weatherwiz

Man what a horrific bust on my part...and from both calls. I for sure thought we would get solid banding across CT, but I should have known never to rely on banding alone given how fickle that could be. I also thought this might be a case where the mesos would be wrong. I

Should still see decent banding enter at least a parts of CT. Can see 850 fronto deceloping nicely. Hopefully some 700 fronto develops as well across southern areas. Maybe some spots there can still pull close to 6”

That is my biggest fear and what I was heavily basing my map on. Not going to make any changes...just going to keep as is. Would love to stay up for GFS, but tired and think I have strep

Looks like the NAM is putting the focus on this piece of energy which seems to be solely associated with convection. I agree with Dom, it can’t be tossed, but if that is not correct the NAM busts big. We would see a heavy band push over CT, RI, and SE MA

Bingo!!

This!!! Some out way too much stock into QPF forecasts.

Seems like synoptically all the ingredients which would favor developing convection remain closer to land. Best ulvl divergence is right where the convection currently is and looks like we should be seeing increasing ulvl divergence as well should help promote a northward blossoming of precip. I’m sure there may be other factors which enhance the development of convection of ocean, but ulvl seem to favor land

18z Euro still looks good for several inches along and east of 84 (but this is without looking at crazy details)

This certainly can still go either way. At least for myself, I went bullish b/c I was quite impressed with the signal for banding traversing a good part of CT. I know there had been some differences and changes to QPF, but analyzing the mid-levels and profiles I felt that despite the QPF showings the look presented is good and I don't see why precipitation shouldn't blossom and with that lift into the DGZ we would maximize things well. I do agree about the speed...this thing is hauling pretty good and that is something that can really screw the higher end of calls. At least with this though I think this is an event where you're probably at least 1/2'' (and maybe closer to 1''/HR) rates for a good part of the storm. This isn't one where you're dealing with crap growth and light rates for a few hours and end like that...it's going to be a pretty solid ordeal of snow from start to finish. There of course will be that deadly sharp-cutoff gradient somewhere which will yield a different type of hell.

The only way to tell if the mesos are handling this "shift" "cut-back" whatever you want to call it is to see how the convection is behaving and compare that to the mesos. I don't really think they'll handling the convection well. Looking at mesoanalysis and models it's tough to see convection fire off (at least a great deal of it) well east off the coast. This could be a case where mesos screw themselves.

GFS still looks good in bringing heavy banding back to central CT. Going to rip for a good 4-5 hours

If convection were to be overdone anywhere I would think it's certainly better it happened over land as opposed as to over the ocean

My winter forecasting still isn't all that great I always try to explain all my thoughts and reasoning behind my forecast (which I'll usually do in a war-and-piece long blog post). This helps to me to; 1) Understand the entire situation 2) Make sure I have covered all grounds (or as many as possible) on factors which can influence the forecast Plus it's also a great way to learn as if I say something incorrectly, interpret something wrong (hopefully) someone will call me out on it and I can correct the mistake for the future. The last and least important reason is nobody can say I ripped and read a forecast or copied anyone. I know a certain someone from school who I'm convinced rips and reads off others to make his own forecast

Going from 1-3'' across the coast to 6-10'' in 24 hours

You used to pick me up and drop me off there

The one with 6-10'' like 84 and points east with 3-6'' west or one from yesterday lol

The banding is going to be real and its legit. Someone certainly will pull off a 10-16'' total wherever the band sets up. Rates certainly 1.5''/HR...can't rule out 2'' either I suppose.

I deleted the OP as the sizing came out awful. I'm becoming very confident in a band of very heavy snow passing over CT. Bufkit soundings show a prolonged period of omega values -10 to -20 within the DGZ with sufficient moisture. Think we could push 12:1 to 13:1 ratios for a time.

Becoming increasingly confident in heavy banding over CT. Bufkit soundings look pretty solid. Nice low track too.

You've been on fire lately

It's pretty close to Miami too...wonder if it makes a quick stop. Maybe that's why some models go QPF happy.

I think the NAM is vastly overdoing the degree (and strength of convection) in the warm sector out over the ocean. Looks like the NAM gets vort happy around the areas of convection and revolves the configuration of everything based on that....I mean the NAM doesn't look all that bad, but I think in reality this honestly may be something more like the GFS.

They could get saved by a more northerly flow...so even despite no high to the north it might be tough for them to warm enough to taint. If anything they would get a heavy/wet snow. I would think a N wind too could also enhance potential for a huge band of snow right along 95 maybe?

Do you think there will be any taint issues along the immediate shoreline? Starting to think that will not be the case. I'm going to look real stupid going from 1-3'' along the shore to 8-12'' lmao

I am a bit worried about the gradient though and where that sets up. I could see some parts of the state pulling off like 8-10'' and other parts like 3-4''