TheCloudBoy

TheCloudBoy OP t1_j5yvd9p wrote

There are a couple of open fallacies in this that I need to address.

"Models are probabilistic": Incorrect. The majority of our guidance (including what you see above) is deterministic, governed complex differential equations. I'm building a statistical weather model at my job, so I'd hope I know the difference.

Skillful meteorologists understand the limitations of each guidance system, their biases, and make forecasts from there. One on display overnight was understanding how models fail to capture warm air advection and smaller features like robust dry air correctly. That's why you saw such a low forecast contrary to most others. Not only was it right, it wasn't aggressive enough but ultimately applied these principles.

Why did I not worry about a lot of wet snow? Simple: the snow growth sucked & the magnitude of warm air advection would easily overpower cold air, so the result would be a rapid transition to ice & rain. That minimizes power outages, which is what we saw.

3

TheCloudBoy OP t1_j5yja0y wrote

Yeah, given I lived in an area that was pummeled by both Hurricane Irene & a wet snow storm (each crippled power for 10 days at a time), I'd say this event is rather tame, or laughable. Total outages & outage jobs remain lower than at either of the last two storms, great news.

2

TheCloudBoy OP t1_j5v0l3v wrote

That's honestly a great question! Given I grew up in New England and went to school in the mountains, my initial answer is no. That said, the caveat is there are a lot of microclimates to keep track of that variable terrain introduces, which I'd argue is the hardest part. The December 2020 snow blitz is an excellent example of this

5