eduggs

53 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

We both feel that way because we're looking at a concentrated ball of strong vorticity rounding the base of that shortwave and then curling into E LI and the Cape. The stronger solution honestly makes meteorological sense...but we know convection-robbing of conveyors can be real, but we just don't when it is and when it's a model phantom.

Your meteorological explanation makes sense.

But I can't help but feel that we get imprinted early on when a threat is still in the medium or long range. We categorize our initial impression of the magnitude of possibility as a kind of unconscious expectation. And I think this initial impression biases our gut feeling from then on.

It could explain why some people are dismissive of late-appearing threats that were not signaled in the LR or why they hold out hope for trivial events that were formerly modeled as monsters.

21 minutes ago, powderfreak said:

Early look 18z HRRR went wild on the south shore.  Good banding from Long Island to Ginxy to you on the simulated radar.

That doesn't look so unreasonable. Ratio gradient and possibly a touch of mixing far SE will probably smooth that out a bit. Maybe knock a tenth of QPF off everywhere and it looks very plausible.

50 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

Yeah it's trying, biut not quite enough this run to deliver the real goodies....still a better look at least than 12z. Most of my hope in this system is due to the strong vortmax....that as we get closer and closer, the model guidance will be focusing more of the forcing along the track of that vortmax and not to the east.

Yeah, it ended up a touch better aloft and at the surface. Probably a touch worse through about 36 or 39hr and then a touch better thereafter. But the runs are nearly identical. Great run to run consistency for at least 6 hours 

Overanalyzing feels a little like desperation though...squinting to see an improvement. If there is a positive change it will be pretty obvious I think. This run wasn't that. Any miniscule improvement on the NAM does not offset the loss of 6 hours before go time.

3 minutes ago, 78Blizzard said:

Getting close to a year for coastal CT peeps...

SF and the FL offices are probably the only ones we can't beat.

1 minute ago, The 4 Seasons said:

For science.

Midwest, PA, and NY - wow! Long time.

1 minute ago, TauntonBlizzard2013 said:

Haven’t ensembles had a west lean for days and it just isn’t materializing 

Yes. And they almost always do in coastal storms.

One good thing with this event is it should be at or below freezing most places during the precipitation. Coastal and urban areas, esp LI might be a little above, but will likely cool in steadier snow. With these temperatures, even a few inches of snow will feel very wintry.

12 minutes ago, HeadInTheClouds said:

Those max bands could still dump .75 to 1 inch per hour. 

Definitely. Intensities could even be briefly heavier. But we're in the good stuff relatively briefly. And there's a chance our area ends up partly in-between the best banding. Someone in our region should hit 4" - heck maybe even 6" out on LI. But the rapid deepening of the SLP does not favor our area, so we're probably looking at accumulations < 4".

What happened to this subforum? When I lived in MA 20 years ago and subsequently posted in the predecessor forums, hobbyists actually knew how to read weather model output. People looked at soundings and upper level charts. There was a lot less wishcasting and snow-entitlement. 

I guess somewhere along the line 3rd party snow maps and twitter meteorologists made us all stupid. It's kind of like how GPS ruined our sense of navigation.

7 minutes ago, Henry&#x27;s Weather said:

You are wrong, all models have the bulk of snow where we are between 8 and noon. We do not live in New Jersey.

Check GFS and NAM again.

The GFS has less than a tenth QPF west of the Cape after 12z Friday. I would guess it ends up lingering longer, but that's what the GFS shows. The EC looks more like .1-.2, which seems reasonable.

2 minutes ago, weathafella said:

The meat in Boston is morning to around just past noon.

On the RGEM, not the GFS, EC etc. If it wraps up a little bit it will probably hang around longer.

23 minutes ago, Henry&#x27;s Weather said:

Why are we bitching so hard? It looks like we'll get at least a moderate event, and we haven't had basically anything yet... Why so attached to the romantic idea of a bombing coastal, crawling and doing loop-de-loops south of Montauk? Not every storm has to be +3 sd intense. Just enjoy the several inches and be glad that it's snowing in the daytime.

Eastern areas should get a little lingering daytime snowfall. But for many this will primarily be a nighttime event.

34 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

Try 10 to 1 maps....Kuchie be messing with the ratios....the QPF is almost identical to 00z except a bit more up north and far west.

It increased QPF in a few areas and decreased in others. Under a tenth either way for the most part. Like you say, almost identical distribution. 

1 hour ago, forkyfork said:

Max reflectivity of hi-res max ensemble only 37ish? Meh

I can't wait until we pass that magic MJO threshold from phase 7.9999 to 8.0000. Then we can snow! 

8 minutes ago, NutleyBlizzard said:

Miller B’s rarely work out for our area. We have to deal with subsidence issues more often than not. Hoping for a weak/moderate ElNino next winter. Give me some Miller A’s to track.

This event looks like a Miller A. The SLP develops in the South and moves NE up the coast with very little hint of transfer. There's no midwestern clipper low or primary transferring to a coastal low. That's pretty classic Miller A.

8 minutes ago, Spanks45 said:

The Reggie did very well at picking up the extended freezing rain this morning. Most models either had very little precip or 33 and rain...

True. It signaled it early too. Others were mostly rain until yesterday.

1 minute ago, jm1220 said:

This convection to the east is really driving the NAM batty. Hate to say it but the RGEM’s been a lot more consistent. GFS seems to be doing the same with the convection. 

Look at H5. The problem is not convection. Precipitation isn't generated by the L on the map. It's generated by vertical ascent, which is determined by the upper levels just like surface pressure is. So precipitation and SLP are caused by the same thing. The NAM run that was tucked had a much sharper trof. The weaker runs were flatter.

2 minutes ago, dryslot said:

I'm not even taking the RGEM seriously either until its inside 24hrs and that's a reach, It has been horrendous all year this year and the past 3 or 4 yrs and finally catches on the last 24 hrs when who cares.

It's interesting how people in different regions and based on different storms have such a different impression of individual models. People in the NYC, PHL, and MA forums have been praising the RGEM recently for its performance this winter.

I think every model has its day. But it's never black and white. A model might nail one aspect of a storm in one region, but miss something else, somewhere else. No single model is best everywhere, every time.

7 minutes ago, bristolri_wx said:

Not too shabby...  seems reasonable...

Looks too generous in CT. I'd cut those in half and knock an inch or two off RI and SEMA. Hopefully we double those tomorrow, but there's not enough support for big numbers right now IMO.

3 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

There's definitely still more spread in guidance (and ensembles) than usual for 2 days out.

More spread that any typical day, sure. But I would argue less spread than usual with a shortwave of that sharpness and implied sensitivity.

5 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I'm not sure you can discern any sustained trend from the Antonio Brown of the NWP suite.

When there isn't a discernable trend for several runs and there is also inter-model agreement, then we might be getting close to the final outcome.

Antonio Brown would be congrats Buffalo one run and then what storm? the next.

NAM-GFS agreement. Lock it. 

3 minutes ago, tavwtby said:

NAM seems to be an outlier here, seems like every other model is showing decent surface low placement and H7 looks good to me, even on the 6z nam through 48hr, no?

The 12z NAM is west of the 6z GFS and a few mb deeper. H7 does not look great on either of those runs if you want a significant snowstorm.