My snowfall forecast for
the December 11, 2019 event across CT…terrible…bad…horrific…there aren’t enough
negative terms in the dictionary to describe how awful of a forecast that was.
However, I am not mad or angry. The beautiful thing with weather is that it is
an imperfect science (something that most people might not really understand)
and there are going to be times when you’re wrong. All you can do is learn from
any mistakes.
In the case of this
storm, it’s not necessarily a mistake I made. It was geared more towards the
fact that I placed too much emphasis on a red flag I saw (red flag meaning
something that may prevent a certain outcome from occurring) and ignored some of
the glaring signals which suggested we would get heavy snow. So, why did I do
this and what have I learned from it?
First off, the major red
flag to me was the forecast of dry air and subsidence in the lowest ~7,000 feet
of the troposphere. Why are these two significant?
- Presence of dry air – Dry
air “eats” away precipitation. Basically, what occurs is the process of
evaporation. If you have precipitation falling towards the ground through the
troposphere and it’s falling through dry air it can evaporate before reaching
the ground. Sometimes radar reflectivity will indicate precipitation is
falling, however, it is not reaching the ground. This is called virga.
- Subsidence – Subsidence is
sinking motion…air is sinking. For clouds and precipitation to form you need rising
motion. Warm and moist air rises, as it does so it encounters a cooler
environment, the parcel temperatures then reaches the dewpoint temperature and
voila…clouds form and precipitation can form (depending on other factors of
course). When air is sinking it also warms…not good for the development of
clouds and precipitation.
So, what led me to
thinking this dry air and subsidence would be a problem? In the essence of time
and space I will just pick one of the forecast models. Forecast models differed
with just how much dry air would move into place, however, keep in mind my
thinking was this dry air would advect in early and quickly. Below, is a
cross-section spanning the state of CT from Tuesday’s morning run of the 3K NAM
for 3:00 AM EST Wednesday morning. I have highlighted the presence of rather
dry air in the lowest 5,000 feet of the troposphere (light shading greens
indicating about 75-85% relative humidity). Note the darker green shadings,
however, above this along with the purple shaded areas…those are areas of stronger
rising motion:
Let’s then compare this
with that evening’s 0z run (just hours before the snow) valid for the same
time. Notice a SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE in the profile:
What stood out as a
strong signal for snow to fall (and heavily at times) and accumulate was
intense rising in the mid-levels of the troposphere with the most intense lift
occurring between where temperatures were -12°C to -18°C. This layer of
temperatures is referred to as the dendritic snow growth zone. Snow growth is
maximized between this range of temperatures. For snow growth to be maximized
you need the following;
- Very strong upward
vertical motion present within the dendritic snow growth zone (referred to as
the “cross hair signature).
- Significant
presence of ice crystals (very high relative humidity with respect to ice).
- Sufficient
moisture (relative humidity values > 80%).
If these conditions are
present, not only will you develop dendrites (these are the big snowflakes
which accumulate very rapidly) but you will also have heavy snowfall rates.
All forecast models were
very consistent with this feature. The 12z 3km NAM run from Tuesday morning at Windsor
Locks, CT indicated negative values of omega (which indicates rising motion) in
between the -12°C and -18°C temperature range. Referring to the relative
humidity cross section above, we know it’s plenty moist within that layer. I’ve
highlighted in black this area. I’ve also highlighted the yellow-ish shading in
the lower-levels of the troposphere. These are positive values of omega
(indicating sinking motion). I saw that as a flag and determined this would
offset things:
There was also excellent
lift provided by a very strong mid and upper level jet stream and a very strong
axis of frontogenesis about 10,000 feet above the ground. Below, is the 700mb
frontogenesis forecast from the 12z run of the NAM showing intense
frontogenesis over CT for 4:00 AM EST Wednesday morning:
After a review, what I’ve
learned is DO NOT IGNORE the cross hair signature. When a cross hair signature
is present and there is plenty of available moisture…expect snow and heavy snow.
While there was dry air involved, the dry air advection was being fought off
possibly by evaporative cooling (the process of evaporation leads to cooling).
One way to increase relative humidity is to decrease temperature. Also, as snow
was being generated and falling, this helped to moisten up the atmosphere as
well. The combination of excellent jet dynamics and frontogenesis helped force rising
motion.
I incorrectly assessed
how everything would come together and how this evolve. This incorrect
assessment lead to a horrific weather forecast. You could easily say, “why
would you go against everyone else. If everyone else goes a certain way, just
go with them”. That seems logical, but that is not the correct way to go. One
of the best assets a forecaster can have is knowledge of past experiences.
Forecast models are only guidance and if you just forecast based off what a
model is spitting out…you’ll find yourself in trouble. After-all, if forecast
models were 100% accurate computers would do this job!
So it’s off to the next
storm and the next bust and see what can be learned from that 😉