Jump to content

  • Member Statistics

    17,509
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    joxey
    Newest Member
    joxey
    Joined

March 2023

Rjay

By Rjay,
in New York City Metro

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

snowman19
snowman19

I think you can definitely rule out a cutter with that block. An inland runner is a possibly though as is a coastal track and OTS but I think you can definitely eliminate a cutter option

BxEngine
BxEngine

Thats friday night snowfall on the gfs. Not daytime. No one in the subforum is anywhere near the upper 30s during the overnight on the gfs. 

jm1220
jm1220

The Saturday event is worth watching for most of us IMO. It’s a pretty impressive upper level low that’s taking a half decent track for once and isn’t in danger of cutting. The confluence might crush

Posted Images

Winterweatherlover

Winterweatherlover

Posted
Posted

I think nws always starts conservative and thinks climo first. Even 2/27-2/28 they started off with nothing for the city. I think you kind of have to forecast climo first unless the evidence becomes too strong otherwise and thus far the models are showing far from strong support in any direction.  Anyway just my take on it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LibertyBell

LibertyBell

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Winterweatherlover said:

I think nws always starts conservative and thinks climo first. Even 2/27-2/28 they started off with nothing for the city. I think you kind of have to forecast climo first unless the evidence becomes too strong otherwise and thus far the models are showing far from strong support in any direction.  Anyway just my take on it. 

Yes I remember that one well, started as rain and changed to snow halfway through the storm!  Is this one supposed to do that or go the opposite way?

We had over an inch of rain on the front end on the south shore  and then over a foot of snow on the backend as the storm stalled out and did a loop!  That night it was like blizzard conditions on a southerly wind and all the houses here had snow caked to their sides!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Winterweatherlover

Winterweatherlover

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Yes I remember that one well, started as rain and changed to snow halfway through the storm!  Is this one supposed to do that or go the opposite way?

We had over an inch of rain on the front end on the south shore  and then over a foot of snow on the backend as the storm stalled out and did a loop!  That night it was like blizzard conditions on a southerly wind and all the houses here had snow caked to their sides!

 

 

Yea you were probably far enough west to get a good backend thump. I think parts of eastern LI were mainly rain with 1-3 inches while CPK was like 15+ inches. I really think it’s too far out to know what this storm is going to do. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LibertyBell

LibertyBell

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Winterweatherlover said:

Yea you were probably far enough west to get a good backend thump. I think parts of eastern LI were mainly rain with 1-3 inches while CPK was like 15+ inches. I really think it’s too far out to know what this storm is going to do. 

Yes it mixed with snow here around 1 PM and changed to all snow around 4 PM but the really heavy stuff with the high winds came in at night.

I saw it was raining all the way up to Maine with 100 mph winds....what a weird storm.....I think March 1888 was like that too (and New York City had similar totals, 21 inches in both storms!)

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Winterweatherlover

Winterweatherlover

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Yes it mixed with snow here around 1 PM and changed to all snow around 4 PM but the really heavy stuff with the high winds came in at night.

I saw it was raining all the way up to Maine with 100 mph winds....what a weird storm.....I think March 1888 was like that too (and New York City had similar totals, 21 inches in both storms!)

 

Rained in Boston and Maine, 3+ feet in HV and Catskills. Truly fascinating storm. This one probably won’t be that extreme but does have big potential. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
donsutherland1

donsutherland1

Posted
Posted

The 0z ECMWF showed a blockbuster snowfall from eastern Pennsylvania into New England (again). This time, the storm was kicked a few days into the future and was centered around March 14th. In response, 240-hour snow maps are already popping up like mushrooms after a summer thunderstorm on Social Media.

Some reminders:

1. Much can change between now and then as the models work through the synoptic details. Almost certainly, there will be some significant changes.

2. Ensemble support is currently modest albeit with a few members showing a major storm (one shows a borderline historic storm).

3. Model consensus does not currently exist and run-to-run continuity has not been established.

4. Historic experience argues for extra caution. Since 1884-85, there were 19 previous winters that saw less than 10" of snow through February in New York City and Philadelphia. None saw a 10" snowstorm in either city during March. Just one saw March come out with 10" or more total snowfall in New York City.

Select Data for those Winters:

New York City:
Mean March Snowfall: 3.5"
Median March Snowfall: 2.5"
Highest March Snowfall: 17.1", 1890

Philadelphia:
Mean March Snowfall: 2.3"
Median March Snowfall: 2.1"
Highest March Snowfall: 5.8", 1890 and 1932

History is not a guarantee and the sample size is modest. It does provide some insight that asserts the importance of being cautious about jumping prematurely on extended range solutions, especially in a winter that has seen one failure after another in the snowfall department.

In addition, the modeled evolution for the March 10-12 timeframe--the ECMWF's most recent try at a big snowstorm--illustrates the need for caution. For several 0z runs, the operational ECMWF had 10" or more snow in both New York City and Philadelphia (peaking at 10" in Philadelphia and 24" in New York City). Run-to-run continuity was very poor with the 12z runs shattering the dreams built from the 0z cycle. The overwhelming share of EPS members were always below 4". That potential event now appears poised to be a mostly rain event.

Now, a single run of the ECMWF--again at the seemingly notorious 0z cycle--shows a massive snowstorm for both cities a few days later. Given the four points above, one should wait until there is strong support, model consensus, and good run-to-run continuity.

Will this time be different? Perhaps. But a lot more data will be needed. Any firm call at this time is simple speculation in the near-absence of sufficient data. It is a largely-uninformed guess, though Twitter and other Social Media platforms have nothing that distinguishes between an informed assessment and a wild guess. In most cases, such gambles fail, as relying on near random chance to ride to the rescue of a speculative guess in the absence of underlying support is typically futile.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LibertyBell

LibertyBell

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

The 0z ECMWF showed a blockbuster snowfall from eastern Pennsylvania into New England (again). This time, the storm was kicked a few days into the future and was centered around March 14th. In response, 240-hour snow maps are already popping up like mushrooms after a summer thunderstorm on Social Media.

Some reminders:

1. Much can change between now and then as the models work through the synoptic details. Almost certainly, there will be some significant changes.

2. Ensemble support is currently modest albeit with a few members showing a major storm (one shows a borderline historic storm).

3. Model consensus does not currently exist and run-to-run continuity has not been established.

4. Historic experience argues for extra caution. Since 1884-85, there were 19 previous winters that saw less than 10" of snow through February in New York City and Philadelphia. None saw a 10" snowstorm in either city during March. Just one saw March come out with 10" or more in New York City.

Select Data for those Winters:

New York City:
Mean March Snowfall: 3.5"
Median March Snowfall: 2.5"
Highest March Snowfall: 17.1", 1890

Philadelphia:
Mean March Snowfall: 2.3"
Median March Snowfall: 2.1"
Highest March Snowfall: 5.8", 1890 and 1932

History is not a guarantee and the sample size is modest. It does provide some insight that asserts the importance of being cautious about jumping prematurely on extended range solutions, especially in a winter that has seen one failure after another in the snowfall department.

In addition, the modeled evolution for the March 10-12 timeframe--the ECMWF's most recent try at a big snowstorm--illustrates the need for caution. For several 0z runs, the operational ECMWF had 10" or more snow in both New York City and Philadelphia (peaking at 10" in Philadelphia and 24" in New York City). Run-to-run continuity was very poor with the 12z runs shattering the dreams built from the 0z cycle. The overwhelming share of EPS members were always below 4". That potential event now appears poised to be a mostly rain event.

Now, a single run of the ECMWF--again at the seemingly notorious 0z cycle--shows a massive snowstorm for both cities a few days later. Given the four points above, one should wait until there is strong support, model consensus, and good run-to-run continuity.

Will this time be different? Perhaps. But a lot more data will be needed. Any firm call at this time is simple speculation in the near-absence of sufficient data. It is a largely-uninformed guess, though Twitter and other Social Media platforms have nothing that distinguishes between an informed assessment and a wild guess. In most cases, such gambles fail, as relying on near random chance to ride to the rescue of a speculative guess in the absence of underlying support is typically futile.

Yes I already see people criticizing the weather channel for focusing on all the rain that is going to happen in the middle of the country and not talking about the "big" snowstorm headed for the megalopolis lol.  They saw the edge of the map on TWC and got angry that TWC didn't talk about the snowfall map for the east coast which is on the very edge of the map and focusing on "boring old regular rain" that's going to happen in the middle of the country.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LibertyBell

LibertyBell

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

The 0z ECMWF showed a blockbuster snowfall from eastern Pennsylvania into New England (again). This time, the storm was kicked a few days into the future and was centered around March 14th. In response, 240-hour snow maps are already popping up like mushrooms after a summer thunderstorm on Social Media.

Some reminders:

1. Much can change between now and then as the models work through the synoptic details. Almost certainly, there will be some significant changes.

2. Ensemble support is currently modest albeit with a few members showing a major storm (one shows a borderline historic storm).

3. Model consensus does not currently exist and run-to-run continuity has not been established.

4. Historic experience argues for extra caution. Since 1884-85, there were 19 previous winters that saw less than 10" of snow through February in New York City and Philadelphia. None saw a 10" snowstorm in either city during March. Just one saw March come out with 10" or more in New York City.

Select Data for those Winters:

New York City:
Mean March Snowfall: 3.5"
Median March Snowfall: 2.5"
Highest March Snowfall: 17.1", 1890

Philadelphia:
Mean March Snowfall: 2.3"
Median March Snowfall: 2.1"
Highest March Snowfall: 5.8", 1890 and 1932

History is not a guarantee and the sample size is modest. It does provide some insight that asserts the importance of being cautious about jumping prematurely on extended range solutions, especially in a winter that has seen one failure after another in the snowfall department.

In addition, the modeled evolution for the March 10-12 timeframe--the ECMWF's most recent try at a big snowstorm--illustrates the need for caution. For several 0z runs, the operational ECMWF had 10" or more snow in both New York City and Philadelphia (peaking at 10" in Philadelphia and 24" in New York City). Run-to-run continuity was very poor with the 12z runs shattering the dreams built from the 0z cycle. The overwhelming share of EPS members were always below 4". That potential event now appears poised to be a mostly rain event.

Now, a single run of the ECMWF--again at the seemingly notorious 0z cycle--shows a massive snowstorm for both cities a few days later. Given the four points above, one should wait until there is strong support, model consensus, and good run-to-run continuity.

Will this time be different? Perhaps. But a lot more data will be needed. Any firm call at this time is simple speculation in the near-absence of sufficient data. It is a largely-uninformed guess, though Twitter and other Social Media platforms have nothing that distinguishes between an informed assessment and a wild guess. In most cases, such gambles fail, as relying on near random chance to ride to the rescue of a speculative guess in the absence of underlying support is typically futile.

New York City:
Mean March Snowfall: 3.5"
Median March Snowfall: 2.5"
Highest March Snowfall: 17.1", 1890

 

Don did this 17.1" storm happen when the rest of the winter had less than 10" of snow?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
winterwx21

winterwx21

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Winterweatherlover said:

CMC colder and flatter than GFS (Storm 1)

 

https://www.pivotalweather.com/model.php?m=gdps&p=prateptype-imp&rh=2023030712&fh=90&r=us_ne&dpdt=&mc=

 

https://www.pivotalweather.com/model.php?m=gdps&p=prateptype-imp&rh=2023030712&fh=96&r=us_ne&dpdt=&mc=

A couple inches of snow for us friday night on the CMC. Have to be a little skeptical with the borderline temps, but it helps that it happens at night. We have a shot. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LibertyBell

LibertyBell

Posted
Posted
Just now, donsutherland1 said:

That was the monthly total. The biggest storm was 6.0”.

So close to the March 1992 6.2" storm.  It's interesting that LGA in March 1992 actually went over 10 inches on the month because that storm was 6.7"?

Don what did EWR have in those two storms in March 1992?

Also do you have the totals for MPO for those two events?  Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Rjay unpinned this topic

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...