CentralNJSnowman

I'll take the under

Agreed that it's probably over as a threat for anything but minor amounts in a small portion of the sub-forum Disagree that the thread should be closed. Part of the point of doing this is to learn from it, so there's some value in posting the remaining model suites and especially posting what actually happens

Use of the NBM seems really problematic. Everyone has been looking at the weirdly high outputs and twisting themselves into pretzels coming up with logic about how there must be a few ensemble members throwing off the entire weighted average, when the NBM seems higher than any of the components that it "blends". I'm pretty sure that some of the totals the NBM has split out the past couple of weeks would have required outliers of 200+ inches. There was some discussion in the Mid-Atlantic subforum a few days ago about how there's an adjustment being made to account for recent under forecasting of the models. It's pretty clear that there's something wrong with how those adjustments are being calculated and applied.

You just reminded me of one of my favorite websites: "Spurious Correlations". This was the most relevant thing on there that I could find with a quick search...

NIcely illustrated and this is the main thing that's giving me some hope

I suspect that the way we're using the analogs isn't really well suited to what they're showing My impression is that the only dates "eligible" to come up as analogs are when there's a strorm. So what the analogs are showing is not "What are the chances of a big storm?" but rather "Of the past big storms, which ones most resembled the current situation?". That means that it's ALWAYS going to come up with a pretty juicy set of analogs, even in situations where we're unlikely to get much of anything. If we want to use the analogs to forecast likelihood of a big storm, we need a universe of potential analog dates that includes everything, including all the days that ended up "blue skies and sunny everywhere". Then if we had a number of big storms showing up in the top ten analog dates, we'd know there's a good chance of something substantial.

That's what she...

Honestly, I'm not that knowledgeable so mostly relying on the many mets in the various subforums here who have been honking about the potential for something big in this time period That said, I do understand forecasting/analysis (in general, not specifically for weather) and there's a big difference between ensembles averaging 3" because they have 25% of solutions at 12" and 75% (all or none) at 0" vs. average 3" because 75% of solutions have 4" and 25% at 0" (2-4/3-6 storm). My impression is that they've been closer to the former for this storm. Anytime you're looking at an aggregation of solutions, the distribution is going to include a lot of information that gets obscured if you just look at the average. All that said, I do agree with you that we're not really going to know what's going on here until later in the week.

TONS of people have been talking about this as a potential HECS. Doesn’t mean it’s going to happen, but 2-4/3-6 is actually pretty unlikely with this one. If it hits, it’s probably a big one, unless you’re in the relatively small ‘just missed’ area.

I haven't seen the ukie, but given how far out we still are, that GFS is close enough that I'd view it as somewhat supportive of what we're looking for

Wait...is that storm total or just for the 6 hour period?

Heavy sleet, but back to some snow-ish looking stuff mixing in for the past little while

I’m in Monroe too (Kind of central Monroe, by route 522). Pretty much all sleet here now. Can’t complain, even if this is it for the snow.

My WSW now says that between 2-8 more inches will fall. That sounds about right.

WSW is showing 7-13 for me. That’s still very aggressive, but much more reasonable than what they had yesterday. I’ll be very happy if we manage 7 or 8.