Jump to content

eduggs

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,770

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by eduggs

  1. eduggs
    The radar returns in southern Ohio indicate the precip. shield is slightly south of where the 18z NAM and recent HRRR runs showed it (and very sightly south of the 0z NAM). If that translates eastward it might help areas along the southern edge of forecast snow.
  2. eduggs
    Snow moves back into the area Thurs. morning predawn on the GFS.
  3. eduggs
    Yes but it was unclear where that band would set up until nowcast time. Several NAM cycles were too far west with that feature, putting it in NEPA, NWNJ, and Orange County. Ultimately the banding on the NW side did not make it very far inland... but just slightly west of where the consensus best QPF was modeled.
  4. eduggs
    Looks like you're just far enough east. I heard western Putnam is mostly 1-2".
  5. eduggs
    Eastern CT looks like it's getting hammered. I hope that translates down to LI for the next few hours.
  6. eduggs
    Funny thing is the NAM was too wet for Warren, Sussex, Orange counties and parts of NE PA for several cycles. Those areas ended up with a minor event. Outside the weenie band that set up through CNJ, southern Westchester, and SCT, the rest of the guidance was pretty good with synoptic features, albeit a touch warm with surface temps. As usual a compromise solution was probably best.
  7. eduggs
    Right now and for the next few hours the best banding is NYC east. The weenie band just NW of the cities earlier this morning was a nice bonus.
  8. eduggs
    Snow accumulations so far yes. But probably not QPF in the end.
  9. eduggs
    Heavier precip. incoming NYC east.
  10. eduggs
    Definitely a weenie band this morning from NJ rt 202 through NENJ, southern Westchester, coastal CT, and up towards NE CT. I think there will be some 6-8 inch totals in that band. Possibly more in CT.
  11. eduggs
    Great day for a snow walk! Light winds, not particularly cold, and dense gorgeous snow! Recommend that anyone able get outside and enjoy it!
  12. eduggs
    Those StormVista snow maps are very low resolution and inaccurate. They treat any kind of mix as accumulated snow.
  13. eduggs
    NW NJ and the interior LHV are pretty dry. Let's not get carried away. There is a good band just west of I-95. It's moving quickly off to the NE. In the end, the heaviest QPF will be in eastern areas as modeled.
  14. eduggs
    Yes, a few NAM runs had the banding through NJ. But other NAM runs were way too far west into NEPA. The HRRR also pinpointed it fairly well yesterday for several runs... the warm temps as well. Most everything else was east of NYC, which will end up being mostly correct.
  15. eduggs
    Snowfall intensity has picked up in Montville, Morris Co. Moderate intensity now at a relatively warm 31F.
  16. eduggs
    I don't think that timing is correct. If anything we are a little late to start. And heavy rates were well modeled. Thus far I think the storm has been well modeled. Most of the >.5 QPF looks to end up east of NYC. However I think areas under the (intensifying?) band near and west of I-95 could also end up with around .5, which would be a little higher than most guidance.
  17. eduggs
    Yup. Should be a quick 3-5" I would think in that band.
  18. eduggs
    Really nice training band near and just west of I-95 - North of Trenton to southern Westchester. That should be piling up quickly.
  19. eduggs
    I'm not loving the radar look for up your way. Looks good for a solid few hours east of Hunterdon, Morris, and N Passaic Cos.
  20. eduggs
    Sure looks like 1-2" per hour coming up for most of LI wherever it can stay snow!
  21. eduggs
    Sussex and Orange Counties not looking great ATM.
  22. eduggs
    Current radar looks like good QPF up and east of apprx. halfway between I-95 and I-78 and lower Westchester. Much lighter west of there
  23. eduggs
    On radar to me the banding looks to setup pretty far east. I guess that perspective is influenced by location. Relatively warm temps aren't being caused by a tucked SLP track. Track looks well offshore. For the temps we have the stacked low pressure center (instead of high pressure) in Ontario to blame.
  24. eduggs
    You're passing your interpretation off as an objective observation. I think it's subjective. To me the precipitation shield is not definitively more expansive than modeled. In truth it's really hard to say for sure without a denser network of rain gauges. I'm hoping for an expansive precip. shield and as much snow as possible. But I also don't want to build false expectations.
  25. eduggs
    I don't trust sim radars. Preferably I like to compare upper level charts with interpolated RAOBs. Or model forecast QPF with surface observations. I hope you're right but to me the radar looks as modeled or even a little bit weaker. I'd prefer to see the s/w a little more wrapped up out ahead of the northern stream front. To me it looks like it will get shunted eastward as modeled. Wherever the best banding sets up should do okay. But I don't see a big positive bust with this one so far.
×
×
  • Create New...