It's not coming 1/31-2/1 2026

[RU848789]

Your failure is complete...

[SACRUS]

 

12z crap misses round up:

NAM:

 

RGEM:

 

 

[SACRUS]

 

ICON:

 

GFS:

 

 

GFS AI AIGFS

 

 

[SACRUS]

 

GGEM:

 

UKMET:

[Roger Smith]

When Del Boca Vista (or Orlando) has a better chance than LGA, that must annoy Jerry Seinfeld's parents quite a bit. 

[SACRUS]

Ensembles:

SREF:

 

ICON:

 

GEFS:

 

 

[psv88]

It's officially over. I think the thread can be closed now.

[CentralNJSnowman]

Agreed that it's probably over as a threat for anything but minor amounts in a small portion of the sub-forum

Disagree that the thread should be closed.  Part of the point of doing this is to learn from it, so there's some value in posting the remaining model suites and especially posting what actually happens

[Winterweatherlover]

25 minutes ago, psv88 said:

It's officially over. I think the thread can be closed now.

How is it over when Euro brings a few inches to eastern LI and CMC is close? It's not going to be a blizzard but a few inches is still on the table for parts of the subforum.

[Wxoutlooksblog]

I think this threat was over last night.

WX/PT

[SnowGoose69]

I'd still not give up on this NYC east...I don't think NYC is getting 8 inches but would I be shocked if they got 3 and Montauk got 12?  No.  Most storms in 2026 at this range I'd feel good about not seeing major changes at this range but this setup to me has too many moving parts.  I could even see places like SE VA/SE MASS having massive changes still....I'd not feel good in either of those places.

[coastalplainsnowman]

Not to sound like a you know what, but my AccuWeather forecast which has said 1-3” for the last few days now says 2-4.  LI south shore Nassau/Suffolk border.  What do you think is their rationale?  
 

Edit: they’re not hyping nor even mentioning our area being impacted, just matter of factly have a 2-4 out there for Saturday night

[NorthShoreWx]

13 minutes ago, coastalplainsnowman said:

Not to sound like a you know what, but my AccuWeather forecast which has said 1-3” for the last few days now says 2-4.  LI south shore Nassau/Suffolk border.  What do you think is their rationale?  
 

Edit: they’re not hyping nor even mentioning our area being impacted, just matter of factly have a 2-4 out there for Saturday night

Here's a cynical take: So if anywhere on the island gets accumulating snow they can say they called it.  They probably have forecasted little or nothing nearby so that if that happens, they can say they called it.  

Don't know if that is true, but false verification has become a national pastime.

[TJW014]

2 minutes ago, weatherpruf said:

i don't even bother with these influencer types; anyone can just go to the nws site and click their town and get a reasonable idea of what is going on; it may be a little off, but it's far better than the clickbait out there. the one map i saw with bernie rayo clearly had a good chunk of nj getting snow. i didn't click on it. i already knew from reading here this was a no go. 

The NWS website could use a user friendliness improvement. I mean, it's plenty user-friendly us on here, but for the smooth-brained folks who believe everything they see on Facebook or the news outlets, ease of access isn't great.
They really should develop their own app. Not just a mobile link to their mobile-friendly site, a real app. All we have now are 3rd party apps using NWS data. That needs to change

[NorthShoreWx]

15 minutes ago, TJW014 said:

The NWS website could use a user friendliness improvement. I mean, it's plenty user-friendly us on here, but for the smooth-brained folks who believe everything they see on Facebook or the news outlets, ease of access isn't great.
They really should develop their own app. Not just a mobile link to their mobile-friendly site, a real app. All we have now are 3rd party apps using NWS data. That needs to change

Per the Department of Commerce's new overseers: Why should we spend money on website improvements or an app when people can just get their weather forecasts from FaceBook or Twitter.

 

Allegedly

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, Stormlover74 said:

There are like 50+ accounts on Facebook now of weather influencers that just post crap for clicks 

Don't forget X and YouTube, as well. 

[WeatherGeek2025]

nam? any changes? 

[Wannabehippie]

As far as this storm system for the NYC area, the fat lady is not yet singing, but she is warming up in the wings.

[TriPol]

1 minute ago, WeatherGeek2025 said:

nam? any changes? 

I thought you were taking two weeks off.

[jm1220]

Take the stuff about the media to banter. I agree it’s annoying and meant for clicks/views but the political rabbit hole we always go down is worse. 

[Franklin0529]

13 minutes ago, WeatherGeek2025 said:

nam? any changes? 

Vort little further west but no real changes. Still a miss 

[hooralph]

Last week the New York Times wrote about the weather app problem (spitting out raw model output) and yesterday the New Yorker wrote about the Forecaster Wars / influencer garbage on X. 

Those who know me IRL know I'm actually working on a weather app to cut through that bullshit and give people real guidance. This group isn't the audience though   , your friends and family consuming the crap out there are.
 

[STORMANLI]

9 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

During the 1/29 0z cycle, all of the major global models keyed in on developing a lead shortwave in a mix of multiple shortwaves. As a result, the baroclinic zone was pulled sufficiently far to the east and, along with it, the opportunity for measurable snowfall from Philadelphia to New York City. A few die-hard EPS members continued to insist on a 6" (14%) or above and 10" (10%) or above snowfall in Central Park, keeping alive a theoretical possibility of a significant snowfall. The 11z NBM showed 0.14" QPF in New York City and 0.17" at Philadelphia.

For all practical purposes, the question is increasingly becoming one whether it will snow at all in Philadelphia and New York City and, if so, will a light accumulation be possible. Eastern Long Island and southeastern New England remain poised for at least some snowfall. A gusty wind and elevated high tide levels remain likely on Sunday whether or not there is snow.

If the low/no snow solution plays out, one question that will linger is why multiple  6z and 18z cycles sloshed westward with their solutions only to be corrected by the subsequent 0z and 12z guidance.

In any case, the 1/29 12z cycle could provide a degree of confirmation for the overnight model convergence. If the consensus holds, that agreement could be a strong signal that despite a complex set up, the guidance has keyed in on critical elements to the evolution of the weekend weather. The guidance is currently moving into its more skillful range when it comes to resolving synoptic details.  The 1/30 0z cycle could put the wraps on the event or non-event.

Finally, there may be a short opportunity for the temperature to reach or exceed freezing early next week in New York City. 

 

Hi Don, do you think that the lack of sounding data in the 6z and 18z runs might contribute to the divergent solutions?

[donsutherland1]

5 minutes ago, STORMANLI said:

Hi Don, do you think that the lack of sounding data in the 6z and 18z runs might contribute to the divergent solutions?

I don't know. Normally, one doesn't see such a pattern. More may have been involved.

[SACRUS]

 

 

For those scoring at home 

 

18z misses

SREF:

 

NAM:

 

RGEM:

 

[RU848789]

How does the NBM go up for the Philly-NJ-NYC region after every 12Z model was a whiff (other than the SREFs)?

 

 

 

 

 

[SACRUS]

 

18z missed

 

RGEM

[jm1220]

13 minutes ago, RU848789 said:

How does the NBM go up for the Philly-NJ-NYC region after every 12Z model was a whiff (other than the SREFs)?

 

 

 

 

 

It’ll come back down. Models are even barely grazing the outer Cape now. Ouch. 

[Winterweatherlover]

The crazy thing is this still isn't that far off yet seems so far given how steady the models have been.

[RU848789]

6 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

That was from the 1z NBM (QPF: 0.11"); the 13z cycle had 0.04" QPF for Philadelphia. Moreover, it seems that Mount Holly is using v4.3, which is the operational version. V.5.0 is currently in testing, but isn't widely accessible and is not incorporated into the widely used probabilistic tools. V5.0 is supposed to have more realistic snow-liquid ratios, but it won't become operational until spring. 

During prior upgrades, there was a test site where one could access the output. This time around, the test site isn't being utilized, which undermines early operational examination of the newer version.

Don - you shared the table below of NBM snowfall inputs last week, but I simply can't imagine how the new NBM is more than the last run and how either of them could be right even with the wetter SREF inputs, as I think everything else should be near zero, except for low amounts from the EPS.  And if it were just an academic question it might not be a big deal, but the NWS regularly refers to it in their AFDs, so clearly they use it, which I don't get.  Any insight?