SnowGoose69

54 minutes ago, Northof78 said:

Not sure the surface will be a problem generally, but for city itself heat island always an issue unless really cold. 

It should be cold enough easily, just need a decent shift south still to keep it all snow otherwise its quick inch to dry slot or light rain

3 minutes ago, Krs4Lfe said:

Verbatim looks like a dry slot over NYC, maybe some light snow but poor antecedent conditions would probably result in white rain with no accumulation. Would likely be a few inches of snow through New England though  

The airmass believe it or not is better than it was with the last event.  At least to start.  Its 32/13 on the NAM at 12Z.  The bigger risk with this is it just is largely too far north in the end.

3 hours ago, snowman19 said:

The modeling (ensembles/operationals) this afternoon is showing a decidedly east-based -NAO going into the beginning of January, also still holding on to the -PNA as well. If the true east-based -NAO is correct, it would be quite the change from what we have seen over the last 10 years or so with -NAO’s, 

Europe has not been cold in seemingly forever in winter.  Thats the pattern that really gets them cold, though they did well in 09-10 and 10-11 (early) with a W based -NAO, overall the e based one is better though.

14 minutes ago, vegan_edible said:

he's been saying this for days now. the storms crashing into the west coast are giving sf some rain lmao. utah, colorado, idaho, wyoming resorts are torched and dry as a bone

Yeah this just is not a cold pattern for the west at all really.  The Bering Sea ridge and subsequent trof are too far west.  Its a fine line for them, a 700 mile shift east would produce December 1990 results for them but as of now too much Pac air is getting into that trof so they're just not cold and won't be any time soon

3 minutes ago, GaWx said:

 I’m very curious to see what happens in Jan with the PNA based on -ENSO strong Dec -PNA analogs like 2021, 2013, 2010, 2008, and 1984 whose Jan PNA all rose 1.8++ from Dec. That’s still well beyond what models can see with any notable degree of skill.

00 and 97 I think also went pretty strong +PNA I think but can’t recall if they were negative in December or not.  I want to say they were not 

49 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

While the AO and NAO are looking good on the latest GEFS, the PNA is not.

It’s going to be a battle in January I think of which one gives in first.  If it’s the NAO winter is probably done for if we assume we get the February most expect we do based on the IOD/ENSO.  If it’s the PNA maybe we can get a crazy 2-3 weeks.  I’d still lean towards February probably being bad but in La Niña to El Niño transition years we’ve seen March sometimes be good  

Thats like a -7 NAO on the GFS at 300.  I'm sure the GEFS will look different.

Just now, snowman19 said:

At least you said it. I saw them but wasn’t going to mention it. Didn’t want to start anything. But since you brought it up, verbatim, they look like January, 1990

Chances are those will be wrong.  The evolution looks more like an El Nino than anything else as late January looks like the transition you'd often see begin to happen in that type of winter.  I highly doubt we have a cold +PNA February 

3 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

Let’s hope the weeklies are wrong. They basically furnace us the entire month of January, lol. 

They seem to think we're in an El Nino

37 minutes ago, Snowcrazed71 said:

I think people drive themselves crazy so early that they burn themselves out. So basically what you're saying is just get rid of January and February because they're not going to count now. My suggestion is anybody who feels like it's over should just stop posting. Makes no sense to keep posting crap if you're done with the season already lol. Why is it the same thing every year. I just don't get why people agonize over stupid shyte

As long as Canada stays cold this flips quickly if the PNA goes positive if the other indices largely remain where they are.  If somehow though we get a week or 2 of a GOA vortex we're probably done til 1/20 at least.  No signs of that though

4 minutes ago, Ji said:

we dont torch but how do we get a snowstorm from this?

It shows you how a 500 mile difference in feature placement changes everything.  The first 2 weeks of December 2010 you can take all those features and shift them 500 miles west and that was basically the pattern.  We did not get any big or notable snows though but we were very cold.

We probably need some heavy changes if we're gonna get that 12th straight La Nina +PNA Jan after a -PNA Dec.  I don't see a -2.5 on 12/31 flipping to positive before 1/10 or 1/15.  Does not mean we won't see cold and snow though if the AO/NAO are negative

17 minutes ago, MJO812 said:

Ensembles are showing a negative NAO by Christmas . Have to watch that timeframe especially in the northeast .

That looks like a lock.  Unfortunately if the PNA is still -2 to -3 that won't work, even getting it to 0 is ideal

1 hour ago, MJO812 said:

Well hopefully the GEFS idea of the SER linking with the NAO block does not happen because by the end of the run we have a decent -NAO

2 minutes ago, anthonymm said:

what does the "3" la nina december in the park" theory have to say about this?

They got 2.8 last year and it did not turn out well

JFK broke the record from 12/14/2003 by 0.1

2 minutes ago, dmillz25 said:

Lol the park with 2.7”

They actually came in 0.1 higher than LGA.  You can see a noticeable dip in accumulations in NE NJ near NYC into Queens/Brooklyn.  Some of that was the heat island but some also was this area got hit by subsidence somewhat.

https://www.weather.gov/source/crh/snowmap.html

18 minutes ago, GaWx said:

 

Any chance LGA can beat 3.6”? If so, it would mean their heaviest single storm total in nearly 4 years (Jan of 2022) and heaviest in Dec in 5 years.

I think they'll be right near 3-3.5

32 minutes ago, CPcantmeasuresnow said:

I'm curious what anyone in Manhattan near central park thinks of the 1.1 "official measurement in the Park at 7:00 am? 

At 7:00 am 2.4 at EWR, 1.7 at LGA and 2.6 at JFK. If it was once you let it go but it's all the time.

Maybe they should just stop and make LGA the official measurements in NYC or actually get a trained spotter near the Park to take them. I guess they just don't give a F.

They weren’t that far off.  I got 1.6 at 9am.  I was surprised how much it melted or must have been melting.  My guess is they’ll end around 2.1 to 2.4

34 minutes ago, MJO812 said:

Over 3 now

.11 liquid since.  Probably about 8 or 10:1 so I'd say yeah they have to be near 3.5

All stations will be trying to break the 12/14/03 daily record tomorrow.  Not sure any do it, will need over 4.5 to do so except for JFK

1 hour ago, bncho said:

Maybe the models are showing this due to a new -NAO signal for CAD events, but I'm not sure.

Its more that Scandinavian block is more SW on some ensembles now.  Unfortunately the WPO/EPO the last couple of cycles are becoming unfavorable again but thats also out at D14-16 so not highly confident in any of the changes

00Z HREF mean is pretty close to the Euro idea...max is in same zone where it seems to want to go like Dover-Monmouth for the highest amounts

https://www.spc.noaa.gov/exper/href/?model=href&product=snowfall_024h_mean&sector=ne

https://www.spc.noaa.gov/exper/href/?model=href&product=snowfall_024h_max&sector=ne

I find it funny all top 3 CIPS analogs (12/5/92, 12/8/06 12/13/86) are sort of close at 500, every one was a nothing event with no snow anywhere from what I can tell, 12/5/92 was an epic bust, we had WSWs out down here and saw nothing, I think they actually dropped them late afternoon on 12/5 after putting them out at 4-5pm on 12/4.

20 minutes ago, UnitedWx said:

LOL is right,  same as citing the NAM at this range... without caveats 

The ICON I swear has ideas close to the end result on some events in the 120-150 range when the GFS/CMC are just totally lost but it might just be selective memory by me or the fact at that range its made a few hits and I remember them.  The NAM used to have biases/tendencies at 72-84 that gave you a feel for things but its been a good 8-10 years now since those worked.  I think upgrades to it ended that and now it often just shows oddball things but I can never find consistent biases anymore like I used to.