontal locations and the locations of the "jets". The UKMET is starting to pick-up on this and the GGEM seems to be in good agreement with the ECMWF's storm origination point. The GFS starts the storm well south of where anyone would think a storm would be born given the atmospheric conditions in the area at the time of formation. Therefore, if you disregard the GFS and look at a reasonable blend of the ECMWF, the GGEM and the UKMET, in that order, you start to see some convergence showing us with a moderate winter storm.

It is looking like the storm goes near the 40/70 benchmark, and if it does, southern New England up through at least the Lakes Region should see 6" or more of snow, about a Y1 in "forum-speak". However, it really is too soon to be thinking about accumulations in specific locations from this event.

Timing looks to be in-line with what Rose was thinking several days ago, mainly a late Sunday night into Monday event. This is 12 hours earlier than I was thinking, at that time.

Although this is my opinion at this time, confidence in this forecast is only low to moderate. It could get bigger and it could be just a small event. Time will tell.

If you are a betting person, bet your money on the Pats and not on this forecast. As GTO points out in his recent post, models and forecasts are inaccurate at times, especially this time of year in NH.

R2B

CanisLupusArctos · 01-10-2008, 12:38 PM

Models are still in disagreement for Monday's storm and it will be hard for the humans to pick the right solution since we're in the middle of a weather pattern change and Monday will be about the first day of the new pattern. It's hard to tell which model is closest to reality without knowing at least a few things about how the current pattern is behaving. If this situation had presented itself back in mid-December's pattern I'd say we're getting a good-size snowstorm on Monday... but just how well our new pattern will compare to December's remains to be seen.

For now I can say WCSH-6 in Portland (Roger Griswold) is going for a snowstorm, The Weather Channel also just jumped on board, changing their forecast from "snow showers" on Monday to "snow and wind", and The National Weather Service in Gray is playing it conservative as I just did.

MAXUM · 01-11-2008, 02:23 PM

I'm fascinated by the weather and how it's predicted. So with these weather models that are referenced here, what's the difference with them and why? How exactly are the models determined or calculated? Furthermore, how they heck do you really make the decision as to which is more likely to happen? Seems to me that there are so many variables in play at any given time so I don't understand how anything can be accurately predicted, although most times you guys seem to be pretty close to calling it right. Inquiring minds want to know!!

For the contributers here, I for one find your postings fun to read even though most of this stuff goes way over my head.

CanisLupusArctos · 01-11-2008, 06:32 PM

Maxum,
Good questions! "The models" are actual computerized models of the atmosphere (with landforms built in) that move and change according to the laws of physics and everything else people learn about weather. They're all programmed a little different, depending on who made the model and what they were going after.

If you have ever played (or seen) a really good flight simulator game (I like Microsoft Flight Simulator 10) then you would see "weather settings" which are basically a scaled down meteorological model -- probably not realistic enough to make weather forecasts, but good enough to give you an idea of what it would be like to fly in various types of weather.

The models have a resolution just like a digital picture does. They really are a 3D picture of the earth-atmosphere system designed to be as realistic as possible, and they're fed all current weather observations from around the world (the US Gov't / NOAA keeps a huge database that's always updating). Those observations cause the model to "initialize", after which they'll make predictions for 12 hours, 24 hours, 36 hours, etc. Sometimes they don't initialize well, showing a storm to the west when it's really to the north. When this happens, forecasters will be inclined to throw out that model run and choose one that initialized accurately.

As with a flight simulator game, resolution affects accuracy. When I played FlightSim 10 on a crappy computer, I had to tone down the scenery settings in order to get it to work. I "flew" over Lake Winnipesaukee and saw ruler-straight shorelines, Rattlesnake Island looked like a row of shipping boxes, and Mount Washington looked like a demolished version of the Great Pyramids. This is the way most computer models see. 20 years ago, the resolution was so bad that our lake and the White Mountains weren't even there. And since we know how localized weather can be around here, a model with resolution like this is going to be locally wrong... even if it's accurate on a general, regional scale.

In fact, even the best ones still can't show Mount Washington at its full height... its like the *ultimate* "paint-by-number" canvas, and even with computers as small as they are today, it still takes a HUGE computer to store all the numbers that represent 100% reality.

They're always trying to improve model resolution. Some are US-made, others are in the UK, there's a Canadian... Most of our US models are developed and programmed by research meteorologists at a 'behind-the-scenes' branch of NOAA, while universities chime in too. It's a job for people who LOVE math.

The models also "learn." When they see a situation that's similar to something they saw before, they consider what happened before, and include it in their output for the present situation.

The human element comes into play because machines aren't as good as people (have you ever screamed at your computer?). For example, airliners can land themselves on auto-pilot, but the FAA isn't about to let the 2 front seats go vacant. Those pilots regularly override their automation to avoid disaster.

In the same fashion, meteorologists override the models, especially if they have local knowledge. A meteorologist who's been working on Mount Washington and hiking it in all kinds of weather in all seasons is going to be able to use the models to make an accurate forecast for the summit, while someone with just as many meteorology courses who's never even seen Mount Washington is probably going to be wrong, even with the same model information.

That's one of the reasons why The Weather Channel (weather.com) has such a poor track record here in New England: The weather in New England is the most localized, varied, and unpredictable in the world (scientific fact.) And The Weather Channel is in Atlanta. They have exceptions, such as Jim Cantore who grew up in White River Jct. Vermont and went to school at Lyndon State College in northern VT. He knows his New England snowstorms better than many of his colleagues, even if they're all using the same info.

A local example of how humans use the models: It's mid-February, and all the models agree that there will be a big storm near Cape Cod in 12 hours. Two models show it farther east, while the others track it right over Cape Cod. For the past 2 weeks the weather pattern has brought storms right up over New England, and the pattern hasn't changed. Therefore the humans disregard the "farther out to sea" models because the others are closer to the current pattern. The humans notice that only one model shows a lot of snow falling from the storm while the others show very light snow. These people look at the situation and they just know, "This is the type of weathermap we used to pray for since we were kids. There's just no way that a setup like this is going to produce average snowfall -- this is going to be big." So they disregard the precipitation forecasts of all the models except the one that was showing a heavy dumping. Finally, local knowledge fine-tunes the forecast as forecasters here in the lakes region see that the storm's expected position would generate very strong winds from the northeast. They say, "The last time we had winds this strong from the northeast, they funneled between the Ossipees and knocked down hundreds of trees at the Center Harbor end of the lake." So even while the regional forecasters at WMUR call for wind gusts of 50 mph, we in the Lakes Region might say "localized gusts up to 70 mph".

In 2000, UNH teamed up with Plymouth State, NOAA, and the Mt. Washington Observatory to design a computer model of New England weather. They want to be able to predict New England's air quality better, because we're the tailpipe of the nation in summertime (wind flow from the southwest or west) while in the winter we have some of the cleanest air in the country (air flow from the NW, where there isn't much industry.) This new model will be a few years in the making, following much study, but should result in much better local forecasts for New England when it's all done.

Here is a magazine article I wrote in 2003, about the trials and experiences of New England weather forecasters and the technology they use.
http://www.thesilentforest.com/journ...tonweather.htm

MAXUM · 01-12-2008, 11:00 AM

Great stuff... although what you describe makes me even a bit more confused. I take it that the more detailed the model is the more accurate, in theory, it should be at making it's cacluations. Yet you seem to indicate that not all models are the same I assume do to the differences in detail. If that's the case, does that make you tend to favor one versus the other? Seems like that is not always the case where every weather prediction seems to reference multiple models. Why bother with models that are less likely to be accurate?

One of the most fascinating things I find is how storms are predicted to form even though looking at the surface maps the storm doesn't exist. This up and coming storm is a great example of that. How the heck is it you know for a fact that storm is going to form off the coast in the location suggested? Maybe it's that I don't quite understand the dynamics of how the pressure varitions form, high versus low. For that matter what plays into how strong a high or low pressure area becomes?

Funny you mention Jim Cantore, I don't think I have ever seen a guy that get more excited about the weather than he does.

Just as a side note, I'm a licensed HAM and went through ARES (sky warn) spotter training when I lived in CO and was a very active participant in the sky warn program. Matter of fact I've been on several storm chases for super cell t-storms and tornados, what a thrill. Anyways the class I went to was taught by the national weather service and I just simply could not get enough of it. For the record tornados are best observed from a great distance, those things are scary as well as unpredicatable.

Maybe we need a special weather tutorial thread!

CanisLupusArctos · 01-12-2008, 12:25 PM

Maxum,

I think you summed it up in your last sentence above. How about starting one, and re-ask your questions!

You are right in your understanding that the more detailed a model is, the more accurate it should be (in theory.) You ask how they know "a storm will form" even when it hasn't yet.

Here's a baseball analogy. How does an all-star batter know that the next pitch is going to be a strike? Well, he's at 3 balls and 1 strike, and his team's scouts have discovered that the opposing pitcher rarely issues a walk, but 70% of all the home runs this pitcher has ever given up were when the count was at 3 balls and less than 2 strikes. Therefore, the pitcher is most likely to put the ball right in the middle of the strike zone in hopes that the batter just won't swing. Therefore, the batter's manager gives him the sign to swing and swing hard. Given that the batter is an all-star, and the pitcher usually throws a fastball in this situation, the manager sees a very good chance of a home run. (fastball in middle of strike zone + really good hitter = home run, most of the time.)

Regarding Monday's storm, the computer models ("scouts") have told the manager (forecaster) that the pitcher (in Canada) is throwing a fast but hittable pitch to the plate (Carolina coast). The batter (coastal air) will react to that pitch. In this case, he's a pretty good batter, so it's likely he will swing hard. Given his batting average in this situation, it's likely he will hit it hard.

Some of the models have changed their opinion a lot over the last several days while a few have remained consistent. That's because they're computers -- we all know that computers sometimes start acting illogically for no apparent reason, and then get back on track without anyone else's help. These computers are really big and cost a lot of money but they still go off the deep end as often as our desktop PC's do. Part of the meteorologist's job is to know the atmosphere's behavior and his/her own forecast area well enough to be able to determine when a particular model is going off the deep end, because there have been big storms that were predicted by only one model.

For Monday, the consistent models are saying the "pitch" might actually be too fast for this particular hitter -- he may hit it, but foul into the seats and out of play, strike 2. But the crowd knows this batter, and they've seen this pitcher give up home runs before, so they're on their feet. The models make probability-based guesses on a storm's track in the same way Jerry Remy on NESN makes guesses that a particular hitter is going to knock the ball into right field instead of left -- "Rem-Dawg" is looking at a combination of ingredients (the batter, the pitcher, the situation, etc.) in the same way the weather models look at atmospheric ingredients.

To sum it up in football terms (since it is the playoff season!) -- The weather models know a storm will form, in the same way a highly-experienced football coach knows that his team is going to win the game with a field goal even though his team is losing with one minute left. He has seen the opposing team, he's watched their games and studied the way they play, and he just knows that their quarterback is going to fake left, throw right, and leave the ball open to interception, so the coach tells his fastest guy to go in and get it and run with it. Game over.

A layman watching from the stands would've had no idea that was going to happen, but if an expert in the seat next to him had told him, and then something went wrong and the team actually lost, the layman would be quite upset while the expert would be sitting there saying, "yeah, there was a small chance it wouldn't work out."

That's why you hear weather in 'percent chances'. People ask all the time, "Does a 30% chance of rain mean there's a 70% chance the rain won't come?" YES.

Being a weather forecaster is a lot like being a sports manager/coach, professional card dealer, Wall Street investor...

MAXUM · 01-12-2008, 04:07 PM

LOL - your computer references crack me up - I work IT for a living so what you say is all to true. If I wasn't fighting a cold right now being on the computer would be the last place you'd find me.

So I understand that the models are taking numbers and crunching them to come up with some level of probability that a storm will form or not, but what are the specific contributing conditions that would cause a low pressure area to form and to whatever degree strengthen or fizzle?

When you do call it wrong and something unexpected happens, say the storm shifts direction or doesn't produce the levels of precipitation initially thought to occur - is it the model or weatherman that gets it wrong? Not that I'm in any way suggesting the weatherman is ever wrong

CanisLupusArctos · 01-12-2008, 10:01 PM

Once again, great questions! For the purposes of keeping this thread on the topic of "Monday's Storm" I'll try to answer with a real life example on that.

But first, based on the kinds of questions you've been asking, and the fact that you work in computers and loved the Skywarn Program, I can say you're probably a good candidate for meteorology class.

In case there is anyone else who's been following our exchange and asking similar questions, I'll offer some tips on finding weather education around here (and then I'll relate this post to the thread topic, I promise!)

R2B told me of a certificate program at Penn State, and a lot of TV weather people (including Kelly LaBreque on ch. 6 Portland and several at the Weather Channel) have done the cert. program in Broadcast Meteorology at Mississippi. I believe both are correspondence programs.

If you would like to take something a little less involved, The Mount Washington Observatory now offers a 2-month program in White Mountain Meteorology, in conjunction with NH Comm. Tech College in Berlin. They also offer themed "EduTrips" to the summit, and "Mountain Weather" is one of the themes.

In our local universities, UNH offers both an intro-weather and an intro-climatology course within their geography dept, and both are available for outsiders through the Dept. of Continuing Education. Plymouth State University has a similar intro-weather course, and you could probably also find one at Daniel Webster College since they have a big aviation science program.

Now... about the models... Cooking analogy: If a master chef sees someone measuring a certain amount of flour, sugar, milk, etc., he might say to that person, "I can see you're about to bake a cake." He COULD be wrong -- but he's a food expert and he's pretty sure he sees a cake coming together, and he's probably right.

The meteorology computer models are programmed to have the knowledge of the ultimate chef when it comes to weather. There's so much to memorize, and the equations for mixing those ingredients and predicting "how much the cake will rise once it's in the oven" are so complicated that very, very few people were even able to do them when they first came out around 1900. We had to wait until the early 1940s for a computer that could (the first computer-aided weather forecasts were KEY in helping the Allies win in Europe.)

Up until the mid-1990s, the models spit out reams and reams of NUMBERS. Paper maps. Black and white. Hear the dot-matrix printers giving you a headache... that was a weather office back then. Forecasters had to take colored markers and pens to their maps, just to make them easier to look at.

Then came the graphic revolution-- web pages with photos on them. Then web pages with flash video on them. Digi-cams that have 8.2 megapixels, on sale at Wally-World for $88.88. This graphic revolution made it so forecasters don't even have to print out maps anymore, because the weathermaps are multi-colored JPG files on the screen... and they're not just showing the ground; they're showing everywhere from the ground up. Click on a point within the atmosphere, say, 6,000 feet over Dallas, Texas. The model will tell you what it expects the weather to be right at that point, from now until next week. Then you can move your mouse up level after level, up to where the 747's fly, and get the same info.

Here's the part that makes it hard to forecast: The slightest change in humidity, barometric pressure, temperature, etc. in any one of those points on the 3-D grid can have a drastic effect on the weather in the middle of a city far away, several days later. The best illustration I ever saw for this concept was on The Simpsons, when Homer traveled back in time, accidentally stepped on a butterfly (though he'd been warned not to change *anything*) and when he traveled back to modern-day Springfield, his family were at the dinner table eating with tongues like frogs.

The models see various ingredients at every altitude from the cars up to the jets, and they say, "Given this present situation, and everything we know about the laws of physics, and everything we know has already happened, what will happen from this point forward?"

They've gotten to the point where they're accurate for "tomorrow" most of the time, and they're accurate "10 days from now" SOME of the time. Back in the 1980s, a 10-day forecast was unheard of -- that's how far they've come.

How does a weatherman know when a model is probably wrong? Two ways-- one is scientific, and the other is purely human. The most basic example of SCIENTIFIC: Let's say you install a computer program that allows Microsoft Windoze to tell you what the temperature is in your driveway. If it says the temp is 34 F but your driveway is icing up, you know the program is a couple degrees off. Your knowledge of physics (that water freezes at 32) has told you to disregard your computer's opinion this time. Granted, doing this with "The Models" requires a much greater knowledge of physics AND your local weather's typical behavior.

Now for the HUMAN example. When I was an EMT a few years ago, we had a guy and his wife stop into the station because he was having some minor chest pains and they didn't know where the hospital was. My paramedic partner and I checked this guy out 100%, and couldn't find anything wrong with him, even on the EKG. Scientifically, he was fine as far as our instruments could tell. But I looked at him, there was a look in his eyes I'll never forget. The way his skin felt. The way he talked. Something didn't feel right. The patient's wife and my partner and I conferred privately. I said there was something I didn't like, but couldn't explain. My partner said that was reason enough to find the hospital. We gave the wife directions.

We brought another patient to the hospital several hours later, and the nurses found and congratulated us for sending the couple in. He'd was beginning a major heart attack, and if he'd waited much longer he would've died. He was scheduled for emergency bypass surgery and expected to completely recover. How did we know that would happen? It wasn't scientific at all, just a feeling based on our 5 (and maybe 6) senses. Sometimes it happens that way, and meteorology is no different.

As for Monday (sorry this has been so long winded!) the basic ingredients are dry, cold air from Canada... Warm, moist air from the Gulf of Mexico... and some Atlantic coast moisture.... an air mass ("frontal") boundary hanging off the east coast to serve as a clash point/storm track. The ingredients are set to collide off the SC coast, or thereabouts.

It's a very, very, large-scale version of what happens when you steam up the bathroom with a HOT shower on a morning when it's below zero and you open the window. You get warm moist air forming clouds around your curtains, and maybe even some frost on the window screen.

On a slightly larger scale, Gunstock's snowmaking dept. does it too. They mix water with compressed air to make more of a water-vapor stream instead of straight water. The temperature has to be cold enough. The shoot their man-made stream of water vapor into the cold air and watch snow come out of a hose.

The basic snow equation is that the more extreme the ingredients are, the bigger the snowstorm will be. Coldest arctic outbreak ever + Hottest/most humid tropical heat wave ever = biggest snowstorm ever. Or, if a category-5 hurricane from the equator meets extreme arctic cold over NH.... we the skiers & sledders can only dream about that for now!

moose tracks · 01-13-2008, 08:25 AM

How many credits do I get in “Lakes Region Meteorology 101” for faithfully reading this weather forum everyday? Thanks CLA for taking the time to make all these postings. I find them very interesting and informative.

SAMIAM · 01-13-2008, 09:39 AM

That was interesting,Canis,thanks for the lesson.

CanisLupusArctos · 01-13-2008, 10:18 AM

You're welcome!
Now, we need to turn our attention to the storm for tomorrow. The National Weather Service has issued a winter storm watch for tomorrow. Forecast snow amounts are all over the dartboard for this one... depending who you're listening to. I'd offer my own opinion, but I have to get to work right now.

Resident 2B · 01-13-2008, 04:09 PM

The potential for a storm tomorrow, first mentioned by Blue Thinder then by Rose a week ago, has materialized. The NWS has issued a Heavy Snow Warning for almost all of the area.

From what I am seeing now, this is a Y1 to a Y2 event for the Lakes Region.

The storm will go right over the 40/70 benchmark and give southern NE a big event, a Y2+.

Y = 7" based on the height of Yuki, the Winni.com weather cat.

The Lakes Region will be on the northern fringe of this storm, but we will still will get a good amount of snow. I would guess 10" to 12" in Alton, 8" to 10" in Laconia and in Center Harbor.

I am seeing another storm potentail for next Monday/Tuesday or so from looking at "tele-connects", not at the models. This is a long shot, but with all the cold air that will be around and with all the energy in the Northeast, we should see a lot of white weather over the next ten days.

Enjoy!

R2B

MaryS · 01-13-2008, 05:39 PM

Thanks, Thanks, Canius, and others for an interesting weather thread.....I love this meteoroloy stuff. It would be great to take a classon this....I always check out radars,stats etc.....it would be neat to checkout the computer models ....who has access??
Be safe everyone in th storm.

Resident 2B · 01-13-2008, 10:53 PM

MaryS,

Last year we had a thread named Winter Weater - 2007. In that thread in the Feb time frame, your question was asked and several responded.

I use Accuweather Professional. There is a yearly fee, but it is pennies per hour or less. Well worth it in my opinion. They have numerous models, great radar and satellite screens and outstanding blogs by Joe Bastardi and Elliot Abrams to name two. There are many others. The site is staffed by many with Penn State background, a school known for their meteorology program. There is also an excellent meteorology program at Plymouth State University here in NH.

Good luck and enjoy the storm. The radar is really lighting up right now!

R2B

CanisLupusArctos · 01-14-2008, 12:00 AM

Mary S, for weather models, I provide links to several models sites on the Winnipesaukee WeatherCenter page. On the menu bar you'll see "Computer Models" near the bottom. One of the pages I've listed is the Unisys page. I first learned with Unisys's representation of the models because they're very simple and more colorful compared to some of the others. As you gain experience you'll probably start to find them simplistic or incomplete, but I still use them for quick-looks.

My opinion on the storm remains that this will continue to be a problem for forecasters since it is the first storm in our new weather pattern (i.e. "Return of Winter"). Even with the snow already on the radar, there continues to be disagreement in the models... though not as much as there was. There's a more offshore track and a more inland track. Which one to bet on... which onnnnne to bet on.......

I'll go for an average of 8 inches around Center Harbor, and 11 inches Alton, with 12-14" likely in the seacoast area. There may be local enhancement of the snow on the northern slopes of the Ossipees and Belknap Ranges during the day tomorrow, resulting in 2-3 additional inches there. Just a possibility but enough of a chance to mention.

This will start between 3 am and 5 a.m. in the Lakes Region, and we can expect the first inch to be on the ground by 8 am. The heaviest snow will fall between 10 am and 4 pm. but will continue to accumulate (just less aggressively) after that.

The leftover moisture could linger in the northern mountains (accumulating) when the winds turn NW and the storm has cleared everywhere else. The mountains may get 2-3 inches more on Tuesday morning...especially at the summits... while the rest of us are starting to clear out.

This situation looks like it's trying to repeat itself for Friday. Currently it looks like it has a chance to come further inland which would be a snow-to-ice scenario. Let's hope it stays just far enough offshore to give us snow... we had enough ice 10 years ago!

...Note to mountain interests next weekend...

If you have plans in the mountains (especially hiking or other wilderness activities) please stay tuned to forecasts this week for extreme cold. It's still too early to say just how cold, but early signs are suggesting daytime temps hovering around zero F at the bases (-20 at the summits) with some pretty strong NW winds making it feel even colder... looks like a set-up for "Summits in the clouds" as well. More details as the week progresses...

...Football...

Looks like extreme cold will be greeting San Diego when they come to Foxborough next weekend.

fatlazyless · 01-14-2008, 06:41 AM

...hey Lupy....so's far, I been to the Plymouth-Gilford-Tilton-& Littleton Walmarts, all lookn for that $88.88-8.2 mega-pixle digicam, and they all be OOS, and now it's a-start-n to SNOW. Where can I get one, where, where, where?

wifi · 01-14-2008, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CanisLupusArctos

... looks like a set-up for "Summits in the clouds" as well. More details as the week progresses...

Looks like the Ossipee Summits are in the clouds this storm, I see some accumulation on the ground.

http://www.lakesregionwireless.net/webcam.html

Skipper of the Sea Que · 01-14-2008, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

...hey Lupy....so's far, I been to the Plymouth-Gilford-Tilton-& Littleton Walmarts, all lookn for that $88.88-8.2 mega-pixle digicam, and they all be OOS, and now it's a-start-n to SNOW. Where can I get one, where, where, where?

Less, I'm surprised at you. Spending (wasting) gas to go all over looking for the camera.

They are IN STOCK at Wally's in Plymouth and Hooksett. And I didn't drive there this snowy morning to check. I let my "fingers do the walking" and went online.

Try: Kodak 8.2 MP EasyShare C813 Silver - Digital Camera w/ 3 x Optical Zoom & Image Stabilization $89.77.

Available and in stock online for shipping to your home or (free) to your local Wallymart probably on one of them there 18 wheelers

. You can also use their online feature called in-store stock finder (and find out weather* it's at any of your local Walmarts.

Happy Blizzard. Or as Less Nessman once said, "A Giant lizzard is coming..."

Hope that helps

*poor attempt at keeping on topic.

nj2nh · 01-14-2008, 08:30 AM

Down here in Jersey, the weather pundits predicted 5-8 inches. We were all excited for school cancelations, grilled cheese in front of the fireplace and pajamas all day.

We got nothing. Zip, zero, zilch. The weather people are complete idiots.

Such a disappointing winter thus far!

nj2nh

Island Girl · 01-14-2008, 10:13 AM

On the other hand.. here in east central MA we have several inches of snow... still coming down... schools are out.... work was called off... and I am well perched on the couch with a movie... two laptops.. and a bowl of chocolate pudding!!!! Heaven!!!

IG

upthesaukee · 01-14-2008, 10:28 AM

and we have 5-6 inches on the ground, near whiteout conditions, and it should continue to about sundown with the heaviest snow thru early afternoon, according to the latest weather warning about 10 minutes ago.

gtxrider · 01-14-2008, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nj2nh

Down here in Jersey, the weather pundits predicted 5-8 inches. We were all excited for school cancelations, grilled cheese in front of the fireplace and pajamas all day.

We got nothing. Zip, zero, zilch. The weather people are complete idiots.

Such a disappointing winter thus far!

nj2nh

I caused the NO SNOW in NEW JERSEY! I put gas in the snow blower and had it all set to go this morning. I wish I could make as many miscalls as the weather people. At least I could call in sick today with a bad cold and feel like I was wimping out due to snow!

LAKE FOLKS enjoy the SNOW!! Did the Babes do a dance for this?

DRH · 01-14-2008, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by upthesaukee

and we have 5-6 inches on the ground, near whiteout conditions, and it should continue to about sundown with the heaviest snow thru early afternoon, according to the latest weather warning about 10 minutes ago.

We have the same 6" here in West Alton at 10:50 AM, and it's snowing like gangbusters!

CORRECTION/UPDATE!

Quilt Lady just came in from "up the hill" and reports that she measured 11" of snow in three places in our driveway!

cursereversed · 01-14-2008, 12:01 PM

I'm here in downtown Laconia, at work

, and we have 6-8 inches here at 12 noon. Snow is predicted until 7pm, and we should get 10-12 inches. Doesn't seem like good snowball snow, though

Weirs guy · 01-14-2008, 12:35 PM

Franklins got about 5" so far (1/2 hour from the Weirs). I noticed some blowing/drifting this morning before I left so this may be (as DRH noted) one of those 0" - 48" events depending on where you stand.

GWC... · 01-14-2008, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cursereversed

I'm here in downtown Laconia, at work

, and we have 6-8 inches here at 12 noon. Snow is predicted until 7pm, and we should get 10-12 inches. Doesn't seem like good snowball snow, though

Look for some yellow snow.

It should be wet enough for making snowballs - just don't eat it...

Resident 2B · 01-14-2008, 02:19 PM

The link below will connect you to NWS Spotter reports for snow depths from today's storm.

http://www.weather.gov/view/validPro...=PNS&node=KGYX

R2B

MAXUM · 01-14-2008, 03:16 PM

So any one have a prediction on the next storm due in the end of this week? Accuweather is saying another storm, only stronger. Another foot or so of snow would really be a nice finishing touch for the snowmobile trails this weekend.

rander7823 · 01-14-2008, 03:17 PM

This is a very interesting thread and I enjoy reading about all of the sophisticated models so I thought I'd chime in with the equipment and formula's I use.
First I use the DGCT ( Dodge Grand Caravan Thermometer). I live in Southern NE it read 42 F at 7:00 PM last night. No Snow Coming) Inspite of the 10 inches they continued to predict.

Second I use the CTVR. (Cable Televison Remote) I switch each local news channel and gather snow depth predictions for all local news networks.

Now here comes the tricky part I then count the number of times each meteorologist says, "might, possible, potential for, if the storm follows this path, most models predict" I take that number and divide the average snowfall estimates by it and get the resulting estimated snowfall. At 10PM I look out the door and see if there are clouds or not.

I then inform my 13 year old daughter that inspite of what Dr Mel, Jeff Fox and Hilton Kaderly and Matt say she will be going to school. That sigh she gives off usually tips the scales and we get rain. Now this seems to work for Southern NE not sure of it will in the Lakes Region.

trfour · 01-14-2008, 03:42 PM

Are Awesome!
My thanks to Rose, CLA, R2B and others for making these threads fun and so interesting.

After last winter, or should I say.. lack there of in the snow and ice department, I wanted to get the "snow" ball rolling early for this winter, so I added "Snow Dance" in PhotoPost.
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopo...hp?photo=11858

Snow Dance worked well, though we may need some help from the ice Gods.

hilltopper · 01-14-2008, 04:01 PM

4" here in Meredith......

mcdude · 01-14-2008, 05:12 PM

Matt Noyes reported on NECN that 5" per hour was coming down in Gilmanton at one point this morning! The NWS Spotter (thanks resident 2B) is predicting 13" total for Alton Bay and Gilmanton. You snowmobilers and skiiers are really lucking out this season!

CanisLupusArctos · 01-14-2008, 06:48 PM

Rander 7823, I loved your response for its hilariousness!

But comedians often say comedy is funny because we find truthfulness in it, and there is truth in what you say. Many meteorologists would deny it.

Forecasters totally blew it in New Jersey and NYC today because they weren't paying enough attention to the thermometer, and too much attention to the models. NJ and NYC got all the moisture that the models said would come, but it was too warm. Where did I see this? The NBC Today Show opened with it, this morning at 7 a.m. Jeff Ranieri (the meteorologist they always interview when the weather is too serious for the way they usually treat weather) said it when they interviewed him-- "It was just too warm."

A meteorologist on Mount Washington told me of the meteorologist's "non-reality" syndrome the last time I volunteered at the summit. With a degree from Rutgers, he could've made lots of money somewhere else, but preferred a job on Mt. Washington where there isn't much money. He said he had done his internship at a National Weather Service office in summertime. When a severe weather outbreak was happening right outside, he wanted to go out and look. The NWS staff told him not to get in the habit of leaving the computer screens. They said, "Don't let the weather distract you from the weather." In other words, they're glued to the computer models. A lot of times, they have to be... but there ARE many times when your Dodge Grand Caravan Thermometer could totally save their accuracy -- if they only believed in something so simple. The guy on Mount Washington said he enjoyed the fact that his job is mixed between time spent at computer terminals and time spent outside, actually measuring and observing the summit's weather personally.

Today on Black Cat we got shafted again. Would you believe only 2.6 inches of snow fell today. I did drive to Meredith where I found, as Hilltopper said, 4 inches of snow. Here is my guess -- the mountain effects I mentioned last night got a bit more out of control than I thought they would -- or could! The highest totals I've seen today seem to come (mostly) from north- or east-facing slopes, or very near the summit on the other side. However, when one side of a mountain gets topographically-enhanced snow, usually the other side gets a lot less -- it's called "shadowing". Today, I believe we at the NW end of Winnipesaukee got shadowed by the Ossipees and Red Hill. Based on the radar signature, I would say we were too far away from the main part of the storm for it to make up the difference. We were getting the fringes, and they didn't have enough energy to survive the 'milking' they got when they rode up and over the mountains to our north and east.

DRH · 01-14-2008, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CanisLupusArctos

Today on Black Cat we got shafted again. Would you believe only 2.6 inches of snow fell today. I did drive to Meredith where I found, as Hilltopper said, 4 inches of snow. Here is my guess -- the mountain effects I mentioned last night got a bit more out of control than I thought they would -- or could! The highest totals I've seen today seem to come (mostly) from north- or east-facing slopes, or very near the summit on the other side. However, when one side of a mountain gets topographically-enhanced snow, usually the other side gets a lot less -- it's called "shadowing". Today, I believe we at the NW end of Winnipesaukee got shadowed by the Ossipees and Red Hill. Based on the radar signature, I would say we were too far away from the main part of the storm for it to make up the difference. We were getting the fringes, and they didn't have enough energy to survive the 'milking' they got when they rode up and over the mountains to our north and east.

It's quite interesting how much the local snow accumulations differed around the lake today. Here in West Alton, we had a total of 12" when the storm finally wound down this afternoon. The air temp. averaged about 23 - 25 degs during most of the snowfall, but what fell as light, fluffy snow packed down as the inches accumulated and the resulting foot was much denser than I had expected. In fact, a shear pin actually snapped in my snowblower's auger this afternoon while I was clearing away what turned out to be 12" of fairly heavy snow!

Resident 2B · 01-14-2008, 08:58 PM

CLA,

Talk about local affects. This is so hard to believe. Per NWS, as reported on their spotter network at Gray, Me., Alton had 13", Wolfboro had 13" and Laconia had 11.6". Although we all thought the lakes region would be on the northern edge, Meridith only had 4" and you measured 2.6" in Center Harbor. This fall-off in snow depths is amazing.

I agree the "milking" of the hills had an impact in Meredith and in Center Harbor, but Wolfboro reported 13" without any hill to their west to do the "milking". I can understand that it did not get milked, but the southern parts of the lake had a moderate + snowfall, and Meredith and Center Harbor had very little.

I was down in the North Shore area of Mass. during this storm. The snow down there was less than I had expected, with about 7", but the water content was very high. Bottom line, it was warmer than expected and we got a 7:1 snow. The temp went up four degrees from 7:00 PM to Midnight last night and that had a big impact.

Otherwise, the storm was very close to the 40/70 benchmark and was a bit lower in pressure when it passed the benchmark than the models predicted. If anything from a track and intensity stand point, it was what we expected. However, the variability in snowfall, in places around the lake that are very close together, really messes with my mind.

I guess this is why we love the weather here in New England!

Now on to the Thursday night and Friday morning event. I have concerns about ice with this and it will be followed with very cold air. This pairing could be very dangerous if the ice takes the power down! I think a new thread would be the best place to elaborate on this.

I have not seen much in the models for Monday, but I still think something might come up. Time will tell.

R2B

upthesaukee · 01-14-2008, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DRH

It's quite interesting how much the local snow accumulations differed around the lake today. Here in West Alton, we had a total of 12" when the storm finally wound down this afternoon. The air temp. averaged about 23 - 25 degs during most of the snowfall, but what fell as light, fluffy snow packed down as the inches accumulated and the resulting foot was much denser than I had expected. In fact, a shear pin actually snapped in my snowblower's auger this afternoon while I was clearing away what turned out to be 12" of fairly heavy snow!

As I walked out the door this morning at 11, what had looked like 5-6 inches on the deck railing, was literally 12 inches measured in several places on our driveway. I am guessing that we ended up with at least two more inches after I left, but no way to tell now. Weather radar had some pretty heavy bands of snow showing this morning and it looks like the SE end of the lake was right in the way of them.

CanisLupusArctos · 01-15-2008, 12:48 AM

When I couldn't find any spot with more than 2.75 inches of snow either in the yard or in the street, I honestly thought something was wrong... because I'd already read the Alton/Gilford/Wolfeborough reports. However, the reality set in, as I swept the front porch and walkway in just seconds, and had cleared the driveway (with a small shovel) 5 minutes later.

R2B - you mention the hills to the *west* as being responsible for today's shadowing. Actually the flow was NNE all day - it ended up being the average wind direction for the day. I can't remember the last time we had a snowstorm with that much of a northerly wind.

Most of the accumulating snow here fell until 10 a.m. At that time, as the station's wind graph indicates, the direction shifted from ENE to NNE. Once that happened, *bam*, it was like someone turned a faucet off. The whole time, I could see the view to the south obscured by snow, and there wasn't much in the (SE-facing) WeatherCam all day but white... it just wasn't in the foreground of the picture. Directly NNE of here, we have the Ossipees. The shadowed area follows a line from the Ossipees to Black Cat to Meredith Bay, and the amounts increase with distance from the Ossipees.

Tonight when the wind shifted to more northerly I noticed the mountains apparently playing a role again. The steady snow had ended and most of the lake was precip-free. In one of the frames of the radar loop, I saw a blob of snow literally form out of clear air, just north of Red Hill's location, and 2 frames later the same thing happened just north of the Belknap Range - on the southern shore of the lake. Neither blob moved.... they lasted for a few more frames right where they were, and then dissipated.

hilltopper · 01-15-2008, 09:03 AM

Interesting....I wouldn't have guessed shadowing because the Ossippee range is "small" by mountain range standards. But, peeking at a map and knowing who got what for snow, it makes a lot of sense. Mother Nature owes us one so hopefully for the next one the winds setup a bit differently (unless of course it's all ice...yikes).

Resident 2B · 01-15-2008, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CanisLupusArctos

R2B - you mention the hills to the *west* as being responsible for today's shadowing. Actually the flow was NNE all day - it ended up being the average wind direction for the day. I can't remember the last time we had a snowstorm with that much of a northerly wind.

CLA,

Good and accurate point. It looks like the northerly vector of the winds had a big impact. Looking at the location of the hills to the NNE of you, I agree that had to happen. In addition, the winds were NNE because the high to the NE was not that strong. This is why the surface warmed up so much in northeastern Mass. The "cold air pump" was not pumping much. If the high was stronger, the wind would have been more NE or ENE.

R2B

NHKathy · 01-15-2008, 11:11 AM

with the varied amounts around the Lake, i was just curious how much fell around Moultonborough Neck ...

CanisLupusArctos · 01-15-2008, 02:41 PM

R2B, What you say about the high not being that strong -- this is starting to make a lot more sense now, in comparison to more typical storms. Usually Nor'Easters bring more of an easterly wind than northerly. I've found the lake's geographic alignment (NW-SE) likes to bend wind to those directions if they're similar enough. Even the other night when everyone else was reporting NE winds (while this storm was approaching) this station was getting winds straight up the lake from the SE... "The Rattlesnake Express."

This may also explain a lot in relation to past storms: As a typical Nor'Easter passes, its wind will go to north for 1-3 hours, before the Northwesterly backside kicks in. As I remember, at that point in the storm, the snow has always either shut down to flurries/patches of clear sky, or at least tapered off significantly, even while everyone else was continuing to snow moderately. Then, the NW winds kick in, and we get the backside squalls with another inch or two of accumulation.

Therefore, this may help predict future snow at this end of the lake. Based on this, my guess is that in order for the Center Harbor end of the lake to get a storm's full potential snowfall, the storm needs to provide most or all of its snowfall while it's still far enough down the coast to give us its East or NE winds. Once it's close enough to shift our winds more northerly, we could predict that snow will shut down at this end of the lake until the storm passes and shifts our winds to the NW.

On the flipside of the coin, we could forecast enhanced snowfall for all windward slopes around the lake during the same situations. This sort of localized feature would not be picked up by the models at all (at least not for a few more years).

NHKathy, I'm going to guess that Moultonborough Neck didn't get any more than here at Black Cat (2.7 inches). Other snowfall reports seem to draw a line from the Ossipees directly SSW, and the closer you get to the Ossipees on that line, the less snow there was.

CanisLupusArctos · 01-15-2008, 02:48 PM

R2B, What you say about the high not being that strong -- this is starting to make a lot more sense now, in comparison to more typical storms. Usually Nor'Easters bring more of an easterly wind than northerly. I've found the lake's geographic alignment (NW-SE) likes to bend wind to those directions if they're similar enough. Even the other night when everyone else was reporting NE winds (while this storm was approaching) this station was getting winds straight up the lake from the SE... "The Rattlesnake Express."

This may also explain a lot in relation to past storms: As a typical Nor'Easter passes, its wind will go to north for 1-3 hours, before the Northwesterly backside kicks in. As I remember, at that point in the storm, the snow has always either shut down to flurries/patches of clear sky, or at least tapered off significantly, even while everyone else was continuing to snow moderately. Then, the NW winds kick in, and we get the backside squalls with another inch or two of accumulation.

Therefore, this may help predict future snow at this end of the lake. Based on this, my guess is that in order for the Center Harbor end of the lake to get a storm's full potential snowfall, the storm needs to provide most or all of its snowfall while it's still far enough down the coast to give us its East or NE winds. Once it's close enough to shift our winds more northerly, we could predict that snow will shut down at this end of the lake until the storm passes and shifts our winds to the NW.

On the flipside of the coin, we could forecast enhanced snowfall for all windward slopes around the lake during the same situations. This sort of localized feature would not be picked up by the models at all (at least not for a few more years).

NHKathy, I'm going to guess that Moultonborough Neck didn't get any more than here at Black Cat (2.7 inches). Other snowfall reports seem to draw a line from the Ossipees directly SSW, and the closer you get to the Ossipees on that line, the less snow there was.

01-09-2008, 10:19 PM	#1
riverat Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Alton, NH Posts: 722 Thanks: 337 Thanked 280 Times in 123 Posts	Nor'easter Monday or not? I understand some models are predicting a possible storm for Monday, any thoughts? __________________ Waking up in the morning is the greatest, everything after that is a bonus

01-10-2008, 12:30 PM	#5
Resident 2B Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: North Shore, MA Posts: 1,352 Thanks: 987 Thanked 310 Times in 161 Posts	Monday, Monday..... Just spent some time with the models.....weather models that is. Life is not that exciting! The models are still all over the place, but it is looking like they are beginning to converge to some extent, as long as you completely disregard the GFS. My opinion is the ECWMF has the best handle on the situation. That is because it forms the storm where one would expect a storm to form when you consider the frontal locations and the locations of the "jets". The UKMET is starting to pick-up on this and the GGEM seems to be in good agreement with the ECMWF's storm origination point. The GFS starts the storm well south of where anyone would think a storm would be born given the atmospheric conditions in the area at the time of formation. Therefore, if you disregard the GFS and look at a reasonable blend of the ECMWF, the GGEM and the UKMET, in that order, you start to see some convergence showing us with a moderate winter storm. It is looking like the storm goes near the 40/70 benchmark, and if it does, southern New England up through at least the Lakes Region should see 6" or more of snow, about a Y1 in "forum-speak". However, it really is too soon to be thinking about accumulations in specific locations from this event. Timing looks to be in-line with what Rose was thinking several days ago, mainly a late Sunday night into Monday event. This is 12 hours earlier than I was thinking, at that time. Although this is my opinion at this time, confidence in this forecast is only low to moderate. It could get bigger and it could be just a small event. Time will tell. If you are a betting person, bet your money on the Pats and not on this forecast. As GTO points out in his recent post, models and forecasts are inaccurate at times, especially this time of year in NH. R2B

01-11-2008, 06:32 PM	#8
CanisLupusArctos Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Center Harbor Posts: 1,049 Thanks: 15 Thanked 472 Times in 107 Posts	Maxum, Good questions! "The models" are actual computerized models of the atmosphere (with landforms built in) that move and change according to the laws of physics and everything else people learn about weather. They're all programmed a little different, depending on who made the model and what they were going after. If you have ever played (or seen) a really good flight simulator game (I like Microsoft Flight Simulator 10) then you would see "weather settings" which are basically a scaled down meteorological model -- probably not realistic enough to make weather forecasts, but good enough to give you an idea of what it would be like to fly in various types of weather. The models have a resolution just like a digital picture does. They really are a 3D picture of the earth-atmosphere system designed to be as realistic as possible, and they're fed all current weather observations from around the world (the US Gov't / NOAA keeps a huge database that's always updating). Those observations cause the model to "initialize", after which they'll make predictions for 12 hours, 24 hours, 36 hours, etc. Sometimes they don't initialize well, showing a storm to the west when it's really to the north. When this happens, forecasters will be inclined to throw out that model run and choose one that initialized accurately. As with a flight simulator game, resolution affects accuracy. When I played FlightSim 10 on a crappy computer, I had to tone down the scenery settings in order to get it to work. I "flew" over Lake Winnipesaukee and saw ruler-straight shorelines, Rattlesnake Island looked like a row of shipping boxes, and Mount Washington looked like a demolished version of the Great Pyramids. This is the way most computer models see. 20 years ago, the resolution was so bad that our lake and the White Mountains weren't even there. And since we know how localized weather can be around here, a model with resolution like this is going to be locally wrong... even if it's accurate on a general, regional scale. In fact, even the best ones still can't show Mount Washington at its full height... its like the ultimate "paint-by-number" canvas, and even with computers as small as they are today, it still takes a HUGE computer to store all the numbers that represent 100% reality. They're always trying to improve model resolution. Some are US-made, others are in the UK, there's a Canadian... Most of our US models are developed and programmed by research meteorologists at a 'behind-the-scenes' branch of NOAA, while universities chime in too. It's a job for people who LOVE math. The models also "learn." When they see a situation that's similar to something they saw before, they consider what happened before, and include it in their output for the present situation. The human element comes into play because machines aren't as good as people (have you ever screamed at your computer?). For example, airliners can land themselves on auto-pilot, but the FAA isn't about to let the 2 front seats go vacant. Those pilots regularly override their automation to avoid disaster. In the same fashion, meteorologists override the models, especially if they have local knowledge. A meteorologist who's been working on Mount Washington and hiking it in all kinds of weather in all seasons is going to be able to use the models to make an accurate forecast for the summit, while someone with just as many meteorology courses who's never even seen Mount Washington is probably going to be wrong, even with the same model information. That's one of the reasons why The Weather Channel (weather.com) has such a poor track record here in New England: The weather in New England is the most localized, varied, and unpredictable in the world (scientific fact.) And The Weather Channel is in Atlanta. They have exceptions, such as Jim Cantore who grew up in White River Jct. Vermont and went to school at Lyndon State College in northern VT. He knows his New England snowstorms better than many of his colleagues, even if they're all using the same info. A local example of how humans use the models: It's mid-February, and all the models agree that there will be a big storm near Cape Cod in 12 hours. Two models show it farther east, while the others track it right over Cape Cod. For the past 2 weeks the weather pattern has brought storms right up over New England, and the pattern hasn't changed. Therefore the humans disregard the "farther out to sea" models because the others are closer to the current pattern. The humans notice that only one model shows a lot of snow falling from the storm while the others show very light snow. These people look at the situation and they just know, "This is the type of weathermap we used to pray for since we were kids. There's just no way that a setup like this is going to produce average snowfall -- this is going to be big." So they disregard the precipitation forecasts of all the models except the one that was showing a heavy dumping. Finally, local knowledge fine-tunes the forecast as forecasters here in the lakes region see that the storm's expected position would generate very strong winds from the northeast. They say, "The last time we had winds this strong from the northeast, they funneled between the Ossipees and knocked down hundreds of trees at the Center Harbor end of the lake." So even while the regional forecasters at WMUR call for wind gusts of 50 mph, we in the Lakes Region might say "localized gusts up to 70 mph". In 2000, UNH teamed up with Plymouth State, NOAA, and the Mt. Washington Observatory to design a computer model of New England weather. They want to be able to predict New England's air quality better, because we're the tailpipe of the nation in summertime (wind flow from the southwest or west) while in the winter we have some of the cleanest air in the country (air flow from the NW, where there isn't much industry.) This new model will be a few years in the making, following much study, but should result in much better local forecasts for New England when it's all done. Here is a magazine article I wrote in 2003, about the trials and experiences of New England weather forecasters and the technology they use. http://www.thesilentforest.com/journ...tonweather.htm Last edited by CanisLupusArctos; 01-11-2008 at 07:26 PM.

01-12-2008, 12:25 PM	#10
CanisLupusArctos Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Center Harbor Posts: 1,049 Thanks: 15 Thanked 472 Times in 107 Posts	Tutorial Maxum, I think you summed it up in your last sentence above. How about starting one, and re-ask your questions! You are right in your understanding that the more detailed a model is, the more accurate it should be (in theory.) You ask how they know "a storm will form" even when it hasn't yet. Here's a baseball analogy. How does an all-star batter know that the next pitch is going to be a strike? Well, he's at 3 balls and 1 strike, and his team's scouts have discovered that the opposing pitcher rarely issues a walk, but 70% of all the home runs this pitcher has ever given up were when the count was at 3 balls and less than 2 strikes. Therefore, the pitcher is most likely to put the ball right in the middle of the strike zone in hopes that the batter just won't swing. Therefore, the batter's manager gives him the sign to swing and swing hard. Given that the batter is an all-star, and the pitcher usually throws a fastball in this situation, the manager sees a very good chance of a home run. (fastball in middle of strike zone + really good hitter = home run, most of the time.) Regarding Monday's storm, the computer models ("scouts") have told the manager (forecaster) that the pitcher (in Canada) is throwing a fast but hittable pitch to the plate (Carolina coast). The batter (coastal air) will react to that pitch. In this case, he's a pretty good batter, so it's likely he will swing hard. Given his batting average in this situation, it's likely he will hit it hard. Some of the models have changed their opinion a lot over the last several days while a few have remained consistent. That's because they're computers -- we all know that computers sometimes start acting illogically for no apparent reason, and then get back on track without anyone else's help. These computers are really big and cost a lot of money but they still go off the deep end as often as our desktop PC's do. Part of the meteorologist's job is to know the atmosphere's behavior and his/her own forecast area well enough to be able to determine when a particular model is going off the deep end, because there have been big storms that were predicted by only one model. For Monday, the consistent models are saying the "pitch" might actually be too fast for this particular hitter -- he may hit it, but foul into the seats and out of play, strike 2. But the crowd knows this batter, and they've seen this pitcher give up home runs before, so they're on their feet. The models make probability-based guesses on a storm's track in the same way Jerry Remy on NESN makes guesses that a particular hitter is going to knock the ball into right field instead of left -- "Rem-Dawg" is looking at a combination of ingredients (the batter, the pitcher, the situation, etc.) in the same way the weather models look at atmospheric ingredients. To sum it up in football terms (since it is the playoff season!) -- The weather models know a storm will form, in the same way a highly-experienced football coach knows that his team is going to win the game with a field goal even though his team is losing with one minute left. He has seen the opposing team, he's watched their games and studied the way they play, and he just knows that their quarterback is going to fake left, throw right, and leave the ball open to interception, so the coach tells his fastest guy to go in and get it and run with it. Game over. A layman watching from the stands would've had no idea that was going to happen, but if an expert in the seat next to him had told him, and then something went wrong and the team actually lost, the layman would be quite upset while the expert would be sitting there saying, "yeah, there was a small chance it wouldn't work out." That's why you hear weather in 'percent chances'. People ask all the time, "Does a 30% chance of rain mean there's a 70% chance the rain won't come?" YES. Being a weather forecaster is a lot like being a sports manager/coach, professional card dealer, Wall Street investor...

01-12-2008, 10:01 PM	#12
CanisLupusArctos Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Center Harbor Posts: 1,049 Thanks: 15 Thanked 472 Times in 107 Posts	Meteorology Class Once again, great questions! For the purposes of keeping this thread on the topic of "Monday's Storm" I'll try to answer with a real life example on that. But first, based on the kinds of questions you've been asking, and the fact that you work in computers and loved the Skywarn Program, I can say you're probably a good candidate for meteorology class. In case there is anyone else who's been following our exchange and asking similar questions, I'll offer some tips on finding weather education around here (and then I'll relate this post to the thread topic, I promise!) R2B told me of a certificate program at Penn State, and a lot of TV weather people (including Kelly LaBreque on ch. 6 Portland and several at the Weather Channel) have done the cert. program in Broadcast Meteorology at Mississippi. I believe both are correspondence programs. If you would like to take something a little less involved, The Mount Washington Observatory now offers a 2-month program in White Mountain Meteorology, in conjunction with NH Comm. Tech College in Berlin. They also offer themed "EduTrips" to the summit, and "Mountain Weather" is one of the themes. In our local universities, UNH offers both an intro-weather and an intro-climatology course within their geography dept, and both are available for outsiders through the Dept. of Continuing Education. Plymouth State University has a similar intro-weather course, and you could probably also find one at Daniel Webster College since they have a big aviation science program. Now... about the models... Cooking analogy: If a master chef sees someone measuring a certain amount of flour, sugar, milk, etc., he might say to that person, "I can see you're about to bake a cake." He COULD be wrong -- but he's a food expert and he's pretty sure he sees a cake coming together, and he's probably right. The meteorology computer models are programmed to have the knowledge of the ultimate chef when it comes to weather. There's so much to memorize, and the equations for mixing those ingredients and predicting "how much the cake will rise once it's in the oven" are so complicated that very, very few people were even able to do them when they first came out around 1900. We had to wait until the early 1940s for a computer that could (the first computer-aided weather forecasts were KEY in helping the Allies win in Europe.) Up until the mid-1990s, the models spit out reams and reams of NUMBERS. Paper maps. Black and white. Hear the dot-matrix printers giving you a headache... that was a weather office back then. Forecasters had to take colored markers and pens to their maps, just to make them easier to look at. Then came the graphic revolution-- web pages with photos on them. Then web pages with flash video on them. Digi-cams that have 8.2 megapixels, on sale at Wally-World for $88.88. This graphic revolution made it so forecasters don't even have to print out maps anymore, because the weathermaps are multi-colored JPG files on the screen... and they're not just showing the ground; they're showing everywhere from the ground up. Click on a point within the atmosphere, say, 6,000 feet over Dallas, Texas. The model will tell you what it expects the weather to be right at that point, from now until next week. Then you can move your mouse up level after level, up to where the 747's fly, and get the same info. Here's the part that makes it hard to forecast: The slightest change in humidity, barometric pressure, temperature, etc. in any one of those points on the 3-D grid can have a drastic effect on the weather in the middle of a city far away, several days later. The best illustration I ever saw for this concept was on The Simpsons, when Homer traveled back in time, accidentally stepped on a butterfly (though he'd been warned not to change anything) and when he traveled back to modern-day Springfield, his family were at the dinner table eating with tongues like frogs. The models see various ingredients at every altitude from the cars up to the jets, and they say, "Given this present situation, and everything we know about the laws of physics, and everything we know has already happened, what will happen from this point forward?" They've gotten to the point where they're accurate for "tomorrow" most of the time, and they're accurate "10 days from now" SOME of the time. Back in the 1980s, a 10-day forecast was unheard of -- that's how far they've come. How does a weatherman know when a model is probably wrong? Two ways-- one is scientific, and the other is purely human. The most basic example of SCIENTIFIC: Let's say you install a computer program that allows Microsoft Windoze to tell you what the temperature is in your driveway. If it says the temp is 34 F but your driveway is icing up, you know the program is a couple degrees off. Your knowledge of physics (that water freezes at 32) has told you to disregard your computer's opinion this time. Granted, doing this with "The Models" requires a much greater knowledge of physics AND your local weather's typical behavior. Now for the HUMAN example. When I was an EMT a few years ago, we had a guy and his wife stop into the station because he was having some minor chest pains and they didn't know where the hospital was. My paramedic partner and I checked this guy out 100%, and couldn't find anything wrong with him, even on the EKG. Scientifically, he was fine as far as our instruments could tell. But I looked at him, there was a look in his eyes I'll never forget. The way his skin felt. The way he talked. Something didn't feel right. The patient's wife and my partner and I conferred privately. I said there was something I didn't like, but couldn't explain. My partner said that was reason enough to find the hospital. We gave the wife directions. We brought another patient to the hospital several hours later, and the nurses found and congratulated us for sending the couple in. He'd was beginning a major heart attack, and if he'd waited much longer he would've died. He was scheduled for emergency bypass surgery and expected to completely recover. How did we know that would happen? It wasn't scientific at all, just a feeling based on our 5 (and maybe 6) senses. Sometimes it happens that way, and meteorology is no different. As for Monday (sorry this has been so long winded!) the basic ingredients are dry, cold air from Canada... Warm, moist air from the Gulf of Mexico... and some Atlantic coast moisture.... an air mass ("frontal") boundary hanging off the east coast to serve as a clash point/storm track. The ingredients are set to collide off the SC coast, or thereabouts. It's a very, very, large-scale version of what happens when you steam up the bathroom with a HOT shower on a morning when it's below zero and you open the window. You get warm moist air forming clouds around your curtains, and maybe even some frost on the window screen. On a slightly larger scale, Gunstock's snowmaking dept. does it too. They mix water with compressed air to make more of a water-vapor stream instead of straight water. The temperature has to be cold enough. The shoot their man-made stream of water vapor into the cold air and watch snow come out of a hose. The basic snow equation is that the more extreme the ingredients are, the bigger the snowstorm will be. Coldest arctic outbreak ever + Hottest/most humid tropical heat wave ever = biggest snowstorm ever. Or, if a category-5 hurricane from the equator meets extreme arctic cold over NH.... we the skiers & sledders can only dream about that for now!

01-10-2008, 12:38 PM	#6
CanisLupusArctos Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Center Harbor Posts: 1,049 Thanks: 15 Thanked 472 Times in 107 Posts	Models are still in disagreement for Monday's storm and it will be hard for the humans to pick the right solution since we're in the middle of a weather pattern change and Monday will be about the first day of the new pattern. It's hard to tell which model is closest to reality without knowing at least a few things about how the current pattern is behaving. If this situation had presented itself back in mid-December's pattern I'd say we're getting a good-size snowstorm on Monday... but just how well our new pattern will compare to December's remains to be seen. For now I can say WCSH-6 in Portland (Roger Griswold) is going for a snowstorm, The Weather Channel also just jumped on board, changing their forecast from "snow showers" on Monday to "snow and wind", and The National Weather Service in Gray is playing it conservative as I just did.

01-11-2008, 02:23 PM	#7
MAXUM Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Kuna ID Posts: 2,755 Thanks: 246 Thanked 1,942 Times in 802 Posts	I'm fascinated by the weather and how it's predicted. So with these weather models that are referenced here, what's the difference with them and why? How exactly are the models determined or calculated? Furthermore, how they heck do you really make the decision as to which is more likely to happen? Seems to me that there are so many variables in play at any given time so I don't understand how anything can be accurately predicted, although most times you guys seem to be pretty close to calling it right. Inquiring minds want to know!! For the contributers here, I for one find your postings fun to read even though most of this stuff goes way over my head.

01-12-2008, 11:00 AM	#9
MAXUM Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Kuna ID Posts: 2,755 Thanks: 246 Thanked 1,942 Times in 802 Posts	Great stuff... although what you describe makes me even a bit more confused. I take it that the more detailed the model is the more accurate, in theory, it should be at making it's cacluations. Yet you seem to indicate that not all models are the same I assume do to the differences in detail. If that's the case, does that make you tend to favor one versus the other? Seems like that is not always the case where every weather prediction seems to reference multiple models. Why bother with models that are less likely to be accurate? One of the most fascinating things I find is how storms are predicted to form even though looking at the surface maps the storm doesn't exist. This up and coming storm is a great example of that. How the heck is it you know for a fact that storm is going to form off the coast in the location suggested? Maybe it's that I don't quite understand the dynamics of how the pressure varitions form, high versus low. For that matter what plays into how strong a high or low pressure area becomes? Funny you mention Jim Cantore, I don't think I have ever seen a guy that get more excited about the weather than he does. Just as a side note, I'm a licensed HAM and went through ARES (sky warn) spotter training when I lived in CO and was a very active participant in the sky warn program. Matter of fact I've been on several storm chases for super cell t-storms and tornados, what a thrill. Anyways the class I went to was taught by the national weather service and I just simply could not get enough of it. For the record tornados are best observed from a great distance, those things are scary as well as unpredicatable. Maybe we need a special weather tutorial thread!

01-12-2008, 04:07 PM	#11
MAXUM Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Kuna ID Posts: 2,755 Thanks: 246 Thanked 1,942 Times in 802 Posts	LOL - your computer references crack me up - I work IT for a living so what you say is all to true. If I wasn't fighting a cold right now being on the computer would be the last place you'd find me. So I understand that the models are taking numbers and crunching them to come up with some level of probability that a storm will form or not, but what are the specific contributing conditions that would cause a low pressure area to form and to whatever degree strengthen or fizzle? When you do call it wrong and something unexpected happens, say the storm shifts direction or doesn't produce the levels of precipitation initially thought to occur - is it the model or weatherman that gets it wrong? Not that I'm in any way suggesting the weatherman is ever wrong

01-13-2008, 08:25 AM	#13
moose tracks Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Loudon, Tennessee, foothills of the Great Smoky Mountains Posts: 283 Thanks: 340 Thanked 41 Times in 33 Posts	Lakes Region Meteorology 101 How many credits do I get in “Lakes Region Meteorology 101” for faithfully reading this weather forum everyday? Thanks CLA for taking the time to make all these postings. I find them very interesting and informative. __________________ Moose Tracks

01-13-2008, 09:39 AM	#14
SAMIAM Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Moultonborough Posts: 2,836 Thanks: 326 Thanked 1,626 Times in 562 Posts	That was interesting,Canis,thanks for the lesson.

01-13-2008, 10:18 AM	#15
CanisLupusArctos Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Center Harbor Posts: 1,049 Thanks: 15 Thanked 472 Times in 107 Posts	Winter Storm Watch You're welcome! Now, we need to turn our attention to the storm for tomorrow. The National Weather Service has issued a winter storm watch for tomorrow. Forecast snow amounts are all over the dartboard for this one... depending who you're listening to. I'd offer my own opinion, but I have to get to work right now.

01-13-2008, 04:09 PM	#16
Resident 2B Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: North Shore, MA Posts: 1,352 Thanks: 987 Thanked 310 Times in 161 Posts	Heavy Snow Warning The potential for a storm tomorrow, first mentioned by Blue Thinder then by Rose a week ago, has materialized. The NWS has issued a Heavy Snow Warning for almost all of the area. From what I am seeing now, this is a Y1 to a Y2 event for the Lakes Region. The storm will go right over the 40/70 benchmark and give southern NE a big event, a Y2+. Y = 7" based on the height of Yuki, the Winni.com weather cat. The Lakes Region will be on the northern fringe of this storm, but we will still will get a good amount of snow. I would guess 10" to 12" in Alton, 8" to 10" in Laconia and in Center Harbor. I am seeing another storm potentail for next Monday/Tuesday or so from looking at "tele-connects", not at the models. This is a long shot, but with all the cold air that will be around and with all the energy in the Northeast, we should see a lot of white weather over the next ten days. Enjoy! R2B Last edited by Resident 2B; 01-14-2008 at 10:58 PM.

01-13-2008, 05:39 PM	#17
MaryS Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: CT and Moultonboro Posts: 48 Thanks: 0 Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts	Interesting Thanks, Thanks, Canius, and others for an interesting weather thread.....I love this meteoroloy stuff. It would be great to take a classon this....I always check out radars,stats etc.....it would be neat to checkout the computer models ....who has access?? Be safe everyone in th storm.

01-13-2008, 10:53 PM	#18
Resident 2B Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: North Shore, MA Posts: 1,352 Thanks: 987 Thanked 310 Times in 161 Posts	MaryS, Last year we had a thread named Winter Weater - 2007. In that thread in the Feb time frame, your question was asked and several responded. I use Accuweather Professional. There is a yearly fee, but it is pennies per hour or less. Well worth it in my opinion. They have numerous models, great radar and satellite screens and outstanding blogs by Joe Bastardi and Elliot Abrams to name two. There are many others. The site is staffed by many with Penn State background, a school known for their meteorology program. There is also an excellent meteorology program at Plymouth State University here in NH. Good luck and enjoy the storm. The radar is really lighting up right now! R2B

01-14-2008, 12:00 AM	#19
CanisLupusArctos Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Center Harbor Posts: 1,049 Thanks: 15 Thanked 472 Times in 107 Posts	Mary S, for weather models, I provide links to several models sites on the Winnipesaukee WeatherCenter page. On the menu bar you'll see "Computer Models" near the bottom. One of the pages I've listed is the Unisys page. I first learned with Unisys's representation of the models because they're very simple and more colorful compared to some of the others. As you gain experience you'll probably start to find them simplistic or incomplete, but I still use them for quick-looks. My opinion on the storm remains that this will continue to be a problem for forecasters since it is the first storm in our new weather pattern (i.e. "Return of Winter"). Even with the snow already on the radar, there continues to be disagreement in the models... though not as much as there was. There's a more offshore track and a more inland track. Which one to bet on... which onnnnne to bet on....... I'll go for an average of 8 inches around Center Harbor, and 11 inches Alton, with 12-14" likely in the seacoast area. There may be local enhancement of the snow on the northern slopes of the Ossipees and Belknap Ranges during the day tomorrow, resulting in 2-3 additional inches there. Just a possibility but enough of a chance to mention. This will start between 3 am and 5 a.m. in the Lakes Region, and we can expect the first inch to be on the ground by 8 am. The heaviest snow will fall between 10 am and 4 pm. but will continue to accumulate (just less aggressively) after that. The leftover moisture could linger in the northern mountains (accumulating) when the winds turn NW and the storm has cleared everywhere else. The mountains may get 2-3 inches more on Tuesday morning...especially at the summits... while the rest of us are starting to clear out. This situation looks like it's trying to repeat itself for Friday. Currently it looks like it has a chance to come further inland which would be a snow-to-ice scenario. Let's hope it stays just far enough offshore to give us snow... we had enough ice 10 years ago! ...Note to mountain interests next weekend... If you have plans in the mountains (especially hiking or other wilderness activities) please stay tuned to forecasts this week for extreme cold. It's still too early to say just how cold, but early signs are suggesting daytime temps hovering around zero F at the bases (-20 at the summits) with some pretty strong NW winds making it feel even colder... looks like a set-up for "Summits in the clouds" as well. More details as the week progresses... ...Football... Looks like extreme cold will be greeting San Diego when they come to Foxborough next weekend.

01-14-2008, 06:41 AM	#20
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,525 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 295 Thanked 957 Times in 698 Posts	...where's it at? ...hey Lupy....so's far, I been to the Plymouth-Gilford-Tilton-& Littleton Walmarts, all lookn for that $88.88-8.2 mega-pixle digicam, and they all be OOS, and now it's a-start-n to SNOW. Where can I get one, where, where, where? __________________ ... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake!

01-14-2008, 08:30 AM	#23
nj2nh Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: NJ Posts: 518 Thanks: 62 Thanked 42 Times in 23 Posts	Down here in Jersey, the weather pundits predicted 5-8 inches. We were all excited for school cancelations, grilled cheese in front of the fireplace and pajamas all day. We got nothing. Zip, zero, zilch. The weather people are complete idiots. Such a disappointing winter thus far! nj2nh __________________

01-14-2008, 10:13 AM	#24
Island Girl Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Central MA Posts: 2,352 Thanks: 18 Thanked 535 Times in 179 Posts	MA Snow On the other hand.. here in east central MA we have several inches of snow... still coming down... schools are out.... work was called off... and I am well perched on the couch with a movie... two laptops.. and a bowl of chocolate pudding!!!! Heaven!!! IG __________________ Island Girl ....... Make Lemonade

01-14-2008, 10:28 AM	#25
upthesaukee Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Alton Bay Posts: 5,547 Blog Entries: 2 Thanks: 2,396 Thanked 1,918 Times in 1,061 Posts	10:30 am in Alton bay and we have 5-6 inches on the ground, near whiteout conditions, and it should continue to about sundown with the heaviest snow thru early afternoon, according to the latest weather warning about 10 minutes ago. __________________ I Live Here... I am always UPTHESAUKEE !!!!

01-14-2008, 12:01 PM	#28
cursereversed Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 17 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Monday Snowstorm I'm here in downtown Laconia, at work , and we have 6-8 inches here at 12 noon. Snow is predicted until 7pm, and we should get 10-12 inches. Doesn't seem like good snowball snow, though

01-14-2008, 12:35 PM	#29
Weirs guy Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Weirs Beach, NH Posts: 1,067 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Franklins got about 5" so far (1/2 hour from the Weirs). I noticed some blowing/drifting this morning before I left so this may be (as DRH noted) one of those 0" - 48" events depending on where you stand. __________________ Is it bikeweek yet? Now?

01-14-2008, 02:19 PM	#31
Resident 2B Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: North Shore, MA Posts: 1,352 Thanks: 987 Thanked 310 Times in 161 Posts	Some NWS Spotter Reports The link below will connect you to NWS Spotter reports for snow depths from today's storm. http://www.weather.gov/view/validPro...=PNS&node=KGYX R2B

01-14-2008, 03:16 PM	#32
MAXUM Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Kuna ID Posts: 2,755 Thanks: 246 Thanked 1,942 Times in 802 Posts	So any one have a prediction on the next storm due in the end of this week? Accuweather is saying another storm, only stronger. Another foot or so of snow would really be a nice finishing touch for the snowmobile trails this weekend.

01-14-2008, 03:17 PM	#33
rander7823 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 301 Thanks: 539 Thanked 39 Times in 23 Posts	Equipment I use for forecasting the weather This is a very interesting thread and I enjoy reading about all of the sophisticated models so I thought I'd chime in with the equipment and formula's I use. First I use the DGCT ( Dodge Grand Caravan Thermometer). I live in Southern NE it read 42 F at 7:00 PM last night. No Snow Coming) Inspite of the 10 inches they continued to predict. Second I use the CTVR. (Cable Televison Remote) I switch each local news channel and gather snow depth predictions for all local news networks. Now here comes the tricky part I then count the number of times each meteorologist says, "might, possible, potential for, if the storm follows this path, most models predict" I take that number and divide the average snowfall estimates by it and get the resulting estimated snowfall. At 10PM I look out the door and see if there are clouds or not. I then inform my 13 year old daughter that inspite of what Dr Mel, Jeff Fox and Hilton Kaderly and Matt say she will be going to school. That sigh she gives off usually tips the scales and we get rain. Now this seems to work for Southern NE not sure of it will in the Lakes Region. Last edited by rander7823; 01-14-2008 at 03:20 PM. Reason: spelling

01-14-2008, 03:42 PM	#34
trfour Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: The Lakes, Central NH. and Dallas/Fort Worth TX. Posts: 3,694 Blog Entries: 3 Thanks: 3,069 Thanked 472 Times in 236 Posts	These Home Grown Weather Threads.. Are Awesome! My thanks to Rose, CLA, R2B and others for making these threads fun and so interesting. After last winter, or should I say.. lack there of in the snow and ice department, I wanted to get the "snow" ball rolling early for this winter, so I added "Snow Dance" in PhotoPost. http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopo...hp?photo=11858 Snow Dance worked well, though we may need some help from the ice Gods. __________________ *trfour* Always Remember, The Best Safety Device In The Boat, or on a PWC Snowmobile etc., Is YOU! Safe sledding tips and much more; http://www.snowmobile.org/snowmobiling-safety.html

01-14-2008, 04:01 PM	#35
hilltopper Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Meredith Posts: 716 Thanks: 25 Thanked 105 Times in 66 Posts	4" here in Meredith......

01-14-2008, 05:12 PM	#36
mcdude Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Rock Haven Lake - West Newfield, ME Posts: 5,359 Thanks: 374 Thanked 1,041 Times in 489 Posts	Matt Noyes reported on NECN that 5" per hour was coming down in Gilmanton at one point this morning! The NWS Spotter (thanks resident 2B) is predicting 13" total for Alton Bay and Gilmanton. You snowmobilers and skiiers are really lucking out this season!

01-14-2008, 06:48 PM	#37
CanisLupusArctos Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Center Harbor Posts: 1,049 Thanks: 15 Thanked 472 Times in 107 Posts	Rander 7823, I loved your response for its hilariousness! But comedians often say comedy is funny because we find truthfulness in it, and there is truth in what you say. Many meteorologists would deny it. Forecasters totally blew it in New Jersey and NYC today because they weren't paying enough attention to the thermometer, and too much attention to the models. NJ and NYC got all the moisture that the models said would come, but it was too warm. Where did I see this? The NBC Today Show opened with it, this morning at 7 a.m. Jeff Ranieri (the meteorologist they always interview when the weather is too serious for the way they usually treat weather) said it when they interviewed him-- "It was just too warm." A meteorologist on Mount Washington told me of the meteorologist's "non-reality" syndrome the last time I volunteered at the summit. With a degree from Rutgers, he could've made lots of money somewhere else, but preferred a job on Mt. Washington where there isn't much money. He said he had done his internship at a National Weather Service office in summertime. When a severe weather outbreak was happening right outside, he wanted to go out and look. The NWS staff told him not to get in the habit of leaving the computer screens. They said, "Don't let the weather distract you from the weather." In other words, they're glued to the computer models. A lot of times, they have to be... but there ARE many times when your Dodge Grand Caravan Thermometer could totally save their accuracy -- if they only believed in something so simple. The guy on Mount Washington said he enjoyed the fact that his job is mixed between time spent at computer terminals and time spent outside, actually measuring and observing the summit's weather personally. Today on Black Cat we got shafted again. Would you believe only 2.6 inches of snow fell today. I did drive to Meredith where I found, as Hilltopper said, 4 inches of snow. Here is my guess -- the mountain effects I mentioned last night got a bit more out of control than I thought they would -- or could! The highest totals I've seen today seem to come (mostly) from north- or east-facing slopes, or very near the summit on the other side. However, when one side of a mountain gets topographically-enhanced snow, usually the other side gets a lot less -- it's called "shadowing". Today, I believe we at the NW end of Winnipesaukee got shadowed by the Ossipees and Red Hill. Based on the radar signature, I would say we were too far away from the main part of the storm for it to make up the difference. We were getting the fringes, and they didn't have enough energy to survive the 'milking' they got when they rode up and over the mountains to our north and east.

01-14-2008, 08:58 PM	#39
Resident 2B Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: North Shore, MA Posts: 1,352 Thanks: 987 Thanked 310 Times in 161 Posts	Wow! Significant variations in Snow Depth CLA, Talk about local affects. This is so hard to believe. Per NWS, as reported on their spotter network at Gray, Me., Alton had 13", Wolfboro had 13" and Laconia had 11.6". Although we all thought the lakes region would be on the northern edge, Meridith only had 4" and you measured 2.6" in Center Harbor. This fall-off in snow depths is amazing. I agree the "milking" of the hills had an impact in Meredith and in Center Harbor, but Wolfboro reported 13" without any hill to their west to do the "milking". I can understand that it did not get milked, but the southern parts of the lake had a moderate + snowfall, and Meredith and Center Harbor had very little. I was down in the North Shore area of Mass. during this storm. The snow down there was less than I had expected, with about 7", but the water content was very high. Bottom line, it was warmer than expected and we got a 7:1 snow. The temp went up four degrees from 7:00 PM to Midnight last night and that had a big impact. Otherwise, the storm was very close to the 40/70 benchmark and was a bit lower in pressure when it passed the benchmark than the models predicted. If anything from a track and intensity stand point, it was what we expected. However, the variability in snowfall, in places around the lake that are very close together, really messes with my mind. I guess this is why we love the weather here in New England! Now on to the Thursday night and Friday morning event. I have concerns about ice with this and it will be followed with very cold air. This pairing could be very dangerous if the ice takes the power down! I think a new thread would be the best place to elaborate on this. I have not seen much in the models for Monday, but I still think something might come up. Time will tell. R2B

01-15-2008, 12:48 AM	#41
CanisLupusArctos Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Center Harbor Posts: 1,049 Thanks: 15 Thanked 472 Times in 107 Posts	I honestly thought something was wrong When I couldn't find any spot with more than 2.75 inches of snow either in the yard or in the street, I honestly thought something was wrong... because I'd already read the Alton/Gilford/Wolfeborough reports. However, the reality set in, as I swept the front porch and walkway in just seconds, and had cleared the driveway (with a small shovel) 5 minutes later. R2B - you mention the hills to the west as being responsible for today's shadowing. Actually the flow was NNE all day - it ended up being the average wind direction for the day. I can't remember the last time we had a snowstorm with that much of a northerly wind. Most of the accumulating snow here fell until 10 a.m. At that time, as the station's wind graph indicates, the direction shifted from ENE to NNE. Once that happened, bam, it was like someone turned a faucet off. The whole time, I could see the view to the south obscured by snow, and there wasn't much in the (SE-facing) WeatherCam all day but white... it just wasn't in the foreground of the picture. Directly NNE of here, we have the Ossipees. The shadowed area follows a line from the Ossipees to Black Cat to Meredith Bay, and the amounts increase with distance from the Ossipees. Tonight when the wind shifted to more northerly I noticed the mountains apparently playing a role again. The steady snow had ended and most of the lake was precip-free. In one of the frames of the radar loop, I saw a blob of snow literally form out of clear air, just north of Red Hill's location, and 2 frames later the same thing happened just north of the Belknap Range - on the southern shore of the lake. Neither blob moved.... they lasted for a few more frames right where they were, and then dissipated.

01-15-2008, 09:03 AM	#42
hilltopper Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Meredith Posts: 716 Thanks: 25 Thanked 105 Times in 66 Posts	Interesting....I wouldn't have guessed shadowing because the Ossippee range is "small" by mountain range standards. But, peeking at a map and knowing who got what for snow, it makes a lot of sense. Mother Nature owes us one so hopefully for the next one the winds setup a bit differently (unless of course it's all ice...yikes).

01-15-2008, 11:11 AM	#44
NHKathy Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Moultonborough when I can / RI Posts: 699 Thanks: 180 Thanked 38 Times in 22 Posts	How much in Moultonborough??? with the varied amounts around the Lake, i was just curious how much fell around Moultonborough Neck ...

01-15-2008, 02:41 PM	#45
CanisLupusArctos Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Center Harbor Posts: 1,049 Thanks: 15 Thanked 472 Times in 107 Posts	R2B, What you say about the high not being that strong -- this is starting to make a lot more sense now, in comparison to more typical storms. Usually Nor'Easters bring more of an easterly wind than northerly. I've found the lake's geographic alignment (NW-SE) likes to bend wind to those directions if they're similar enough. Even the other night when everyone else was reporting NE winds (while this storm was approaching) this station was getting winds straight up the lake from the SE... "The Rattlesnake Express." This may also explain a lot in relation to past storms: As a typical Nor'Easter passes, its wind will go to north for 1-3 hours, before the Northwesterly backside kicks in. As I remember, at that point in the storm, the snow has always either shut down to flurries/patches of clear sky, or at least tapered off significantly, even while everyone else was continuing to snow moderately. Then, the NW winds kick in, and we get the backside squalls with another inch or two of accumulation. Therefore, this may help predict future snow at this end of the lake. Based on this, my guess is that in order for the Center Harbor end of the lake to get a storm's full potential snowfall, the storm needs to provide most or all of its snowfall while it's still far enough down the coast to give us its East or NE winds. Once it's close enough to shift our winds more northerly, we could predict that snow will shut down at this end of the lake until the storm passes and shifts our winds to the NW. On the flipside of the coin, we could forecast enhanced snowfall for all windward slopes around the lake during the same situations. This sort of localized feature would not be picked up by the models at all (at least not for a few more years). NHKathy, I'm going to guess that Moultonborough Neck didn't get any more than here at Black Cat (2.7 inches). Other snowfall reports seem to draw a line from the Ossipees directly SSW, and the closer you get to the Ossipees on that line, the less snow there was.

01-15-2008, 02:48 PM	#46
CanisLupusArctos Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Center Harbor Posts: 1,049 Thanks: 15 Thanked 472 Times in 107 Posts	R2B, What you say about the high not being that strong -- this is starting to make a lot more sense now, in comparison to more typical storms. Usually Nor'Easters bring more of an easterly wind than northerly. I've found the lake's geographic alignment (NW-SE) likes to bend wind to those directions if they're similar enough. Even the other night when everyone else was reporting NE winds (while this storm was approaching) this station was getting winds straight up the lake from the SE... "The Rattlesnake Express." This may also explain a lot in relation to past storms: As a typical Nor'Easter passes, its wind will go to north for 1-3 hours, before the Northwesterly backside kicks in. As I remember, at that point in the storm, the snow has always either shut down to flurries/patches of clear sky, or at least tapered off significantly, even while everyone else was continuing to snow moderately. Then, the NW winds kick in, and we get the backside squalls with another inch or two of accumulation. Therefore, this may help predict future snow at this end of the lake. Based on this, my guess is that in order for the Center Harbor end of the lake to get a storm's full potential snowfall, the storm needs to provide most or all of its snowfall while it's still far enough down the coast to give us its East or NE winds. Once it's close enough to shift our winds more northerly, we could predict that snow will shut down at this end of the lake until the storm passes and shifts our winds to the NW. On the flipside of the coin, we could forecast enhanced snowfall for all windward slopes around the lake during the same situations. This sort of localized feature would not be picked up by the models at all (at least not for a few more years). NHKathy, I'm going to guess that Moultonborough Neck didn't get any more than here at Black Cat (2.7 inches). Other snowfall reports seem to draw a line from the Ossipees directly SSW, and the closer you get to the Ossipees on that line, the less snow there was.