• Member Statistics

    16,741
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    gonglee
    Newest Member
    gonglee
    Joined
wdrag

Major Nor'easter near blizzard (6"+ most of our area-best chance 20-30" north of I78 in ne PA, nw NJ, se NYS)-ice-rain-power outage NYC subforum late Sunday Jan 31-early Tue Feb 2.

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, White Gorilla said:

Remember that scientific article about warmer ocean temps leading to higher moisture feed that lead to insane snow amounts near Binghamton in Dec that no model predicted?  Keep that in mind even with a different setup this time. . 

Yeah, the December 2020 storm was more tucked in than the January 2016 event. So the heaviest snowfall zones were different. But both storms had the record SST warmth to work with. 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MJO812 said:

South of everything

60157f203548d.png

Odd and to me seems like an outlier. It ends up fine especially near the city but it might be in clueless mode again. This model can't get retired soon enough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sussexcountyobs said:

That's not much precip on that map unless I'm reading it wrong?

For what the gfs is 12z is a good run. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think we've discussed much the elongated, lobed depiction of the surface low along the coastal front much. It's been shown this way in various solutions. The 12z RGEM takes this to the extreme, with meso lows chasing convection east of the benchmark, competing for supremacy with the sfc low trying to establish east of the VA capes with where there's better UL support for sfc low development. The result is the forcing is strung out and discombobulated and steadier snows do not advance into NNJ or SNY. I don't see why this isn't just as plausible as anything else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jm1220 said:

Odd and to me seems like an outlier. It ends up fine especially near the city but it might be in clueless mode again. This model can't get retired soon enough. 

Yeah if the ensembles maintain from 06z then screw whatever the OP shows.

Still a good hit regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TheManWithNoFace said:

I don't think we've discussed much the elongated, lobed depiction of the surface low along the coastal front much. The 12z RGEM takes this to the extreme, with meso lows chasing convection east of the benchmark, competing for supremacy with the sfc low trying to establish east of the VA capes with where there's better UL support for sfc low development. The result is the forcing is strung out and discombobulated and steadier snows do not advance into NNJ or SNY. I don't see why this isn't just as plausible as anything else. 

The competing mesolows chasing convection are frequently wrong and are a function of the meso models overdoing the convection. I guess technically they can work out but I've yet to see it actually happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, snowman19 said:

There is a good snowstorm coming for NYC, no doubt. Twitter is ridiculous though, I’m seeing people comparing this storm to February, 2006, January, 2016, December, 2010, February, 2010, January, 1996. Ludicrous comparisons, completely different setups, totally. Some people go with the most historic snowstorms ever in NYC every time a storm is coming and say they are great analogs and identical setups and run with it for hype and clickbait. It’s like everytime there’s a storm off the east coast, those historic storms become “great analogs” and “identical setups” to some, every winter.....

Once you are over about 18 inches, the differences don't mean much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jm1220 said:

The competing mesolows chasing convection are frequently wrong and are a function of the meso models overdoing the convection. I guess technically they can work out but I've yet to see it actually happen. 

Globals have shown this too though. I think there's going to be some competing interests in the low/midlevels that could spoil forcing from consolidating and delivering the big numbers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SnoSki14 said:

It'll correct as we get closer, it always does.

I have seen many a storm like that; got 6 inches while people 20 minutes away got 12 or more. Many times people here don't believe me, but it happens and is very plausible ( subsidence, dry air, all manner of things ).  Even in 2006, got 18 inches while a mile away it was close to 26. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, SnowGoose69 said:

Basically the RGEM and NAM are pretty unreliable past 48...especially when they're doing something way different than other models or waffling around from run to run.  Even the NAM right now I would not trust entirely past 36-48 with this since its been bouncing around quite a bit

This sounds like wishcasting. With the wrapped up midlevels, this type of solution could easily happen. Yesterday's 0z CMC hinted at it, as well as recent NAM and ICON runs. Several individual ensemble members alsoe. I don't think we should completely ignore these types of outlier solutions, especially because it fits recent trends and makes some sense synoptically. I expect the RGEM will correct back next run, but I think the overall model consensus will probably shift in this direction.

One weird thing about the RGEM, however, is that is shifts the initial overrunning pretty far south and delays it right when other guidance had been slowly shifting it earlier and north. Associated with this, it redevelops the surface low south, and initiates the stall and tuck south of the Delmarva. A few of the inter-model ensemble members showed this. Hopefully and outlier, but still a reasonable solution IMO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, eduggs said:

This sounds like wishcasting. With the wrapped up midlevels, this type of solution could easily happen. Yesterday's 0z CMC hinted at it, as well as recent NAM and ICON runs. Several individual ensemble members alsoe. I don't think we should completely ignore these types of outlier solutions, especially because it fits recent trends and makes some sense synoptically. I expect the RGEM will correct back next run, but I think the overall model consensus will probably shift in this direction.

One weird thing about the RGEM, however, is that is shifts the initial overrunning pretty far south and delays it right when other guidance had been slowly shifting it earlier and north. Associated with this, it redevelops the surface low south, and initiates the stall and tuck south of the Delmarva. A few of the inter-model ensemble members showed this. Hopefully and outlier, but still a reasonable solution IMO. 

Yeah it seemed to me like it stalled out and started occluding so soon and far south that it wrapped warm/dry air around from the east which screws it for eastern areas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, weatherpruf said:

Speaking as someone who has limited knowledge in this field, when I see things like " recent trends " and "makes some sense" the academic in me tends to think the position is also pretty subjective. No meant to be an insult or anything like that, but I don't really see how it refuted the poster you were responding to. Can't both of you make equal claim at this stage?

Yes. My point was just that I don't think the RGEM should be discounted. We are all mostly just guessing at this point. As usual, we probably won't really know what's happening until the radar presentation becomes obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.