Jump to content

SnowGoose69

Professional Forecaster
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    16,188

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by SnowGoose69

  1. SnowGoose69
    Yes. Or go to rain or sleet and stay as rain or sleet. The flip back just doesn’t occur practically ever. December 2002 was a case where it did that but the setup wasn’t anywhere near this good or really close overall in the pattern
  2. SnowGoose69
    The key with the NAM as I said yesterday is consistency. If the next two runs show almost the same solution as the 06z you can trust it’s onto something. If it waffles 75 miles southeast again this run you can more or less ignore the NAM til inside 36. The NAM sometimes gets these things right at 60 but the dead giveaway of that is run to run consistency which is very rare by the NAM at that range otherwise.
  3. SnowGoose69
    That’s probably the only thing that matters at this stage. I don’t see anything substantial shifting with the block or the high. If the shortwave is stronger than expected it could be able to cut more north. I’m still wary here because historically with this sort of pattern in place at 500/surface we’ve never seen a storm like this cause the metro to go snow-Sleet or rain-back go snow. Never in the last 40 years
  4. SnowGoose69
    With lighter winds I would think this event could be 15:1 area wide but it’ll probably end up 10:1 everywhere. I guess inland maybe they get 12:1 due to frictional effects maybe giving them less wind
  5. SnowGoose69
    I think it’s just the snow maps algorithm. The model would indicate Long Island sees way more snow than that
  6. SnowGoose69
    ECMWF west again. Beginning to think a period of accumulating snow, even at the coast is possible after 19Z or so. I'm talking maybe an inch but no doubt the 5 boroughs could see the ground get covered which I highly doubted 12-18 hours ago
  7. SnowGoose69
    The HRRR seems to be getting more amped and juiced with each passing run
  8. SnowGoose69
    20s near the coast.
  9. SnowGoose69
    It nailed the 2/8/94 event and was ignored lol because it was out for 4 weeks at the time
  10. SnowGoose69
    It never wavered. Normally the NAM waffles a ton in the 48-84 range. When it doesn't beware...see tomorrow's event where the Euro sort of just caved. The NAM has never really budged on that.
  11. SnowGoose69
    That was before the 2nd upgrade. The Jan 2013 upgraded caused suppression issues at times for the Euro. They upgraded it again in late 2016 I think and since then its tended to have over amplification issues from 90-120
  12. SnowGoose69
    One thing is for sure. The Euro just caved on tomorrow's event to the NAM
  13. SnowGoose69
    Euro is now much wetter tomorrow. It definitely blew this one it seems.
  14. SnowGoose69
    Given the -NAO and high in place it would be a fairly significant bust if this ended up primarily rain near the coast or the average snow total amongst EWR/NYC/JFK/LGA was not at least 5-7 inches.
  15. SnowGoose69
    The Op Euro has had major overamped biases at this range now for several years. I believe we could see a run today whether its this one, the 18 or the 00 tonight be insanely far NW (I'm talking where most of the 95 corridor is primarily rain). Its ensembles though will probably be SE of whatever it does on that same Op run
  16. SnowGoose69
    The snow totals would likely be much higher in places just east of that cutoff if the UKIE verified. Islip for example wouldn't see 0
  17. SnowGoose69
    also there is no way Long Island wouldn't see several inches of snow on the front end in that setup .
  18. SnowGoose69
    Sometimes they can make a good run up then shift east hard. It’s probably what’ll happen. It just won’t get was far north and west as the RGEM and some ensembles show
  19. SnowGoose69
    The GFS has come a long way. Although I believe it’s too far SE and it’s not grasping upper or mid dynamics and hence QPF it was always reasonably close to other global guidance from 5-6-7 days out. As recently as 5 years ago that never would have happened
  20. SnowGoose69
    The RGEM is likely too far west but that tells us the GGEM will probably be close to the same idea. The RGEM usually at this range portends what the GGEM will show
  21. SnowGoose69
    Those ptype maps really make no sense. Chances are you would have sleet near NYC in that setup
  22. SnowGoose69
    Sometimes you almost just have to go with history on these things if you look at the EPS/NAM solution it would indicate New York City goes snow-rain-snow. When have we ever seen a storm with this type of set up do that in New York City? Either they stay all snow or they go snow to rain and stay rain and does anyone think that this could stay far enough west where they flipped to rain and that’s it? I just don’t see it given the pattern so I’m leaning in the direction of something splitting the difference of the GEFS EPS. I feel confident both models are too far west and east respectively
  23. SnowGoose69
    The NAM has really been consistent with this. I thought the Euro idea might verify due to the vort energy near Toronto preventing this from getting too far NW but the jet activity is favorable for more precipitation to break out on the NW side of the system so the NAM idea could be right
  24. SnowGoose69
    The NAM solution doesn’t make a whole lot of sense nor does many of the Euro members solely because systems evolving in such a pattern like this have never gone snow-mix or rain-snow at the coast. At least nothing that I can remember in the last 30-40 years. This is why more likely than not either this is going to split the difference between the EPS/NAM and GEFS idea or it’s going to continue ticking further NW
  25. SnowGoose69
    Technically the Euro is going to get tomorrow correct it seems while other models were too far NW so it won’t be consecutive misses if it ends up too far NW Wednesday and Thursday
×
×
  • Create New...