nyblizz44 Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 1" seems low to me. I'm thinking 2" in Central Park given the developing system's dynamics, forecast track (considering the spread among the guidance), and qpf over the past two model cycles. A 1"-3" range probably isn't unreasonable for the City, though I think a 2"4" one might be a little better, as I suspect amounts in the 2"-3" range will be more common in the City than 1"-2" amounts. Furthermore, as a 1" figure would probably depend on low ratios (perhaps on the order of 8:1) and/or a reduction in qpf from what is forecast on most of the guidance, I suspect that there's probably a little more upside potential than downside potential e.g., if the storm develops a little more quickly than forecast. Not to mention any shift of the Norlun, which can be very localized 15-20 miles wide ( and in many cases less) but if it parks over you you can back looking at Lakes type hourly rates. This is a potentially volatile situation. Im more than ok going with 2-4 based .20-.30 QPF with potential for more from NE NJ on east ( Including NYC metro) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle W Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 if we get 2" in the park it will be blown away before the zoo keeper measures it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB GFI Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 I think there is 2 just with the initial push w that strong of an h5 look . Then I think the models need to resolve the mesoscale feature placement as that's prob 2 plus . There will be a rip off zone. Someone may be happy while others are screaming bust. Happens all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian5671 Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 I think there is 2 just with the initial push w that strong of an h5 look . Then I think the models need to resolve the mesoscale feature placement as that's prob 2 plus . There will be a rip off zone. Someone may be happy while others are screaming bust. Happens all the time. I think that's elevated even more with this one. Could see a decent swath getting less than 2 inches while some lucky isolated areas get 6-8. Tantrum incoming if I get screwed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYC Weather Lover Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Jeff Smith not budging with his 1-3" for NYC. Will be interesting to see what all the TV-mets say at 5pm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongBeachSurfFreak Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Yes I'm watching the weather channel, the girl on just said NYC you're going to see less then an inch. ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongBeachSurfFreak Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 The Weather Channel was, in another age, a pioneering, innovative repository of weather information like never seen anywhere before. Every on camera met knew far more meteorology than anyone you would ever see on a local broadcast. I do understand that the organization continues to employ some exceptional people; especially behind the scenes; but as for some of their on camera mets...well, I could get better meteorological advice from drunks in the gutter. Her name is Kait and she's hot!! But less then an inch? That's just irresponsible. 2" is the absolute low end. With all the drifting I doubt the zoo keeper reports less the 4" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 ...But less then an inch? That's just irresponsible. 2" is the absolute low end. With all the drifting I doubt the zoo keeper reports less the 4" Even the NWS minimum snowfall product shows 1" for Central Park: It's these kinds of almost flippant numbers that are thrown out on the air that make forecasters look bad when, in fact, many are very good (we see many of them here, at NWS, and elsewhere). One funny anecdote from back on January 3. I was at the dentist's office on January 3 for a teeth cleaning. Channel 12 (local TV) was playing and there was a radar image shown onscreen when the weather report came on. The forecaster said something along the lines that the rain had finished falling and there would now be a dry period. Meanwhile, the radar showed an area of moderate to heavy rain (this was before Winter 2014-15 awakened after having gone into hibernation in December, so one was dealing with rain) moving toward the area just to the south and west of the Hudson River. My comment to the hygienist was that he appeared to be reciting a memorized script that was out of synch with the radar and what was happening. She stated that "they're usually wrong." About 20 minutes later, a downpour had arrived. As for the zookeeper, the report could state: "Trace. Blowing snow, but no actual measurement. Too windy & cold." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbo073 Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Her name is Kait and she's hot!! But less then an inch? That's just irresponsible. 2" is the absolute low end. With all the drifting I doubt the zoo keeper reports less the 4" Yes she is smokin hot!! I try to watch her lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pamela Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 As for the zookeeper, the report could state: "Trace. Blowing snow, but no actual measurement. Too windy & cold." At the cooperative station in Centerport on Long Island (Vanderbilt Museum)...the actual report had written on it "no measurement due to snow" after the Blizzard of '78. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NycStormChaser Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 At the cooperative station in Centerport on Long Island (Vanderbilt Museum)...the actual report had written on it "no measurement due to snow" after the Blizzard of '78. The Vanderbilt mansion is a possible wedding venue for my fiance and I. I'll have to scratch that off the list now :-) lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 At the cooperative station in Centerport on Long Island (Vanderbilt Museum)...the actual report had written on it "no measurement due to snow" after the Blizzard of '78. Great find, Pamela. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pamela Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Great find, Pamela. Thnxs. I have to credit NorthShoreWx...I recall him making a post about it years ago. I may not have had the exact thing on the quote word for word, but that was the gist of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Thnxs. I have to credit NorthShoreWx...I recall him making a post about it years ago. I may not have had the exact thing on the quote word for word, but that was the gist of it. NorthShoreWx made a great find. Many thanks for sharing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJO812 Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Steve D thinks that NYC may reach 10 inches with blizzard conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEXtreme Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Steve D thinks that NYC may reach 10 inches with blizzard conditions. One of his reasons for the increase is he expects ratios to increase dramatically. He makes a case for his concerns though. Nick Gregory was mentioning the possibility of this being more last night but was going to stay put for now. Joe Cioffi is a little more aggressive compared to NWS and he's also concerned about the ratios being higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rjay Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Steve D thinks that NYC may reach 10 inches with blizzard conditions. Of course he does Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danstorm Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Steve D thinks that NYC may reach 10 inches with blizzard conditions. Does the guy ever learn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snywx Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Steve D thinks that NYC may reach 10 inches with blizzard conditions. That guy never learns... Utter disaster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ag3 Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Anyone who has NYC and its boroughs at less then 3"-6" of snow is insane. Queens and Bronx 4"-8". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nyblizz44 Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Does the guy ever learn?I know the man can be highly annoying and come off as incredibly condescending however to be fair he has New York City in the 4 to 8 inch rape and only mentions 10 if convective Bands set up as part of the IV T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violentweatherfan Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 I know the man can be highly annoying and come off as incredibly condescending however to be fair he has New York City in the 4 to 8 inch rape and only mentions 10 if convective Bands set up as part of the IV T I don't think He is factoring the wind diminishing snow accumulation either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JERSEYSNOWROB Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 I don't think He is factoring the wind diminishing snow accumulation either. A lot of the snow will fall before the wind really picks up I think though no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violentweatherfan Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 A lot of the snow will fall before the wind really picks up I think though no? Yeah your right, wind will happen later. He is still doing qpf to temp calculation and and taking the coldest temperature time which does include winds. Again, a bit aggressive with the amounts but not only are convective bands hard to predict location wise amounts are just as difficult. You could jackpot from this, remember last year...Lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winterwarlock Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Lol poor Steve D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allsnow Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 lol Steve D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WintersGrasp Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 I think sometimes forecasters intentionally try to go way above or way below the NWS/mainstream forecasted amounts as well as most model data, to be the first to "catch something". It is a gamble betting against the house, and in most cases doesn't yield positive results Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animal Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Lol Steve D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwcMan Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 According to the new NAM, Steve D might not be that far off. Not saying he's right tho.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JERSEYSNOWROB Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Yeah your right, wind will happen later. He is still doing qpf to temp calculation and and taking the coldest temperature time which does include winds. Again, a bit aggressive with the amounts but not only are convective bands hard to predict location wise amounts are just as difficult. You could jackpot from this, remember last year...Lol. I'm being cautiously optimistic. (Cautiously being the key word) hahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.