eduggs

Members
  • Content Count

    3,454
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About eduggs

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location:
    Hudson Valley

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Snowflakes in the air next weekend on the 0z GFS. Looks like there would be accumulations above about 1000ft N&W. Impressive upper levels for this time of year.
  2. Downpours with sleet and wet snowflakes with some of those "storms" in NYS. Feels very summer thunderstorm-like.
  3. Yeah this was well advertised... that the real ice problems would be limited to the highest elevations with more marginal temperatures at middle elevations.
  4. The frozen/freezing QPF is/was usually not so far off. But the ratio of QPF to accumulated snow, sleet, or mixed combo was way off.
  5. If the hi-res models are anywhere close to correct, the distribution of icing will not be very uniform. It will be localized, sub-model-grid scale, and very elevationally dependent.
  6. It's obviously just pixel-averaged values. And in this case basically a pixel-averaging of topography. We all know the winter weather graphical products are very misleading yet people keep posting them.
  7. This is also why the hilltops look to get a lot more ice than the valleys and lowlands. The cold drains in at low levels, but off the deck. So 1500ft could drop to, say 27F, while down at 400ft is at a marginal 32F and not really accreting (meanwhile 5000ft could be 40F). In a more typical CAD - ice scenario, the sheltered valleys hold on longer than the hilltops. This upcoming modeled scenario is not the prototypical ice event.
  8. It looks like elevation will be key for areas that get ice. Pretty steep low level lapse rates on the model soundings. Near freezing temps. in low elevation areas will probably limit accretion. But up 1000ft+ with surface temps. in the upper 20s will start to become a problem. Actually for big problems you'd probably want to be up above 1500 or 2000ft at least in SNE.
  9. There's really pronounced upper level divergence south of SNE starting around Monday on most guidance. That definitely seems to match the developing surface reflection and cold northerly surface drain. Too bad there's not much mid level redevelopment in the same area to more fully cool the column and wrap in some more moisture.
  10. Well the squalls always hit some areas more than others. But overall the front and snow shower activity was well modeled since last weekend.
  11. The mid-level charts never looked good for snow locally. Trof axis and mid-level lows too far N&W. But many cases in the past have shown that a burst of overrunning precip. into a marginal airmass can produce over a short duration. We obviously did not produce in those critical early hours. I don't know how you can know for sure which way things will break when you are along a sharp thermal gradient. The outcome is so sensitive to minor differences. I guess nobody should have been so quick to discount the GFS. It seems like maybe the practice of discarding outlier model solutions might lead to suboptimal statistical forecast verification. I'm not sure how much snow fell up north, but it consistently showed mixing to ALB with snow to the Canadian border and ski country. It's too bad model soundings aren't publically available for the ECMWF hi-res.
  12. Sleet and freezing rain mixed in Putnam County. There's some pretty good icing in the hills. Main roads were plastered with salt before and during the precip. so they are just wet. The GFS or even a model consensus worked out pretty well up here. What threw people off was the shift towards an initial burst of snow over the last 24-36 hours and the very high EPS snow probs. Soundings consistently showed a 3hr window or less to accumulate snow. After that all guidance showed freezing rain with some sleet. This can't really be a model bust if the outcome was within the model envelope. Forecasters hedged towards the ECM on snow accum. and the GFS was more right this time. It was a minor forecasting bust but one that would have been very difficult to avoid.
  13. Radar looks moist with the overrunning out ahead. And it looks relatively suppressed too. The mid-level precip. is also clearly and distinctly visible in KS and MO. There's probably going to be a quick burst of snow for many tonight. But this continues to look really icy locally. Maybe some paste and parachutes initially with the WAA but the powdery snow is confined to BGM, ALB, and SVT.
  14. I would say somewhere near Morristown with an approx. north-south gradient. But I would guess it ends up a bit further north. However, the initial burst of precip. has been trending more impressive. That could do some work late tonight. And it could result in less linear snow - sleet - freezing - rain - rain boundaries and more banding dependent.
  15. Euro shifted a bit further than that with mid-level temps. Shifts the sleet and freezing rain lines a good deal north on Tuesday. Still a good front end thump for those who can avoid sleet.