TheClimateChanger

Doubt we would see much more than clouds and some flurries even if it does hold together with this very dry airmass (dewpoints near zero).

Here's what snow depths could look like after the storm according to the 12z NAM:

Snowfall depth positive change looks solid too. Maybe some sleet contamination over the Laurels?

90th percentile:

Expected snowfall through 7 pm Sunday:

I don't know what's going on at the top of the map. It doesn't line up properly. Typical DT.

Here are the numbers to beat. Maximum 1-day snowfall Maximum 2-day snowfall

40 is a bit exaggerated, no? All of the official temps are like 33-34 right now.

Looking forward to those 90th percentile maps, if that's the current expectation.

Here are the numbers to beat. Note, xMacis shows 25.4" in 1950 but that's incorrect; the 27.4" given by the NWS is accurate. Legitimately, you could tack on the additional snows on the subsequent days and have up to 32" from that storm. The 1927 storm is shown as 19.4" for the dates given on xMacis - not sure which is correct. Honorable mention to 1978 for its back-to-back foot plus snow storms. Source: snowfalldata

That's what I guessed afterwards. It's been awhile since we've had a storm of this magnitude to track, but the NAM traditionally is the most amped. So it looked like a very NAM-like solution. Sometimes it's right, but if it's the only model showing the mix getting that far north, I wouldn't bet on it. Still a very solid hit areawide if the snow maps are accurate.

*Only through 12z

Which model is this? The NAM?