RDRY

4 minutes ago, Whineminster said:

I agree.  Eastern MA scraper and a Maine Mauler 

Hmm. Looking at these latest runs, maybe those NWS mets know what they're doing.

4 minutes ago, STILL N OF PIKE said:

Hippy should like this for the  Berks 
 

I like my hike spot (_Miller state park )

Yay, Berks. One more tic west and they're good to go. Funny seeing the GFS being the stronger, western outlier. It typically is nudging west toward consensus at this lead time.

RGEM track would certainly work for these parts (Berks), though the westward precip expansion seems limited. Expand it a bit and dynamics should sufficiently cool the column.

I still can't believe a Winter Storm Watch was issued this afternoon for western Mass. Based on what? It should be canceled.

26 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Are you talking about the QPF charts, or mid level model depictions? if the mid levels trend east, and/or the system matures later, then yes.......but not because the QPF chart simply doesn't show big amounts. Models mainly resolve precipitation from low level forcing, but are not skilled with mid level deformation...vastly underdone.

I don't see how any significant banding gets to western Mass on any recent model depiction outside the 12z GFS.

3 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Exactly. The snowfall algorithm that I tout is superior with respect to distinguishing precip type issues, which is usually important for us. Most algorithms err by tallying mixed precvip as snow, which inflates the numbers. Mine does not to this, however, it is only based on the model, which usually will not resolve mid level banding properly. Thus it will miss the deformation axis to the NW of the low.

The band would have to set up WAY north and west of most recent model runs.

1 minute ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Mid levels.

And a somewhat early issuance as well. This will be interesting to watch unfold. Meteorology over modelogy?

The only model that showed anything close to warning snows in western Mass was the 12z GFS, with ensuing model runs trending further east. But the NWS just issued a WS Watch. Uh ....

9 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

Just a crude look at H7 and H5 RH tells me this throws heavy snow pretty far west. Still looks like ORH west has that best signal. Definitely room in central MA if it went east.

Still seems like extreme western Mass is fringed at best.

15 minutes ago, weathafella said:

Euro not so much 

Yeah, but 240.

May snow showers kill May flowers.

Severe storms here in Lenox, with a temp of 40. Bizarre.

All sleet in Lenox. Not budging.

Just now, STILL N OF PIKE said:

is GEFS NW

I don't check the ensembles, but isn't the operational more reliable in the shorter-term?

GFS has pulled a few coups this season, assuming the Dr. No mantle. It has to be factored in right now -- it's being incredibly consistent with this storm.

1 hour ago, weatherwiz said:

I feel so bad for you. Your winter lasted like 2 days and the Mets season will be about 1-2 days. They'll be a GB after losing opening day and it will just be downhill from there. 

But it's time to embrace spring man...love it, enjoy it. Lotion up the  Monday and just lay outside and enjoy as your thermometer tickles 70

That's mean. Because of their ownership foibles, the perception around the league is that they're the Knicks. But they actually have a very solid, balanced team this year.

10 minutes ago, weathafella said:

I prefer this one...

 

 

Cespedes does not approve.

The 0z CMC had a closed low near the benchmark at 108 (even though it escaped east) -- this run has it open and further east.

This run is worse. Am I wrong? I'm probably wrong.

That lead energy is going to be there and it's going to rob the system behind it of moisture/dynamics. So, two things need to happen:

1) The lead energy needs to speed up and move out quicker (not really happening on the 12z GFS).

2) The two vorts behind it need to sync up cleaner, with the northern vort diving down (that clearly is happening).

At hour 60, the NAM is at least trying to sync the main precip with the northern energy, but then it escapes and jumps to a low off South Carolina at 63 -- which is game over. I suppose there's still time for the models to follow through with that initial linkage, but it's running out fast.

1 minute ago, Wetbulbs88 said:

There isn’t a consensus, just a series of off the coast solutions. The solutions themselves have significant variation. 

And no, they’re not just guessing, but they’re far less accurate than they’ll be once samples on land. 

They seem to have similar evolutions regarding northern stream interaction -- the northern energy lags behind on all of them.

13 minutes ago, bobjohnsonforthehall said:

The main pieces of energy have yet to be well sampled. The models are just guessing at this point. I will start noticing trends from 00z overnight to 12z tomorrow and not before. And I'm not rooting for snow. Hoping that it doesn't snow actually. But realistically Miler A setups shouldn't be taken seriously or have white flags waived until you start seeing definitive trends within 72 hours of the storm. Just my opinion anyway.

The models aren't "guessing." In fact, there's a relatively solid consensus among the major globals.

Remarkably consistent incremental westward shifts on last 4 GFS runs.

9 minutes ago, PaulyFromPlattsburgh said:

if you wanna laugh look at what the JMA does between 120 and 144 on TT.  blows up and retrogades

if you wanna laugh look at what the JMA does between 120 and 144 on TT.  blows up and retrogades