weatherwiz

Awesome info, thanks. gotcha...I think I see where the disconnect is coming from. I'm just talking about the potential in general while the focus was on that specific example.

We saw this exact same situation with the storm last December...or maybe it was the year before. HRRR started indicating mixing and every single person dismissed it and it was over the same argument. I wish I had the brain power to remember specific events but I recall several over the past few years where this happened, especially during these early season events; 1) when precipitation intensity is light and 2) when best lift falls below the DGZ it doesn't matter how thin that warm layer (even if barely boerderline)...now perhaps it will be as cold as indicated in the cloud layer as dendrite mentioned but I don't get why everyone is so quick to dismiss these things when we've seen them happen so many times before.

I'm not talking about the algorithm...obviously it is picking up on some warmer layer somewhere if it's showing IP precip type. Unless thermals aren't built into the algorithm which would be pretty stupid and I'm sure the developers are a bit more smart than that. Perhaps the forecast sounding is not properly addressing the warm layer. I mean we've seen this happen dozens of times in the past. Everyone dismisses the mixing it shows and dismisses the HRRR everytime it shows something that isn't favorable. I mean how many times have people dismissed the HRRR when it's going all out and other models are opposite? If this was forecast to be a 3-6'' storm and the HRRR was spitting out 10-15'' would people be dismissing it, probably not.

Certainly based on the sounding you would expect all snow but even in times past...we have seen forecast soundings in similar situations which would completely nix mixing only for it to happen. The issue I think is the warm layer is so subtle that even a model with a resolution like the HRRR doesn't pick up on it, When precipitation is heavy you would certainly get snow but in those lulls...mixing is possible. Not saying this happens but we've seen it happen too many times in the past.

One thing to kinda consider here is there could certainly be some wonky thin warmer layers in here...I think the HRRR is very sensitive to thermal profiles, isn't it? Anyways, I think it's something we should certainly not toss...we have seen in similar set ups where we toss the mixing and it happens. There could be a crap ton of latent heat release too. given the forecast track of H7/H85 I wouldn't be shocked to see some sneaky warmth aloft...especially given where H85 is closing off. Maybe some warmth around 780-800?

Comparing mesoanalysis to models the high looks a bit farther south based on observations. Now this could strictly be a resolution type issue but where mesoanalysis has the closed 108 contour is noticeably farther south

Hoping we can pivot that through but looks like the whole system starts to occlude and the band will start to weaken. Looks very close though. And as Ryan just said...700 low coming a bit north on NAM which is a bit of a concern too for sure.

How do you keep clothes on when you see this?

Agreed...there will be some 20''+ reports

I can't believe 60 units of omega into the DGZ...on both models too. Could see ratios perhaps up around 18:1 if that verifies. Could snow 3''+ per hour for a good 3 hours

Let's go!!!! 60 units of omega in the DGZ WOOOOHOOOOO!!!! Whip it out

there is no bufkit for DXR but it will dump. Going to increase totals a bit!!!

The 6z GFS/NAM bufkit is ridiculous at BDL!!!! 60 units of omega into the DGZ....HOLY SHIT!!!! Def could see a swath of 18-24'' I think

I kinda forgot about that

Both the GFS and NAM getting 40-50 units of omega into the dGZ at BDL....LET'S GO BABY!!!!

not necessarily. I do think the track will be far enough north (particularly H7) that southern CT may experience some dry slot issues. I am also factoring in subsidence zone which there should be one on the northern fringe of the band and one on southern fringe and I think the band goes right through northern CT and southern CT could struggle a bit. It's always a challenge accounting for subsidence in a snowfall map, however, I do like the idea of doing so.

Wish I had more time to post in here with all this fun. did an updated map for CT now that I feel more confident regarding banding placement. Concerns for subsidence and dry slot along southern CT and perhaps mixing far SE CT. And no...I am not buying into this more northern trend.

barely even develops a closed H7 low lol

ughhh this is beautiful. but just imagine the subsidence hell on either side of this

also trying to account for subsidence b/c there will definitely be subsidence zone in the vicinity of where the CCB tracks. Once I'm more confident in CCB and where that traverses this will be altered a bit.

When pretty weenie with my first call I made earlier this afternoon. There were a few things I didn't like...such as potential for H7 low to track over CT or kinda be more elongated (same with 850 low) but the signals are there for some very intense banding to move across the state. Thinking we should do quite well on the ratios side too.

ehhh that's one subscription I'd rather pay for

Vegas is good for that too

Yes...I certainly agree with this. I still use COD on my phone but I keep hitting the drop down menus and the only way to get them to go away is click to another page then go back

use COD COD is so much better than TT...although TT does have some cool features (such as generating cross sections).