CCinCT doesn't have a personal statement currently.
Gender Not Set
Joined: 15-December 10
Profile Views: 4,463*
Last Seen: Today, 11:02 AM
Local Time: Feb 27 2017, 03:34 PM
59 posts (0 per day)
* Profile views updated each hour
22 Jan 2016
I've tried asking a few times about this but haven't gotten a response (or it got buried under all the chaff). My question is about the 2 bits of energy (HP's?) in Canada, one is above Maine, the other is above Montana I believe. If I understand Bernie correctly, the one above Maine is supplying dry air into New England, and this is a major factor in how far north any precipitation can expand. Can anyone comment on how this little nugget has evolved over the past few days vs what it was forecast to do? I'm trying to get a feel for whether the various models have been forecasting this specific feature with accuracy.
The other bit of energy out west seems like it could nudge to the whole weather system further east, quicker, if it's powerful enough. Bernie also touched on this, but I'd like to know if this too has evolved inline with what it was forecast to do over the past few days.
Any guidance would be appreciated.
22 Jan 2016
The following is a paraphrase of a tweet from Ryan Hanrahan, a met in CT:
"Using a non-hydrostatic mesoscale (he's referring to the NAM here) model for complex synoptic stuff is asking for trouble"
Can someone explain a couple things about this comment:
1) What does he mean by "non-hydrostatic"? It sounds like he's saying the NAM doesn't account for moisture content on some level, but that would be silly. So obviously I am not correctly understanding what he means by this. If anyone can set me straight I'd really appreciate it.
2) From my uneducated perspective, it would seem to me that a hi-res model like the NAM would do a BETTER job and deciphering synoptic stuff, at least in the short run. This would be tempered by the notion that the more minutia you have in your model, the further off course you can go the further out you go. But in the short term, I would think that having a more defined modeling environment would lead to more accuracy. But again, I am obviously wrong here because so many people discount the NAM entirely, or at least more than 24/36 hours out. So could someone explain why using a model like the NAM would be "asking for trouble" as he put it?
And just to keep clear, I'm not looking to counter his points. He's a smart guy and knows his stuff. So when he says things like this, I find it's in my best interest to really try to understand him to the best of my abilities. And before you ask me to ask him directly, I don't do twitter
30 Oct 2011
Does anyone know how winters with early, measurable snow fall (say, Thanksgiving and earlier) have panned out in past years? I am particularly interested in New York City, Hartford, Providence, and Boston.
We here in southeast Connecticut got a couple inches last night, btw. Just wondering if this could be an indication that the coming winter may not be as "battleground"-y as most are predicting.
16 Jan 2017 - 7:13
21 Jan 2016 - 9:08
1 Feb 2015 - 17:44
29 Jan 2014 - 13:08
25 Feb 2012 - 18:29
Other users have left no comments for CCinCT.
There are no friends to display.
|Lo-Fi Version||Time is now: 27th February 2017 - 03:34 PM|