Winter Storm Euclid? - TWC to name Winter Storms

[Laplacian]

IMO they should only name nor'easters. At least ones like this.

http://imageshack.us/a/img43/6618/noreaster.jpg

So a Pacific storm that produces heavy rain, flooding and thunderstorms at low elevations in California (and maybe a tornado or two) and three or more feet of snow in the Sierra (and mountains to the east) shouldn't be named? I don't understand your reasoning.

Only naming East-Coast storms seems pretty parochial, in my opinion. Which reminds me, will they name deep lows in the Gulf of Alaska, or is that region not in the marketing strategy of TWC? I wouldn't be surprised if they just ignored the Gulf of Alaska, which, of course, would further indicate to me just how subjective their marketing plan really is. If this occurs, I will not be impressed. Nor will I be surprised.

By the way, that's NOT an eye on your satellite image...it's a warm seclusion, which is typical of the life cycle of some marine mid-latitude cyclones (see the Shapiro-Keyser cyclone model). I broach this topic because this is primarily a tropical forum...there's really nothing tropical about the structure of that storm you showed on satellite imagery...but I'll bet there are folks who think that's an eye, in the tropical sense of the word. For the record, it's not.

[HurricaneAndrew92]

IMO they should only name nor'easters. At least ones like this.

=http://imageshack.us/a/img43/6618/noreaster.jpg

So a Pacific storm that produces heavy rain, flooding and thunderstorms at low elevations in California (and maybe a tornado or two) and three or more feet of snow in the Sierra (and mountains to the east) shouldn't be named? I don't understand your reasoning.

Only naming East-Coast storms seems pretty parochial, in my opinion. Which reminds me, will they name deep lows in the Gulf of Alaska, or is that region not in the marketing strategy of TWC? I wouldn't be surprised if they just ignored the Gulf of Alaska, which, of course, would further indicate to me just how subjective their marketing plan really is. If this occurs, I will not be impressed. Nor will I be surprised.

By the way, that's NOT an eye on your satellite image...it's a warm seclusion, which is typical of the life cycle of some marine mid-latitude cyclones (see the Shapiro-Keyser cyclone model). I broach this topic because this is primarily a tropical forum...there's really nothing tropical about the structure of that storm you showed on satellite imagery...but I'll bet there are folks who think that's an eye, in the tropical sense of the word. For the record, it's not.

With all due respect, there's been some research saying it's an eye. Idk, maybe it's wrong.

[greenkat]

IMO they should only name nor'easters. At least ones like this.

http://imageshack.us/a/img43/6618/noreaster.jpg

So a Pacific storm that produces heavy rain, flooding and thunderstorms at low elevations in California (and maybe a tornado or two) and three or more feet of snow in the Sierra (and mountains to the east) shouldn't be named? I don't understand your reasoning.

Only naming East-Coast storms seems pretty parochial, in my opinion. Which reminds me, will they name deep lows in the Gulf of Alaska, or is that region not in the marketing strategy of TWC? I wouldn't be surprised if they just ignored the Gulf of Alaska, which, of course, would further indicate to me just how subjective their marketing plan really is. If this occurs, I will not be impressed. Nor will I be surprised.

By the way, that's NOT an eye on your satellite image...it's a warm seclusion, which is typical of the life cycle of some marine mid-latitude cyclones (see the Shapiro-Keyser cyclone model). I broach this topic because this is primarily a tropical forum...there's really nothing tropical about the structure of that storm you showed on satellite imagery...but I'll bet there are folks who think that's an eye, in the tropical sense of the word. For the record, it's not.

With all due respect, there's been some research saying it's an eye. Idk, maybe it's wrong.

Yeah, I thought it looked a whole lot like an eye, but I have no clue, I'm not a professional met. (I want to be but that's a whole 'nother matter )

[greenkat]

Scale idea!

TROPICAL: Tropical Depression | Tropical Storm | Hurricane (cat 1-5)

WINTER STORM
EQUIV.: Snowstorm | Winter Storm | Blizzard (cat 1-5)

Just an idea, please don't criticize needlessly.
(EDIT- S2K deleted all the extra spaces I made , so... slight format changes!)
(2ND EDIT: WHY, S2K, WHY??? not very professional, but you get the idea (I hope))

[Laplacian]

That's nonsense. It's not an eye. It's a warm seclusion.

An eye, in the context of tropical cyclones, is surrounded by eye-wall thunderstorms (a tropical cyclone has deep, moist convection surrounding its core). Read more ... http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/A11.html

Check out the 1345Z visible image on February 12, 2006 (link below), showing a warm seclusion (not an eye!) associated with a mid-latitude cyclone along the Middle Atlantic Seaboard (the "Blizzard of 2006," if I remember correctly).

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/worldof ... _1345Z.gif

Now here's the corresponding infrared satellite image:

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/worldof ... _1345Z.gif

Nothing but low clouds surrounding the warm seclusion (the small "hole" in the clouds) and, more importantly, not a single thunderstorm in the general vicinity. In other words, this system was completely bereft of any tropical characteristics.

I'm always wary of people who try to defend what they're saying by stating that "there's research on this." Where's the peer-reviewed paper? Who wrote the paper?

You really don't know what you're talking about...so I hope this helps you.

[brunota2003]

Alright...then how about a Nor' Easter like this one?

http://www.erh.noaa.gov/mhx/EventReview ... 050506.php



How's that for an "eye" feature?

[Laplacian]

I'm not sure what your point is. If you read the caption at the NWS site, it states that the meso-alpha swirl had some tropical characteristics (actually, NWS used the word, "subtropical"). And it looks a bit subtropical to me.

So the meso-alpha swirl, which ostensibly had some tropical characteristics according to the NWS, is nothing more than a red herring.

[brunota2003]

Yes, I know...it was starting to turn warm core, and was probably enough to classify as at least an unnamed subtropical storm (that was the beginning of May 2005, a hint at what was to come?). The pressure gradient as it went by NC was very tight, and it produced pretty strong winds, as well as bitterly cold rain ugh. I was being a devil's advocate, as that one does have a true "eye" feature haha

[Laplacian]

Sneaky...I'll have to keep an "eye" on you from now on.

[brunota2003]

Well, it was technically a Nor' Easter with an "eye", so I figured it fit the description (as least as good as any, without pulling out the Halloween Storm/Unnamed Hurricane!)

[Laplacian]

Well, it was technically a Nor' Easter with an "eye", so I figured it fit the description (as least as good as any, without pulling out the Halloween Storm/Unnamed Hurricane!)

First, there's no such thing as a nor'easter with an eye. That's been essentially my point all along. A nor'easter is a mid-latitude cyclone bereft of tropical characteristics. So you and I are clearly on different pages.

Second, at the time of your IR satellite image, the system was technically NOT a nor'easter. In my view, a nor'easter is a mid-latitude cyclone that produces northeasterly winds ahead of it as it moves up the Atlantic Seaboard. If you look at the 23Z surface streamlines on May 7, 2005 (15 minutes after the IR image), winds along the East Coast were westerly, not northeasterly, so I take issue with you referring to this as a nor'easter at the time of your IR satellite image.

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/worldof ... 211359.gif

The bottom line is that, in my view, your statement of a "nor'easter with an eye" is an oxymoron.

[brunota2003]

Most common folks don't stop referring to it as a Nor' Easter until it is out of the picture completely - therein lies one of the major problems. Once it forms, if it was a Nor' Easter at the start, it is usually called a Nor' Easter all the way through until it's gone (in the non-met world, obviously). And there were still NE winds up near Maine/Canada, in association with that low.

I get your point, though.

[HurricaneAndrew92]

I know I was the one who brought up this topic, but can we get back on the original one?

[Laplacian]

Good catch on the winds. I stand corrected. Thanks.

[vbhoutex]

I'm glad everyone's through all this arguing about something pretty insignificant, has anyone seen my earlier post at all?

Greenkat pick up your pm. Now let's all get back on the subject.

[Kennethb]

I don't watch TWC, but any idea if they will be naming this nor'easter?

I would think with Sandy's destruction they might reconsider naming winter storms.

[brunota2003]

I saw comments between Tom and Jim Cantore on Saturday (on twitter) about naming, they both agreed it was too far out to name the system (due to unknown impacts). You might see it get named today, though.

[WeatherGuesser]

If they do, I hope no one here helps them promote it.

[gigabite]

Ah the ambiguity of weather stuff.

I think the humanistic aspect of naming weather events is equivocal and hardly scientific. A corollary in space weather would be the sun spot number. If you use letters it proves that you can count to 36. I can count to one hundred or better. In my business we use a 9 digit code to the first two digits for the year, the next two for the type of event and the next 5 for the job number.

[Shoshana]

I think it's silly. My husband, who is not a weather watcher, finds the idea amusing.