weatherwiz

3 minutes ago, HoarfrostHubb said:

Methinks you aren’t quite sure where The Pike is…

It goes through his backyard in winter 

Was thinking of maybe doing a strip of 2-4'' but overall think the majority of higher totals will be more in the 1-3'' range. Really like the signal for some stronger llvl lift moving across southern Connecticut. Regardless, the Thursday morning commute is going to be quite slick. 

8 minutes ago, JC-CT said:

What do you think about a lot of the lift seeming to be below the snow growth zone?

That's where I get a little fuzzy on, but I believe in these type of setups that doesn't necessarily matter much. If the llvls are sufficiently cold and you're relying more on llvl dynamics than mid-levels you can still get heavier precipitation rates and decent snow growth. It's an instance where the majority of the focus is within the llvls. 

Sort of like with low-topped convection...you're really utilizing the llvl of the atmosphere and not very worried about mid/upper levels. 

2 minutes ago, JC-CT said:

yeah, but just as you said, juice/track aside it's still a quick hitter. But weirder things have happened, if you get some meso stuff happening along the front?

looks like there may be a little meso-low that pops along the front...that would help with keeping precip going a little longer. These things are always super challenging. Once out of every like 20 setups you get an overproducer.

Just now, Damage In Tolland said:

This will get snow north of I-90 with these bumps 

We'll see widespread light snow over a large area but the best chance for any accumulations IMO is going to be within a very tight and narrow corridor where llvl convergence is maximized. 

Just now, JC-CT said:

If everything goes right, yeah

seems to be heading in that direction. And for the front as a whole...even moving across the Ohio and Tennessee Valley's this is looking a bit juicer for them. Often times it's a race between dry air and precip cutting off but there's a quite a bit of moisture on the backside of this front. 

Actually...I could envision a 2-4'' deal from southern CT through RI and into SE MA tomorrow night. That's some pretty impressive llvl lift along a narrow corridor. Ratios may start a little poopy but should improve relatively quickly. 

I'm not entirely sure we see much accumulation from this but there continues to be a pretty good signal for a narrow zone of enhanced convergence right along the front. Some different signals though how quickly the system moves through. Could have best enhancement along the coastal plain 

That's a pretty strong Arctic front coming through Thursday. These are always a challenge because they often tend to come with a bit more precipitation than initially modeled but it's always a question of the race between cold air and precip. ending. There does appear to be a very narrow zone of enhanced convergence so there my be a nice little band of precip which materializes. Don't think it will be anything to give anyone accumulations but could be a possibly near the coast where convergence may be higher. 

6 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

 

Umm  ?

didn't mean to imply that it was any warmer or colder than the 12z run

18z NAM coming in toasty. Guess I should drop the idea of thinking we could see a colder solution. This is going to blow here. Time to start thinking about May. 

This is quite challenging. I'm not totally convinced yet we just full on torch down this way. It's certainly a concern but the GFS has been very persistent in wanting to pop that secondary and ever so slightly jogging southeast with everything. Meanwhile the NAM/Euro definitely want to go west. Looks like all the models are actually handling the main vorticity pretty consistently...looks like the bigger differences overall are with that shortwave digging through the Ohio Valley. 

1 minute ago, dendrite said:

lol...tough to post in here when cold weenies are in denial.

We're only a few weeks away from the May 1st thread!!!!

Just now, 40/70 Benchmark said:

QPF is often overdone east of mid level lows....but noteworthy trend.

Can't disagree with that. I guess my argument is that is the degree of lift and moisture ahead of them. But in this instance....precip may also be more banded in nature which is fairly common with very strong systems. And if this turns out to be the case...good luck to all forecasts

Well I think by 0z runs tomorrow night we'll have a much better idea. Not sure what this means for us but one thing I noticed with models is they have been trending wetter (as in more QPF) and stronger with this system as it dives into the Missouri and Tennessee Valley. They may get absolutely smoked in parts of KY/TN into the Foothills. 

Just now, 40/70 Benchmark said:

...which brings me back to 12-16-2007.....that did not happen.

Wish I remembered that event

5 minutes ago, WinterWolf said:

Very very interesting, and intriguing Wiz…I like the analysis you brought up. It’ll be very interesting how this all comes together.  

This is going to be a very fun storm to watch evolve. Some will get screwed and some will get nailed. This is where you just appreciate meteorology at its finest

1 minute ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

One more note...this was not an issue in 12-16-07....the high was anchored NNW of Caribou, the it hit with an absolute wall of snow. Now, this antecedent airmass may be a bit more impressive, but usually dry air is fairly easily overcome in intense WAA. Its seems inconsistent to to harp on how proficient the lift looks with the WAA, and then cite the high retreating as  a positive to help overcome dry air. Not sure I buy that, and view the retreating high as a negative. if the WAA is that impressive, then...dry air? Really?

The high retreating would mean a wind flow that has less of a northerly or a northeasterly component which can be a source for advecting drier air down from the north. But I see your point regarding the impressiveness of the WAA and the one event which sticks out to me is Valentine's Day 2007...an event I'm sure Tip has a sorrow love story about. 

Sure the retreating high allows for stronger WAA (especially in the llvls) but this is where secondary development is important and there are the signals secondary development may happen in time to reinforce the colder air in the llvls. And that's what I'm looking at...and combining with the dynamics. The moisture inflow with this is going to be ridiculous but what really transpires will come down to some mesoscale aspects and that's what leads into your mentions of waiting until later in the weekend to fine tune. 

2 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

This is why I give myself two kicks at the can before go-time....obviously, pro forecasts are even more fluid.

Your thoughts and thinking are certainly incredibly reasonable here which is always par of the course with you. It's always best to go conservative and you can always adjust towards a more aggressive scenario. 

1 minute ago, Hoth said:

If the high were staying put in Canada, I'd be a lot more bullish, but the fooker is diving off the coast. I find it hard to believe the coastal front thing Wiz is picturing can work out with that look, but we'll see. He was all over last week's event.

I believe if the high was staying pit we would be getting dry air entrainment and that would significantly hurt things. This setup...this is extremely unique. There are certainly several red flags towards higher-end snow, but there are also numerous signals for some significant snow. As Ray stated, this will likely come down to mesoscale time but given the degree of dynamics at play and the airmass ahead of the storm..,I think the ceiling is high. But that comes with caution b/c there will likely be an extreme gradient between coastal/inland. 

1 minute ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Fair point, but I feel like at this point where are getting into the type of considerations better suited for short lead times....I think the initial course of least regret considering the mid levels it to begin conservative, and if it looks extraordinary enough at the 11th hour, fine..

You're absolutely right here. Totally agree with this. I certainly wouldn't communicate this publicly. Just something to throw out for discussion here. 

3 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

No one is getting 12-18" in SNE...only spot to approach a foot will be the higher terrain of Berkshires. You would need some extraordinary mechanics for that..this isn't 3/4/1993. Plus, don't forget....the high is hauling ass to the east...its not remaining NW of Caribou like 12/16/2007, so that will limit the front ender, too.

Could be some slight enhancement near the CF during the WAA burst, but I can explore that more for Sunday's map.

Well that's the thing...I think there is. I know some aren't in favor of looking into specifics this far out but at least on the GFS there are several bufkit soundings showing 50-60+ units of omega into the DGZ. If that were to verify we'd be talking 3-5'' per hour snowfall rates. There are certainly some flags at stake but there are also some pretty impressive signals indicating such potential. I actually think the high sliding and hauling ass to the east may actually help here b/c given the initial airmass we would be super dry aloft...so it hauling reduces the potential for dry air to contend with. 

Just now, 40/70 Benchmark said:

12-18" where??

In the vicinity of where the coastal front sets up. While I am a bit skeptical on this I think there is room to get some rather impressive ratios where lift can be maximized and that will go along way. There's also going to be a tremendous amount of moisture thrown into the initial cold airmass. 

5 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

 

Same page....I hit on both of these aspects in my first call.

I could see a rather substantial coastal front with this and a subsequent band of extremely heavy snow. Something maybe upwards of 12-18''. Missed your first call so not sure what your thoughts on on this. 

1 minute ago, CT Rain said:

For sure. At least for my backyard seems like we're going to have a really hard time preventing the torch as the high retreats and wind cranks out of the E/SE. Farther north up toward the Pike I think there's definitely more room.

You don't think the majority of our QPF would come as snow? I'm still a bit torn on how much we torch inland but looks like much of the QPF is snow then we change over...and by that point we may already be beginning to dry slot? I know it's too far out too really dig into bufkit but this was encouraging to see

3 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

Yeah we need that secondary development to slow the warming. The coast is prob a done deal but interior still has a lot of variance on what could happen. 

I could see a situation where there is rather large temperature gradient between the immediate coastline and just inland. The GFS anyways is trying really hard to get that secondary going. Just based off the 18z run I'm inclined to think it's boundary layer warmth is a bit overdone inland. The issue though is those dynamics coming off the ocean are pretty strong. Even if we were to see warmth at the sfc, I would think it's relatively shallow and by the time we see that occur...much of the damage (QPF) has already fallen. 

The amount of moisture which is going to be thrown into the cold air mass initially is going to be insane with those llvl dynamics. 

I'm still on the train (and I guess speaking specifically about CT here) that we probably dry slot before any type of changeover occurs...or the amount of precip which falls during the change over process is very little. The thump with this is going to be very impressive here. The problem (which will limit accumulation potential) is snow ratios are likely going to be pretty junky. Although I'm not totally 100% sold on this. There's going to be some phenomenal lift with this. It may be too early for these details but noting that the 18z GFS bufkit for BDL actually pushes ratios upwards of 15:1. This is likely dependent on the degree of lift into the DGZ. 

If the snow is more wet in nature (which this has to be a consideration) then power outages could become a problem b/c I still think we would be seeing several-plus inches of snow.

One other huge key with this system, especially when you're talking about interior New England is this system is likely going to occlude rather quickly and moisture inflow will essentially be choked off. This system could fall apart rapidly upon approach.