jm1220

Yeah, just all around a sweet look on them from 500mb to the SLP.  Snow Probs are thru the roof.

I always thought last night was unrealistically small on snow for NYC with the upper air features developing where they were. A closed off 500mb low over ACY is just about the best calling card there is for a big time NYC snow event. Models were favoring the heavy convection too much and jumping the center east. 

Took a look at the mid levels. Stuff by NYC just exploded when 5h closes off.

That's why it's hard for me to believe models like the GFS and NAM when they close off at 500mb over NJ/DE, and NYC gets just light-mod snow. They underestimate the western limits of the snow/precip shield regularly. 

It might not be as extreme in NYC as the Euro shows, but I'd weight that a lot more than those models.

It's forming a little later, a little further ese than the 18z, rides up towards the Cape from a position a bit further ESE (36/39 vs 42/45 18z) it's most obvious.  Same theme as the other two.   But as a consequence of finally catching on, the capture occurs faster, and by 42-54 it's much further SW on the stall than earlier runs (not the same but in the area of the others now) and it's a much bigger hit in Eastern New England.

 

If anything all three models in argue for a much more severe hit in eastern New England.  I'm not excluding the other areas, just not commenting as it's not my area.

 

0z GFS just pounds everything from Worcester east.

From hr 18 to hr 24 the low goes almost due east despite the trough negatively tilting? I find that somewhat farfetched. I still think the model is overdeveloping the low near deep convection. The GFS has also been too far east consistently this winter. 

I need to go roofie myself to calm down...not sure why I'm so amped up it's still 24 hours away ...maybe about to drop dead?

 

I want to make one point to you John (Typhoon).   I was a convective feedback junkie in the olds days before they largely stomped out those issues with model fixes.  In the last few years it seems like it's tossed out there whenever we see things we cannot quite explain or have a model outlier that we really want to believe is correct because of common sense, overall model reliability (Euro) etc.

 

But wouldn't convective feedback actually cause the lows to be artificially too far west in this case?  The models that were initially the most west fired convection rapidly right on the coast and actually started to develop a closed low above it all the way up to phantom vorticies at 500mb.  As a result progression was SLOWER...allowing for a further west capture, then the tuck and roll.   Every time I heard the convective feedback stuff today the implication was it would mean the storm should be more west...I'd argue if convective feedback was involved it would have caused an earlier spinnup, faster drop of pressure, an earlier capture/close and subsequently have everything too far west.    

 

^^  Beyond that like I said was down this road when we had similar splits in model camps late last year.  That was my conclusion and I even think Will's after the fact, but I don't remember dates like he does. 

 

We're talking about 4-6 hours difference with that initial NNE to SSW band of showers/storms getting further ENE before the low develops under/near it.  Earlier runs had that spinning up harder, earlier...

 

Those couple of things and the RGEM running the other way when it's usually the model that has me ready to hit a bridge at this point...

 

Again may be totally wrong and it doesn't matter to 90% of the people here, just wanted to point out why I'm so adamant...even if wrong!

 

 

Well, for NYC's sake here's to hoping you're wrong.

Very August 2011 like. Flooding out there must be a disaster, it sure was here on that day. We had over 10 inches of rain in maybe 5 hours.

I was dead-set on a meteorology major at Rutgers, but decided to major in environmental science at Villanova for a number of reasons, a big one being the future job opportunity. Environmental science is a very new major and it has a lot of similarities to meteorology, and I didn't want to veer too far from my interest. Green science, renewable energy sector, air quality, ect are all very interesting subjects and potential careers. So I think you made a good decision for sure minoring in env science; you've got to broaden your horizons and make yourself more marketable. The good thing about environmental science is it's a pretty broad field, and you can then dive into something more specific for your M.S. (which I plan to do). I love weather but I felt it was important to incorporate the practical approach as well, and that's (at least right now), the opportunities are generally greater in the environmental science / renewable energy sector.

That was pretty much the path I took... I was in the Meteo major at Penn State for 2 years, then switched to Energy, Business and Finance, which is also a very broad area of study where you can develop numerous different specialties. Ultimately I want to pursue an M.B.A., preferably in the energy/renewables sectors. Many meteo students at Penn State took the E.B.F. minor (which is called Weather Risk Management or Global Business Strategies) and it helped them greatly in attaining positions at energy and commodities companies which value that kind of background.

Minor in another field such as econ or finance. That will give you a diverse background and make you more marketable to various employers, particularly energy companies.