mattie g

I’m going to go to bed tonight, safe in the knowledge that the kids will be outside playing with their friends in the snow by lunchtime, and that everything should be covered by the time they have to come in for dinner. I’ll revel in watching the kids play, and will enjoy the company of the other parents in the neighborhood who will be watching their kids, as well. No idea what’ll come after the WAA snow, but I begrudgingly accept that it very likely won’t be what I’d like it to be. Then...come Monday afternoon, I’ll refrain from watching the radar as much as possible and will tune out of here until it’s all done. Then I’ll be back to track whatever fate befalls us in February!

Exactly Thanks. That absolutely makes sense, but I suppose what I’m getting at is that if the NAM has that much snow in the Ohio Valley at 84, then I’m having a hard time believing the rest of it at the same time. I mean...it’s no RGEM, so it has to be junk.

How likely do you think the snows back in Ohio would be at 84hr on the NAM? I know the NAM is crazy, but that seems pretty loco.

Can our honorable admins nuke the accounts of any folks from near Philly who passive-aggressively poke their noses into our forum? TIA.

@MN Transplant: How much for Gap, PA?

Same. Taking the VRE from the city to Burke can be night and day in marginal setups, whether during or just after. Being at 325’ or so and a few miles west of the fall line can make a really noticeable difference. Ticked up a degree in Burke - now at 28 - but it doesn’t really matter. No concerns at all with the WAA piece. It only once the transfer begins that I’ll have to worry about snizzle. Of course, after that I’ll have to worry about whether I’ll get in the southern tip of the CCB.

Oh yeah?

Looks awesome! Wish I were closer and could have made it over!

I kind of liked that NAM run, even before the smarter people chimed in. The WAA part is uncomplicated, and even if the NAM is a little juiced it certainly won’t be out to lunch.

Two more trends like this and we’re risking 12” while 40 miles away is pure destruction.

Storm escapes to the NE on the NAM - no real deform to speak of - it the WAA was pretty money. Not particularly concerned about it at that range.

We’ve discussed it extensively (ad nauseam, really) in the past few days, too.

Would require elongation, but I think the moisture will allow for it.

I’m 60% OK with it. Need that low to stall for longer and/or a tick south. Not a lot - I’ll take just the tip...of the deform.

You can see the low forming off OC MD here.

Let’s pull a January 2010 in opposite!

I think we’re still well within the southern range of solutions. We’ll see what the Euro has to say, but we only need a out a 50-mile more souther capture and we’re in the goods. Staying interested, even if not expectant.

More serious (but not like super serious or anything) question: Is it true that the RGEM beyond like 60 hours the same model output as the CMC at that timeframe, just at higher resolution?

@Mrs.J ... Edit before this post gets nuked : Not getting my hopes up based on just the RGEM, but this movement a bit south so far in the 12z suite is encouraging. Hell...even if it means we extend the enjoyment of tracking higher-end potential for another 6 hours, then it’s worth it.

This was some incredibly dry, but ridiculously funny, humor from @Solution Man

I guess I’ll take 30”. Right? RIGHT?!?!

Wife and I decided to use this storm as a math lesson (graphing) for our currently homeschooled 2nd grader. She and I will measure the snow at regular intervals, then plot them on a graph. After that, I’ll show her how to do it in Excel, which she’s excited about! p But I guess if we don’t get all terribly much snow, we’ll just plot at a 1/4” scale.

True...I’m also embarrassed for myself. Good to see you back, Chill!

But really I’m just embarrassed that I’ve been telling friends and family to expect 7-14” over two days.

No less than 66.67% of what those who get smoked get. So if the general max (not including lollies) is 20”, then like 12-13”. I have an issue with “losing.”