jm1220 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 We need the phase 6-12 hours earlier. The primary is still too strong and the closed 850 low into western NY kills us. I like the CCB development though, it makes me believe that if those dynamics occur the temps would crash a little sooner than the model indicates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dsnowx53 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Decent amount of snow for nnj and NYC after 72 why is that? Looks like a pseudo deformation zone tries to form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm At Sea Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Most on here realize that it is simply unrealistic to expect decent accums. after a storm starts as rain. we have discussed this plenty on here. Snow to rain obviously being a completely different idea.... Ya and roughly .5+ falls as snow it looks for NYC east Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
friedmators Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 GFS play by play is very unnecessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jm1220 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Decent amount of snow for nnj and NYC after 72 why is that? Looks like a strong vortmax comes through on the back side of the low and continues some of the snow. I would think a strong CCB development like the GFS shows would in decent part be snow given the dynamics. It might be overplaying the primary a little bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowGoose69 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Decent amount of snow for nnj and NYC after 72 why is that? Some sort of funky vort swings around the backside of the system, probably not realistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbc Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 I like the CCB development though, it makes me believe that if those dynamics occur the temps would crash a little sooner than the model indicates. Bingo, exactly this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJO812 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 0z Ukie is way further southeast of the GFS. It's also colder than the GFS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dsnowx53 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Some sort of funky vort swings around the backside of the system, probably not realistic. I think the 18z GFS had the same thing, just a bit further north. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitchel Volk Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Lindsey storm 2/9/1969 was six hours of rain and a few hours of R+ in Oceanside LI and we got over 24" with 15 foot snow drifts. In addition the Blizzard 1888 also started as heavy rain so this is not the truth. For this storm it is still way to early to tell. Go 150 NE and they get clobbered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntenseBlizzard2014 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 0z Ukie is way further southeast of the GFS. It's also colder than the GFS. HA! The UKMET is definitely helping out here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm At Sea Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 GFS is going to change about 3 or 4 times before we get a good handle on the system. You can't take anything away from this run given the major shift between the 18z and 00z runs. There isn't even a trend, which some are claiming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ag3 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Lindsey storm 2/9/1969 was six hours of rain and a few hours of R+ in Oceanside LI and we got over 24" with 15 foot snow drifts. In addition the Blizzard 1888 also started as heave rain so this is not the truth. For this storm it is still way to early to tell. Go 150 NE and they get clobbered. Late February 2010 was rain for a while for a lot of LI and NYC before it switched to 12"-20" of snow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnoSki14 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Well the gfs actually made some great strides. Big time improvement from 18z and it even looks better than 12z, at least after the coastal gets going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowGoose69 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 What we can hope for in this sytem is a similar effect to what happened on 12/5/03 and the first part of the late January 2011 storm, a surprise ioverrunning wave of snow kicked off well ahead of the system when the high is still in place, at 54 hours you can see a subtle vort at 500 over NC...this is basically what kicked off the wave of snow in the 2011 system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm At Sea Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Yes, because quoting events during two of the most historical snowstorms in NYC's history allows for generalization. This is not the Lindsey storm and it's not the 1888 storm. It's a rather mundane EC low and chances of folks in the coastal plain seeing 6+ inches after 0.5 inches of rain is unlikely. Lindsey storm 2/9/1969 was six hours of rain and a few hours of R+ in Oceanside LI and we got over 24" with 15 foot snow drifts. In addition the Blizzard 1888 also started as heavy rain so this is not the truth. For this storm it is still way to early to tell. Go 150 NE and they get clobbered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbc Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 HA! The UKMET is definitely helping out here. Definitely. Correct for it's SE bias at this range and it would be quite favorable snow wise for us all. All the infamous biases before a MECS at this range are showing up on the models. It feels like we are in the 09-10 or 10-11 winter all over again lol. If only we had those epic NAO conditions from those years, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allsnow Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Yes, because quoting events during two of the most historical snowstorms in NYC's history allows for generalization. This is not the Lindsey storm and it's not the 1888 storm. It's a rather mundane EC low and chances of folks in the coastal plain seeing 6+ inches after 0.5 inches of rain is unlikely. December 25 2002 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm At Sea Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 That trough out on the West Coast will likely make a mockery of us in here tonight...the H5 pattern is utterly dismal for this EC storm to work out for the I-95. What we can hope for in this sytem is a similar effect to what happened on 12/5/03 and the first part of the late January 2011 storm, a surprise ioverrunning wave of snow kicked off well ahead of the system when the high is still in place, at 54 hours you can see a subtle vort at 500 over NC...this is basically what kicked off the wave of snow in the 2011 system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitchel Volk Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Yes, because quoting events during two of the most historical snowstorms in NYC's history allows for generalization. This is not the Lindsey storm and it's not the 1888 storm. It's a rather mundane EC low and chances of folks in the coastal plain seeing 6+ inches after 0.5 inches of rain is unlikely. I know I was just proving that rain at first is not always a blizzard killer. Of course this storm is different, but I does have snow potential too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GD0815 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Most on here realize that it is simply unrealistic to expect decent accums. after a storm starts as rain. we have discussed this plenty on here. Snow to rain obviously being a completely different idea.... i know you are the met and im not but i really disagree with this,12/25/02 here 4/1/97 boston,just 2 quick examples plus is the setup where you would get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbc Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Yes, because quoting events during two of the most historical snowstorms in NYC's history allows for generalization. This is not the Lindsey storm and it's not the 1888 storm. It's a rather mundane EC low and chances of folks in the coastal plain seeing 6+ inches after 0.5 inches of rain is unlikely. Obviously those exceptional events are excpetional for a reason but if you think we are going to get .5 inches of rain to start you seem to buy what the GFS is selling and think a phase will happen too late for us. Considering the GFS bias of holding on to primaries too long too strong at this range when we have a significant coastal transfer in the picture it's hard to take it seriously. However, you are the Met and I am not so what the heck do I know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJO812 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 0z Ukie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowGoose69 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 i know you are the met and im not but i really disagree with this,12/25/02 here 4/1/97 boston,just 2 quick examples plus is the setup where you would get it. 3/15/99 is the best example, absolutely atrocious airmass in place and we went over to snow in the CCB...thats what it will take in this system, if we miss the CCB we get nothing, in reality if we miss the CCB we won't get much rain either LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgwp96 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 i certainly wouldnt count on that wraparound band. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GD0815 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Most on here realize that it is simply unrealistic to expect decent accums. after a storm starts as rain. we have discussed this plenty on here. Snow to rain obviously being a completely different idea.... actually for a big storm, i think the exact opposite is true, maybe if you ar talking backlash snow ok...but id rather have the storm trending better than worse as it progresses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnoSki14 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Tonight's Euro will be major as it will be in its deadly range. I think it remains unlikely we get a snow storm from this, SNE is strongly favored over us and that's what I'm sticking toward unless the models continue to change to favor us a bit more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jm1220 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 That trough out on the West Coast will likely make a mockery of us in here tonight...the H5 pattern is utterly dismal for this EC storm to work out for the I-95. I agree, that ridge axis and trough to me scream a setup that bombs too late. The difference between a glorified cold front with rain/crud vs. a blizzard won't be much though. A lot of New England looks to be in a good spot. Wish I could be there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbc Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 That trough out on the West Coast will likely make a mockery of us in here tonight...the H5 pattern is utterly dismal for this EC storm to work out for the I-95. Why should it be believable that the west coast trough as depicted in those maps will be as dismal for us as you say because the dismal GFS says so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm At Sea Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 The problem is having the 850 mb low in Upstate NY. It really kicks us out of the game pretty abruptly. If someone is in the Poconos...they can salvage snow with a decaying 850 mb low over ROC and transferring. If someone is in Trenton or EWR, it doesn't snow. You flood too many levels and get cold rain. Obviously those exceptional events are excpetional for a reason but if you think we are going to get .5 inches of rain to start you seem to buy what the GFS is selling and think a phase will happen too late for us. Considering the GFS bias of holding on to primaries too long too strong at this range when we have a significant coastal transfer in the picture it's hard to take it seriously. However, you are the Met and I am not so what the heck do I know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.