yosemite to flood??

Dingus mistakenly said NOAH's prior 60% inaccuracy was from before satellites and radar.. not true.,
and, they were also 60% inaccurate, again, last week.

And by the way, those predictions prevented the chaos that ensued during the 97 flood by the park planing preventative measures before the SHTF this time ......

What made the storm so deadly was the timing (during work and school hours), the suddenness, and the brief spell of warmer weather that preceded it. In addition, the very strong wind fields behind the cold front and the powdery nature of the snow reduced visibilities on the open plains to zero. People ventured from the safety of their homes to do chores, go to town, attend school, or simply enjoy the relative warmth of the day. As a result, thousands of people—including many schoolchildren—got caught in the blizzard. The death toll was 235.[3] Teachers generally kept children in their schoolrooms. Exceptions nearly always resulted in disaster.[4]


wow, guys, thanks again, for sharing all this, whether they
all match up, with each other, and all that, it is:

still amazing, :O

Travel was severely impeded in the days following

One moment the air was clear, calm, with spring-like warmth. Then, in a period of just a few minutes the sky darkened and temperatures dropped 18 degrees, and vicious winds drove tiny snow flakes (described as "ice dust") which almost instantaneously created a whiteout with visibility near zero. Blizzard conditions continued until about midnight as temperatures fell precipitously to double digits below zero with a wind chill of -40. An estimated 4-5 feet of snow had fallen, although drifting undoubtedly made accurate measurements virtually impossible.

By the next morning (Jan. 13), hundreds were killed with a high proportion of children among the storm's victims as they attempted to return home from school.

Laskin is also a weather geek and explains the meteorology behind the event given the available, but relatively limited sources of weather observations and analyses. This includes describing the development and progression of lows and highs, fronts, jet streams and jet streaks, which no doubt reflect the assistance in such matters when writing his book from Dr. Louis Uccellini, Director of the National Center for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) and co-author (with Paul Kocin) of Northeast Snowstorms.

To say the least, the state of the science and art of forecasting in 1888 was in the early days of development. There were no satellite observations, limited surface data and no observations aloft, let alone computers and weather models for forecasters (like Wes Junker) to peruse and come up with the best forecasts possible days in advance of possible weather threats. There were some indications of a drop in temperature and snow from surface data available to forecasters at the time, but lack of timely and reliable communications kept word from getting out before it was far too late.

We'd like to believe that advances in atmospheric science, vast system of observations, global satellite coverage, computer models, and instant communication would preclude a storm of this magnitude striking without advance notice. But surprise snowstorms remain a possibility even at short ranges to the extent the threat is communicated as a simple deterministic yes or no. With today's tools though, outright surprises can be avoided when the forecast information also includes reasonable and reliable estimates of the degree of confidence in alternative scenarios (to yes/no).

By Steve Tracton

From that sequence, it looks like the model is fairly nonlinear, so that "small" changes in inputs can have a "big" change in outputs.