Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,514
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Toothache
    Newest Member
    Toothache
    Joined

Feb 3rd event


Brian5671

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

No north trend on the GFS. Not a huge hit for the NYC area, but not bad. These are the kind of events where you really have to be in that HEAVY band to get significant accumulations. Areas in the band can cool down to freezing while areas north of it can be 33-34 with light snow and not accumulate much. The "better ratios north" will NOT apply. I still like 3-5" for phl ENE through NJ, and 1-2" for most of northern NJ into NYC...with NYC closer to the 2"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No north trend on the GFS. Not a huge hit for the NYC area, but not bad. These are the kind of events where you really have to be in that HEAVY band to get significant accumulations. Areas in the band can cool down to freezing while areas north of it can be 33-34 with light snow and not accumulate much. The "better ratios north" will NOT apply. I still like 3-5" for phl ENE through NJ, and 1-2" for most of northern NJ into NYC...with NYC closer to the 2"

 

To be honest, the better ratios north thinking has not applied most of the winter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The weatherbell snow maps are not great for the NYC area and seem to support the idea of there being a heavy band of accumulation 3-5" and not much else outside of it. It shows around or less than 2" for NYC and NNJ

Why don't you wait for tomorrow when we have consensus before we discuss accumulations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't you wait for tomorrow when we have consensus before we discuss accumulations.

Well....because I am discussing the accumulations shown by a weather model and their interpretation of the data, and giving my feedback, albeit not a professional forecast by any means....basically what just about everyone is doing here, only I'm just not fully buying the idea that we see 3-6". I believe that will be focused in the pretty narrow band from PHL through S and CNJ. You, however, are free to think what you want, and by all means if you think we see more, that'd be great....but posts telling people what they should or should not think are more cumbersome to scroll through than someone's interpretation of model output
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NAM and SREFs are more reliable to see where the cutoff zone and the heavy snow zone will be IMO

Agreed. I actually like the NAM for showing not exactly WHERE a band of snow will set up, but the size and orientation of the band. It's sometimes pretty accurate for that inside 48 hours

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't just look at qpf. Take the NAM and the GFS and run there last 4 runs and tell me what trend you see.

Also look at the VV and look where the model thinks the best corridor for lift is it's prob just north of the precip

which to means the precip ends up further north.

The only model that hasent trended north is the euro and that's The only model I Wana come back north to support the higher totals

Even though the euro has had issues this winter it has weight and you really want to see it shift north

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well....because I am discussing the accumulations shown by a weather model and their interpretation of the data, and giving my feedback, albeit not a professional forecast by any means....basically what just about everyone is doing here, only I'm just not fully buying the idea that we see 3-6". I believe that will be focused in the pretty narrow band from PHL through S and CNJ. You, however, are free to think what you want, and by all means if you think we see more, that'd be great....but posts telling people what they should or should not think are more cumbersome to scroll through than someone's interpretation of model output

 

 

good post I agree...you were just giving what the models are saying. I see there is a double standard. When someone starts talking 3-6/4-8 or the higher amounts they are not called out but you got called out because you posted something from the model that showed less snow. I know some will blast me and dismiss what I am saying but when I come here I want to hear an objective analysis of the situation not just one side where we get the huge amounts. Actually the past 6 hours this thread hasn't been as bad because certain posters are not posting in it filled with weenism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well....because I am discussing the accumulations shown by a weather model and their interpretation of the data, and giving my feedback, albeit not a professional forecast by any means....basically what just about everyone is doing here, only I'm just not fully buying the idea that we see 3-6". I believe that will be focused in the pretty narrow band from PHL through S and CNJ. You, however, are free to think what you want, and by all means if you think we see more, that'd be great....but posts telling people what they should or should not think are more cumbersome to scroll through than someone's interpretation of model output

 

It was only a fair question by rossi imo. Not sure why you took a defensive stand. Lets see some consensus (we're getting there). I am curious as to your thinking in the bolded. I didn't see any reasoning behind this, unless I missed it. Which if I did, then I apologize

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...