OceanStWx

I still think the models do a good job of highlighting the banding and max areas if you know where to look for it. Both weenies and Mets get sucked in by pretty QPF and clown maps. In the days when models were coarse, you would have to paint a general area for heavier snow and caveat “locally higher” but now the resolution tries to pin it to your backyard. So when it gets taken away the next run people get upset. That didn’t happen as much on an 80 km grid. If you find the relevant features aloft, QPF be damned.

I think late 2023 or 2024

Learn to love it, because it’s going FV3 core and running to 60 hours and you’re going to lose the NAM and HRRR.

It’s unstable based on the moist adiabatic lapse rate (6.5 C/km). So if the forecast sounding lapse rate is steeper than that it qualifies.

Way more fun than a 96 hour lock.

It’s pretty self explanatory, just a truly unstable layer, usually thin but in winter events you don’t need much. The lift is enhanced in that unstable zone, and so if it’s collocated with the DGZ can really crank snowfall rates.

There may be, but it would be more deformation than pure WAA driven.

Flow looks pretty favorable for NH. Good moisture, a moderate (3-5”) upslope event seems like a good forecast.

Well the best WAA push will likely shoot through SNE, like inside 95. This becomes a bit of a pivoting band (I would pin it somewhere between 95 and 495), but is moving so quickly that lollis around 10” sounds about right.

That’s the key, where the best snow growth is. And it’s usually just above 700 mb, which is why we want the best fgen forcing there. It all depends on the type of band. A WAA forced laterally translating band will sweep across the region with fairly uniform totals, because screw zones will move with the band. But a lateral quasi stationary band (like the last event) has the potential for subsidence to really screw the cold side of the heaviest lift.

East Bay, West Bay, done. I’ll maybe give you South County.

That screams something about initialization affecting the runs, if it truly is a 00/12z 06/18z tango. Balloon data is the primary difference that I know of.

Clicking around some GFS soundings there are decent lapse rates over the interior just above the DGZ, even absent a MAUL. It would take much to really make the most of that.

We're right on track for another bump or two NW followed by the messenger shuffle late to leave us right about where we are now. I see that poking in from RI.

Well he does look south to the Whites. That would confuse me too.

Taking a look at the forecast soundings the snow growth zone is rather low in the atmosphere. I don't think that changes substantially even with a further north track. So if your above H7 lift is good it's actually not in the heart of the DGZ like it normally is.

We're all friends until go time is just 24 hours away. As for anyone living east of the canal...

It's nice to see what you, Bob, and Dave think. Kind of like forecast consensus. Not going to hurt my waistline any. We legal. To me it seems like the NAM has spaced things out a little better as the lead shortwave exits sooner and the trailing one hangs back just a bit.

I miss them too. But the edibles are more cost effective at the moment.

Ekster had this storm so short term could handle the freezing rain.

It's pretty well sampled at this point, or at least won't be better sampled. But the more it digs tonight the better these runs should get.

Yeah, there were some late closures there that were congrats Nova Scotia, but if we can get that going between MTP and CHH it becomes a rosier picture.

Oh we know there's a bias keeping the QPF too close to the low center for one. But even the 12z GFS has a decent banding signal from central LI through BOS despite what it's QPF/snow output shows.