FXWX

1 hour ago, Ginx snewx said:

Wills replacement in 2044

Lol

Pic from my friend in Hinsdale, Mass.

13 minutes ago, HoarfrostHubb said:

Would not shock me if ones out here do the same.  Lots of trees and wires down 

I would certainly expect it in your area... They might as well get ahead of the curve and delay or cancel now; coverage of issues likely to expand!

12 minutes ago, Sey-Mour Snow said:

Drove up to Goshen.  A bit scary with many trees snapping. Loved the drive in the snow though low visibility and heavy snow.  Saw about 40 utility trucks. Made it to Ivy Mountain Rd elevation 1400’ only 45 min from my house. 14” pack I’m sure 18”+ storm total if you measured every 6 hours. Major difference at 750, and 1100’ there. 

Pretty amazing variability: even if it was well predicted.  Nice pic

Several School districts across portions of mainly northern Litchfield County are canceling for Wednesday due to trees and power lines down and some impassable roads...

Snowy scene up on the hill in Burlington.  Average snowfall around the yard is 10.5 inches.

6 minutes ago, UnitedWx said:

Power flickering here the last 20 minutes. Heavy snow continues 

Where are you now?  Simsbury???

8 minutes ago, CT Rain said:

It's the remnant of the low level inverted trough. You can see it on a bunch of the models actually just around the 925mb low.

I think this is going to be a large bust for most of CT outside of western areas which still looks quite good.

It would be fitting...  I'll be happy if western areas hold serve and we get a decent cover across northern Tolland and northern Windham counties.  I have so many caveats in my forecast for other areas, I almost don't care at this point... Let's just be done with this!  Lol

29 minutes ago, CT Rain said:

That's a weird ass look. Most of the models have it too. 

Lol... I don't know how that can even exist? Can wait to look at 15z 925 mb analysis tomorrow...

45 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said:

Thanks John. My buddy across the street is the superintendent of Union school(73 students in a K-8 lol) and has been texting me all day if he should cancel . I told him 8-12” possibly 15”, but that it was not a high confidence forecast and the flip to snow timing will make all the difference. So your forecast makes me feel a bit less stressed 

Yep... Good call... I've been very frustrated by the marginal air masses over the past 2 or 3 weeks.  If we could have had just nice seasonably cold air masses with these storms not only would we already have a nice snow pack but the forecasting would have been relatively stress free.  Today's another case of mostly elevation and latitude driven results.  We are going to have some towns cancel school with part of the town deep in snow while on the other side of town only some slush and wet roads...  Crazy stressful to deal with...  

All snow at 1,140 ft in Burlington, CT

3 hours ago, Damage In Tolland said:

Hey John... do you have a snow map out or outline of amounts you’re thinking? 

Hey Kevin...  For this system, I've used a list by county and in most cases have broken the counties up into north / south zones, as well as higher v. lower elevations.  Given the tremendous variations expected across short distances due to elevation changes, even within some individual districts like yours; my superintendent groups actually prefer the list range compared to a contoured map in setups like this.

My take is a bit more bullish (by an inch or 2) in the central valley zone compared to some other numbers I've seen... For your area, I let the 10-14 inch zone cross the I-84 corridor by a smidge and let 14+ number get a bit closer to the MA/CT border area of Tolland Cty.

The most volatile areas I think are the sharp gradients across western Hartford Cty, far northern New Haven Cty and the southern Litchfield Cty into northern Fairfield Cty area.  I also think southern Tolland Cty into far northern New London Cty is going to be interesting?

18 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

Actually retros into Hubbdave, lol

These hi res mesos are pretty much useless after 6 hours....we can't even trust the Euro right now at 24h.

This thing is going to have to be fully underway in terms of sfc low development before these models figure it out...  I think they are going to struggle to latch on to a well-defined boundary to focus on; they are constantly chasing some weak signals...  

Hate to say it, but one of the issues we collectively have is that there are TOO MANY models to look at!  ICON / RAP / 3k NAM / HREF / Reggie 1 & 2... models which we (maybe just me) have little or no faith in.  Personally, I don't know the last time I even used the UKMET as a player in my decisions.  It's great to debate what they are all showing, but the vast majority of the forecast is going to come from a mix of GFS / Euro / ens info and occasionally some NAM stuff...  There may be some folks out there that really get into the RAP and/or HRRR for short range stuff, I use HRRR frequently but almost never beyond 12 hours.  I guess sometimes the RAP and HRRR point toward some trends to keep an eye on, but they can be so unstable, its hard to trust them for making major shifts in your forecast thoughts...  That being said, it is great for forum chatter... 

3 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

Outside of the higher elevations of ORH/Berks etc....I cannot recall such a challenging forecast. Most especially inside 495. This is absurd. 

I've done this a lot of years... this is one of the most challenging / error prone calls I've ever made, not only for the inside 495 area but the western / eastern edges of the CT River Valley area from central CT northward.

Just now, weatherwiz said:

IMO, it would result in big power issues. Obviously the shoreline is still cooked, but even the GFS has continued to tick colder with the BL in response to the increasing dynamics and heavier banding. We don't need 6...7...8''+ of snow for problems. Anyone getting 4-6'' is going to have problems and in this solution, 4-6'' is extremely reasonable for many. 

4 inches is my worry point for heavy / wet / sticky snow... 

2 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said:

I have always believed heights crashing that fast leads to snowier colder solutions. I also preach  closed sub 530 ULLS passing under us are a snowy solution. This has me baffled. Model outputs are no where near what I expected. 

That doesn't mean you are wrong?  Maybe we are wrong but when something appears off, you have to be wary of the modeled solution... Gut tells me just plot 500 and 700 tracks and ask yourself what normally would happen...  That's my starting point.

12 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said:

EPS looking ok according to Scoots

Yes... As he noted, eps appears to suggest op is a bit too far east.  I'm with Tip concerning significant unknowns about how things can rapidly develop in ways you don't see coming well in advance with setups as dynamic as this at mid-levels.  Maybe it plays out as modeled but I think we might have some significant nowcast issues down the road.  

1 minute ago, Ginx snewx said:

That's better than I thought 

Yes... I know all the caveats about temps and rates, etc... And I know the deal with the snow graphics, but run after run continues to highlight more snow than suggested by some. 

1 minute ago, CoastalWx said:

EPS would argue op is on the eastern edge it seems.

That's what it appears to me... Nothing is coming easy with this event...  

33 minutes ago, tim123 said:

Could you show entire north east?

Just now, ineedsnow said:

we crushed!

2 minutes ago, CT Rain said:

Turning pretty ugly pretty fast for many south of the Pike. 

Still looks like Litchfield cty into northern Fairfield cty and far western HFD into the Wolcott area still do well.

6 minutes ago, Ed, snow and hurricane fan said:

When I was a kid there was a temperature requirement.  That disappeared about 30 years ago.

Yep... 20 f or lower.  Svr 10 f or lower

By wiping down & tanking up my tractor this afternoon, I came back in to check trends?  The old don't touch the money curse come is starting to haunt me!  Worried about Murphy's Law syndrome.