Snow event Tuesday nite/ Wed Morning Feb 5th-6th

[Damage In Tolland]

We're in RGEM wheelhouse now. Should start honing in now

[dryslot]

GFS not to gung ho on weds

[ORH_wxman]

GFS not to gung ho on weds

 

 

Yeah pretty much C-1" for most...maybe 1-2" on the Cape and south coast as Phil said per GFS. It actually does it in two rounds, first late tonight and early tomorrow, and then another round tomorrow night.

[Bostonseminole]

GFS not to gung ho on weds

 

gfs c-1".. so far 2 models calling for c-1"..

[dryslot]

I would not expect more the an inch or two out of this, Similar to the last few s/w's, Not a lot of moisture with them as they move thru the flow

[Tropopause_Fold]

I would not expect more the an inch or two out of this, Similar to the last few s/w's, Not a lot of moisture with them as they move thru the flow

that may even be generous.

 

some guidance does turn the low-level flow E/NE along the E MA shore so maybe there could be a bit of enhancement from BOS down to the Cape just by the addition of a touch of low level moisture to work with - that might be the best shot at getting >1" totals that aren't measured in the grass blades. . 

[USCAPEWEATHERAF]

The clippers all seem to get Atlantic moisture too late into the game, closer toward 65w then 75 or 70w.  I guess its just that type of year for late developing clippers.

[USCAPEWEATHERAF]

Phil, it seems the NAM has trended stronger with the shortwave for this system in each passing run.  Could it get strong enough to pull more moisture inland then currently projected?

[Typhoon Tip]

if anyone is interesting I had already created a thread for this with Meteorological reasoning and charts.  

 

Probably not though since it's realism isn't bringing very good news.    This system is caught in a flow that did not/is not relaxing enough and it will remain flat, fast, and not likely capable of producing more than light amounts.   It's explained why in the other thread.  

 

This thread should redirect efforts/analysis for the D4.5+ system, which shows some hope of evolving in a slowing medium over the deep southeast, thus allowing more meridional flow structure up the coast.   Although, the subtly flattening tone [aloft] of the last 3 consecutive Euro runs may or may not be a bad sign.   We'll see.    

[Damage In Tolland]

This 1-3 or 4 inch event is going to be bigger than the Friday deal

[USCAPEWEATHERAF]

GFS doesn't agree with the EURO on the Day 4.5+ system, without any type of agreement between these two systems I don't see a big event happening in the 8th-9th timeframe.

[cycloneslurry]

This 1-3 or 4 inch event is going to be bigger than the Friday deal

there is no guidance that supports a 3 or 4 inch snowfall. are you actually trying to convince yourself...or just being funny?

[CoastalWx]

This 1-3 or 4 inch event is going to be bigger than the Friday deal

C'mon man.

[dryslot]

C'mon man.

 

You can see it coming...............

[Damage In Tolland]

there is no guidance that supports a 3 or 4 inch snowfall. are you actually trying to convince yourself...or just being funny?

1-3 is a fine expectation for now with the GGEM and RGEM supporting that

[ChrisM]

Phil, it seems the NAM has trended stronger with the shortwave for this system in each passing run.  Could it get strong enough to pull more moisture inland then currently projected?

dude, it did the same thing with the "storm" this weekend.  It sucks.

[Bostonseminole]

there is no guidance that supports a 3 or 4 inch snowfall. are you actually trying to convince yourself...or just being funny?

 

 

you should ask him how much he got yesterday..

[eduggs]

1-3 is a fine expectation for now with the GGEM and RGEM supporting that

1-3 should never ever be used as a range for forecasting snow.  1" is a very minor nuissance event; a snowsquall; a broom whisker.  3" is a plowable, skiable, schoolday threatening, borderline significant event.  Are you going with minor nuissance category, or borderline significant?

[Damage In Tolland]

1-3 should never ever be used as a range for forecasting snow. 1" is a very minor nuissance event; a snowsquall; a broom whisker. 3" is a plowable, skiable, schoolday threatening, borderline significant event. Are you going with minor nuissance category, or borderline significant?

Based on great Canadian guidance and some sound science. I am calling for 1-3. A bigger event than Fridays OTS BS

[eduggs]

Based on great Canadian guidance and some sound science. I am calling for 1-3. A bigger event than Fridays OTS BS

So you're hoping for an inch.

Me too.

[SR Airglow]

1-3 should never ever be used as a range for forecasting snow.  1" is a very minor nuissance event; a snowsquall; a broom whisker.  3" is a plowable, skiable, schoolday threatening, borderline significant event.  Are you going with minor nuissance category, or borderline significant?

1-3", atleast down here, is used for many minor events, both by TV mets and upton. Often for clippers(although more amplified/more moisture in them than this one), or close shaves on other storms. Combined with 2-4", 1-3" is probably one of the most common forecasts.

 

-skisheep

[ORH_wxman]

1-3 should never ever be used as a range for forecasting snow.  1" is a very minor nuissance event; a snowsquall; a broom whisker.  3" is a plowable, skiable, schoolday threatening, borderline significant event.  Are you going with minor nuissance category, or borderline significant?

 

 

If the uncertainty dictates 1-3", then 1-3" should be used. I never understood the philosphy of trying to be more precise than is reasonable....unless you like busting a lot.

 

There are many times where clients would ask me "is it going to be more than 2"?" because 2" is plowable, but less than that and they don't have to. I would tell them "I don't know, its about 50/50"...whether they got 2.7" or 1.5" was totally in the realm of uncertainty.

 

 

But that is just me. I know some people try to nail events in smaller ranges.

[40/70 Benchmark]

I'm ready for summer...it was nice to see the solar "irradiance", as Tip would say...eating through the coating on the asphalt yesterday.

[Bostonseminole]

from a weenie perspective, 1" sucks.. 3" somewhat sucks.

[dryslot]

1-3", atleast down here, is used for many minor events, both by TV mets and upton. Often for clippers(although more amplified/more moisture in them than this one), or close shaves on other storms. Combined with 2-4", 1-3" is probably one of the most common forecasts.

 

-skisheep

 

 

Yeah and for school closings...............

[eduggs]

If the uncertainty dictates 1-3", then 1-3" should be used. I never understood the philosphy of trying to be more precise than is reasonable....unless you like busting a lot.

 

There are many times where clients would ask me "is it going to be more than 2"?" because 2" is plowable, but less than that and they don't have to. I would tell them "I don't know, its about 50/50"...whether they got 2.7" or 1.5" was totally in the realm of uncertainty.

 

 

But that is just me. I know some people try to nail events in smaller ranges.

I obviously disagree.  Like you say, it's imprecise.  And most in the public consciously or unconsciously remember the higher number of a range.  That's why the relative magnitude of the numbers is important.  3" is - as most anyone can calculate - three times larger than 1".  If the uncertainty dictates, should 2-6 be used, or 3-9?

 

I think the 1-3 thing is a very old fashioned tradition, a hold-over from the model guessing era when nobody really knew exactly what was coming.  Yes it is common, but I think it has a very low public utility.  Even if we don't know what's coming (often the case), if we want to try to forecast snowfall accumulations, I think we should avoid ranges that are statistically, practically, and perceptively imprecise.

 

As to the uncertainty issue, I agree with you here.  I'm all for meteorologists openly expressing uncertainty about storms, snowfall, and impacts.  But I still don't think the way to express that is with a really wide magnitude range (especially on the low end of the scale).  Busting by one inch with a 1-3 forecast could mean nothing or 4", which is borderline nonsensical.  I would recommend picking a tight range (2-3, 8-14, heck even 10-20 is more acceptable than 1-3) , a single number with an error bar (like scientists do), or descriptive terms like dusting, coasting, nuissance, light, couple inches, moderate, significant, heavy etc... or even more creative terms.

[ORH_wxman]

I obviously disagree.  Like you say, it's imprecise.  And most in the public consciously or unconsciously remember the higher number of a range.  That's why the relative magnitude of the numbers is important.  3" is - as most anyone can calculate - three times larger than 1".  If the uncertainty dictates, should 2-6 be used, or 3-9?

 

I think the 1-3 thing is a very old fashioned tradition, a hold-over from the model guessing era when nobody really knew exactly what was coming.  Yes it is common, but I think it has a very low public utility.  Even if we don't know what's coming (often the case), if we want to try to forecast snowfall accumulations, I think we should avoid ranges that are statistically, practically, and perceptively imprecise.

 

As to the uncertainty issue, I agree with you here.  I'm all for meteorologists openly expressing uncertainty about storms, snowfall, and impacts.  But I still don't think the way to express that is with a really wide magnitude range (especially on the low end of the scale).  Busting by one inch with a 1-3 forecast could mean nothing or 4", which is borderline nonsensical.  I would recommend picking a tight range (2-3, 8-14, heck even 10-20 is more acceptable than 1-3) , a single number with an error bar (like scientists do), or descriptive terms like dusting, coasting, nuissance, light, couple inches, moderate, significant, heavy etc... or even more creative terms.

 

 

I don't see how that is very relevant. Would you ever forecast a coating to an inch? I would and almost every meteorologist does. By definition an inch is infinitely more than a coating. Or if you wanted to have a precise number...is ten times more than 0.1".

 

1" and 3" are still only 2 inches apart and if you have a small event, then both numbers could be very reasonable depending on ratios and/or banding.

[dendrite]

lol...is there something in everyone's water today? How is 1-3" not precise enough? At 20:1 ratios that's a range of 0.05-0.15".

[MaineJayhawk]

lol...is there something in everyone's water today? How is 1-3" not precise enough? At 20:1 ratios that's a range of 0.05-0.15".

It's comedy.  Sit back and enjoy.

[ORH_wxman]

lol...is there something in everyone's water today? How is 1-3" not precise enough? At 20:1 ratios that's a range of 0.05-0.15".

 

 

Eh, I see the arguemnt against it, but I think its a pretty weak one and don't agree with it.

 

 

Regardless, back on topic. I think so far we have this at 12z:

 

 

NAM/GFS: Coating-1" (maybe some lollis up to 2" on GFS in southern areas)

GGEM/RGEM/Ukie: 1-3"