eduggs
-
Posts
5,128 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Blogs
Forums
American Weather
Media Demo
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by eduggs
-
Yeah the 18z RGEM is eye catching. Could be snow anywhere those high UVVs set up just southwest of the SLP. Some slight model disagreement about placement, so it will be interesting to see how radar and satellite evolve on Thursday. To me this looks like widespread first flakes, but very localized heavy snow. NEPA seems to win regardless of model but hopefully NNJ and the Hudson Valley cash in some too.
-
Absolutely agree. As modeled in those areas it's bigger than anything I saw last winter. Quite a way to end a drought and herald in a more active period.
-
Realistically that's probably a coating to 1" at 500ft, 2-4" at 1000ft, and 4-6" at 1500ft. 10:1 is only going to work out in extreme NEPA or the higher peaks of the Catskills. Banding is a wild card.
-
Yup. And it's not a random model blip. We have multi-run and multi-model continuity. Sure there are some important differences between the GFS, EC, CMC, Ikon etc that affect distribution of potential snow accumulations, but everything is pointing in the same general direction. I also think snow accumulations could be pretty localized Thurs night into Fri morning before precip. tapers off, the SLP fills, boundary layer temps warm slightly, and elevation/upslope influence takes over. Where does any banding sets up and what's the trajectory of the pivot?
-
Euro is a major snowstorm for Sussex County NJ above about 800ft. At this point considering model consensus you'd have to forecast snow for at least Sussex, western Orange, Ulster, Pike and Wayne PA and add snow possible, particularly above 500ft in Warren, Morris, Bergen, Passaic, Putnam, all of Orange and Westchester. Any potential accumulations outside of elevated areas will probably be a nowcast determination. But thermal profiles certainly look cold enough above 1000ft and briefly below that, depending on intensity.
-
Well sure. Locally it's difficult to get snow on the backside of a storm. That's primarily due to regional topography and the timing and placement of mesoscale features. The Catskills and Taconics do better due to the upsloping component instead of downsloping. Chances are low by default in our part of the world. But we have a slow moving, mature mid and upper level low with strong moisture transport, excellent PVA, vertical accent etc. These are the prerequisites for a "wraparound" event, particularly in a marginal column. Whether the 500mb low and associated vorticity swings up into New England, northwest into CNY, or stays put in CT could determine if anybody locally whitens the ground.
-
This has positive bust potential written all over it. Soundings show 35-38F with rain/snow or wet snow on the southwest side of wherever the SLP tracks. But dynamic cooling in any intense banding could easily bring that to 33 or 34 and pounding parachutes. The cold air delivery has worsened slightly in recent runs unfortunately. I think a few places could get a surprise coating to maybe an inch or two that were not expecting anything wintry. Still looks like the NJ-NY-PA border area up into the western Catskills is the place to be for a plowable event. but it's definitely worth watching even across Morris, Passaic, Putnam, Westchester etc.
-
Lots of people sleeping on this end of week event. Certainly most are focusing on the drought busting potential but also squinting into the distant future for a more perfect snow threat. 12z CMC and GFS look pretty wild for the immediate NW suburbs. Rapidly developing and stalling SLP wrapping moisture back into a marginally snow-supporting column. Any distinct banding could be fun. Modeling has been very consistent and if it holds this could be a fun nowcast. Highly trackable event!
-
Put on your glasses then. Or more likely you're looking too far out into the future. THIS thursday-Friday is an I-84 elevation snow threat. The kind that Walt D is often all over.
-
We've got a Walt D. I-84 special modeled for Thurs - Sat morning but no Walt thread, which is unfortunate. Most modeling now has first snowflakes of the winter for a lot of areas sometime during this period. Could also be a significant elevation snowstorm for at least a narrow area.
-
Red flags for snow for most of us are a downsloping wind trajectory and the brunt of cold air going south of us into the mid-Atl and only slowly oozing in. But there is plenty of model support for wet snowflakes even outside of the hill towns. This is the first interesting setup since last March or maybe February. Heck it might even be more interesting than anything we had all last winter.
-
If the model consensus is right, I think we could be looking at 4-6" above 1000ft in Orange County or the near vicinity. Poconos, NNJ, Hudson Highlights, Taconics, and Catskills all have a good shot at snow. The GFS, ECM, and CMC are all homing in on a narrow area of significant wraparound precipitation into a sub 534 thickness field. The upper level evolution is pretty impressive. The 18z ECM in particular was incredible. There's a banding signal as well as the potential for a stall and long duration precipitation pivot. Exactly where any banding sets up will probably be the difference between some slush and several inches of snow. I'd like to be in the western Catskills or extreme NEPA for this.
-
If you averaged the ECM's thermal profiles with the EC-AIFS surface and upper level low tracks you'd have a pretty significant elevation snowstorm for NNJ and possibly SENY. The AIFS is a great track but 925 temps are +1 to +2 whereas the regular ECM is 0 to -1F.
-
CMC, ECM, and even GFS to a lesser extent suggests this is the first trackable snowstorm threat from NEPA across to the Taconics, primarily across higher elevations. Advection of low level cold doesn't look ideal but some mixing down to lower elevation is possible as currently depicted. But from memory these tend to swing the organized banding through to the north and then we get downsloping on the NW flow with scattered showers.
-
Blowvember - and not named for wind potential
eduggs replied to Go Kart Mozart's topic in New England
Remember these 3rd party snow maps simply convert modeled frozen precipitation to snow at a 10:1 ratio. So it's entirely possible the model itself is correct in showing a snow ptype for 12 hours at 33-36F that doesn't accumulate at all. -
Timmer tends to combine both. 200 mph gusts and flying small cars, huh? Impressive.
-
It's likely winds would have been a little stronger had the NE eyewall been stronger, which would have been magnified by the storm's forward motion. But I suspect you're right that the lack of reports from the immediate coastal area explains the lack of extremely high wind measurements. I bet 100-120 gusts were widespread within a mile or so of the Ocean.
-
140 mph is the maximum sustained winds in a tiny localized region over the open ocean. If you move in any direction away from the maximum winds, they will decrease quickly. Then on top of that, the effect of land is much stronger than people realize. That's why extreme wind damage from hurricanes is usually very localized. The surge is typically far more dangerous and widespread. 100 mph gusts more than a few miles inland is uncommon in any hurricane - even a major hurricane.
-
So 15 miles or so inland? Even a quarter mile inland significantly reduces surface wind speed.
-
Perry is way inland. Little chance of major hurricane sustained winds there.
-
We go through this every time with landfalling hurricanes... Where's my 140 mph winds!!?? Due to friction with the ground surface, surface wind speeds are significantly lower over land than over water. So unless someone is literally right on a wind-exposed beach, which is not advisable in a surge scenario, it is very unlikely to record a peak wind speed anywhere close to what would be observed on the open ocean.
-
I am also largely discounting the 12z GFS solution locally. I think there could be snow somewhere in the northeast next weekend, but I think it's a longshot for NYC and the immediate suburbs. That said, there is some decent in situ cold on the GFS run specifically. I also want to try to dispel the myth that the GFS produces snowfall maps. A model output can be perfectly accurate and seem completely wrong in terms of forecasted snowfall if 3rd party vendors are used. So we should usually just ignore them and use model output and forecast soundings.
-
I don't agree with this summation. 8" is unlikely just based on typical snowfall frequencies in NYC and the low model skill at this range. But the GFS depiction - as is - shows a very wintry scenario. We would absolutely not need dramatic changes from what the 12z GFS shows to get significant snowfall near our region. As shown it's actually quite close to a long duration, region-wide snowstorm. But a snowy outcome is still very unlikely for the other reasons that you've mentioned.
-
Agreed on all your points. However, I was under the impression that NCEP doesn't disseminate forecasted snowfall amounts. I could be wrong, maybe it's an experimental parameter...? But obviously 3rd party snowfall accumulation algorithms should be ignored at this range, particularly with a marginal wintry setup. The only point that I partially disagree with is the temperatures. The low level temps are actually pretty cold - and with a continued LL cold drain - particularly just outside NYC. I think the scenario as modeled (12z GFS), with a thick cloud cover or nighttime precipitation, could support accumulating snow outside of high-impervious %, urban areas. I consider a snow threat a very low likelyhood outcome right now for the immediate NYC metro area.
-
Agree with the bolded part - I think that's the primary cause of disappointment when "patterns" don't deliver. I've been arguing for years that long range pattern recognition/correlation is far more effective in hindsight than foresight. The problem is that the numerical indices used to characterize patterns are too simplistic and not strongly correlated enough with local weather to be much utility for long range snowstorm hunting. The historical sample size of patterns is also too small for robust analysis, even if the base state weren't evolving. Models can't resolve future long range "patterns" much better than they can see individual trofs and ridges. So considering that nuances of synoptic pattern evolution largely determine distribution of snow in non-mountainous, mid-latitude regions, it's almost impossible to identify favorable wintry periods more than 10 days in advance. I know I'm mostly alone on this point, but I will continue to try to chip away. The increased attention to long range forecast over the past few years has seemingly come at the expense of good mid-range forecasting and discussion. I would hope that people would start to see the futility of the long range stuff after a few seasons of terrible performance... particularly those with a science background or some knowledge of statistics.
