Jump to content

  • Member Statistics

    17,609
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    NH8550
    Newest Member
    NH8550
    Joined

Weekend Threat 12/14-12/15

IsentropicLift

By IsentropicLift,
in New York City Metro

Recommended Posts

ace0927

ace0927

Posted
Posted

this is his last post:

 

BESIDES Models: +AO /+NAO /still Mild SSTs / cold HIGH goes E of Maine/ no 50/50 Low/ Coastal Low slow to develop/ se winds for a period

 

two prior:

 

*BIG SNOW I-95 cities this weekend? ** 12Z WED Euro agrees . pic.twitter.com/K6PLfr4LTs

**BIG SNOW I-95 cities this weekend? ** NO..inland Yes not NOT cities. Starts off as snow from Philly N BUT.. pic.twitter.com/FuOhZbIkxV

 

Seems to be covering all bases

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
ace0927

ace0927

Posted
Posted

850s are -10.9 as the precip enters NYC and the surface temp is 19 degrees.

And 100% surface temp matters for snow ratio.

 

Yesterday's event is a PRIME example. The mid and upper levels suupported high snow ratios. Yet the surface was a bit too warm and the snow ratios were piss poor almost everywhere. The snow growth regions supported 12 to 15 to 1 ratios yesterday, even in the city. But the surface was 33-35 degrees and kept ratios to a PUTRID 4 to 1 in the city. If the surface was 31 or below, yesterday would have been a 4"-6" event.

 

Anytime I hear that surface temp doesn't matter with ratios, I want to puke. They 100% do. Especially in urban areas.

im pretty sure ratios have more to do with the h7 (ideal in the minus 12-18 range to get dentrites - ideal for best accum ratios) level than the h85 level...and the wind....and the snow growth....surface temps last of importance

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nyblizz44

nyblizz44

Posted
Posted

He's wrong because the 12z Euro EASILY supports .35" of precip as snow. Soundings prove it.

The map he posted is AFTER the WAA snowfall is over.

Any 1 who follows the man knows about his anti NE bias & particularly NY so take what he says with a grain of salt. Smart man but far too arrogant & rude for my taste

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jm1220

jm1220

Posted
Posted

Any 1 who follows the man knows about his anti NE bias & particularly NY so take what he says with a grain of salt. Smart man but far too arrogant & rude for my taste

I remember his constantly trying to down NYC right before the Feb. 8th storm this year. He would hyperventilate and point out every model showing New England getting slammed but not us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
forkyfork

forkyfork

Posted
Posted

for the 100th time - surface temps have very little to do with water equivalent ratios

only if it's sufficiently below freezing. we would have had more snow yesterday if surface temps weren't so marginal at the start. both the nam and euro showed surface temps below freezing to the coast throughout the event and they busted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SnoSki14

SnoSki14

Posted
Posted

Things look ok for another 2-4 or 3-6" it seems, why the worry.

I'm still hoping we will eventually get a very strong southern stream that attacks an arctic high sometime this winter. In those cases you can get huge snowfall totals of a foot or more without a -NAO, very 1993-1994 esque snows.

The fact that the EPO might go negative again after a brief positive stint is a good sign going further. It's a pretty good start to winter though given all the doom and gloom forecast weeks ago, plenty of cold and many have nice snow cover.

Departures will go negative for the month starting today and definitely after tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PB GFI

PB GFI

Posted
Posted

850s are -10.9 as the precip enters NYC and the surface temp is 19 degrees.

And 100% surface temp matters for snow ratio.

 

Yesterday's event is a PRIME example. The mid and upper levels suupported high snow ratios. Yet the surface was a bit too warm and the snow ratios were piss poor almost everywhere. The snow growth regions supported 12 to 15 to 1 ratios yesterday, even in the city. But the surface was 33-35 degrees and kept ratios to a PUTRID 4 to 1 in the city. If the surface was 31 or below, yesterday would have been a 4"-6" event.

 

Anytime I hear that surface temp doesn't matter with ratios, I want to puke. They 100% do. Especially in urban areas.

ecmwf_t2max_east_16.png

At hour 90 Surface temps are in the upper 20`s not 19  850`s ar minus 2 not minus 10 and at this time .20 liquid is falling in 6 hours , that's 10 to 1 on the coastal plain

if u wana say its 8 to 1 I wouldn't argue , its not 15 or 12 to 1  , surface temps have very little to do with snow girth ,  don't puke -

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JetsPens87

JetsPens87

Posted
Posted

for the 100th time - surface temps have very little to do with water equivalent ratios

 

Ouch, this hurts my heart as a met to hear this. In a sense both parties are correct (and forgive me mods I doubt this is the correct thread for this debate, but it is applicable towards the upcoming event). Snow growth and ratios can be interpreted as two different things, the snow growth yesterday appeared to be quite favorable, however with surface temps near or above freezing, the final ratios came out atrocious. While surface temps are not THE determining factor in ratios, they SURELY play a role.

 

Now, let's close that chapter and get back to this upcoming event. In my opinion here are some things that matter. My mentor always told me to do a checklist of good and bad, and you will come out with a forecast likely superior to a given single model run.

 

Good:

CAD CAD CAD (nuff said on this one) with the placement and strength of the arctic high and stronger deeper cold airmass then last time around

Progressive flow- it may sound counterintuitive but this strikes me as a setup where we are going to do best based off of our WAA and NOT anything from the coastal or lack thereof

 

Bad:

Coastal- It can only really  hurt as modeled, since it will turn the winds and torch us (take what you get from overrunning I95 and be happy darnit!)

Mid levels- Not enough can be said here, an 850 low going to PITT does not an I95 snowstorm make. Sure... ice can and will be an issue, and further NW is likely OK, but I95 find me some examples of a SECS/MECS with an 850 low going that far west that stayed all or mostly snow (hint: it's going to be tough)

 

With that said folks, I don't think I95 should hang their hat on all snow here. Take what you get from the overrunning and run with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allsnow

Allsnow

Posted
Posted

Looks like the NAM this run went with a more amped, coast hugging redevelopment, but still the period of overrunning. We have to hope the storm is sheared and suppressed, and most of it being done by the time the warm air arrives.

That's my fear with this storm, all the overrunning goes north of us. Then we are left with a period of mix to rain along the coast. I would love to lock in the euro

In this pattern we will not get a costal bomb with a Ccb. Flow to fast and se ridge

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JetsPens87

JetsPens87

Posted
Posted

Looks like the NAM this run went with a more amped, coast hugging redevelopment, but still the period of overrunning. We have to hope the storm is sheared and suppressed, and most of it being done by the time the warm air arrives.

 

Hey Jm,

I think I remember you from way back in the day on WWBB and Eastern (my old handle used to be stormchaser16), good to hear from you.

 

As I stated in my post above, the coastal is only going to aide in bringing in the warmer air in this setup it seems (unless it truly bombed way early and dynamics took over, but that hardly appears to be the case in this progressive flow). We really  should just be holding our hopes on the overrunning IMO unless something drastically changes.

 

Either way, how active has this early season been for this forum, I mean come on folks this is awesome!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ace0927

ace0927

Posted
Posted

only if it's sufficiently below freezing. we would have had more snow yesterday if surface temps weren't so marginal at the start. both the nam and euro showed surface temps below freezing to the coast throughout the event and they busted.

100%. But, without sufficiently cold air between 850-700MB it doesnt matter if its 14 degrees at the surface the snow growth wont be ideal thus affecting ratios.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ace0927

ace0927

Posted
Posted

Ouch, this hurts my heart as a met to hear this. In a sense both parties are correct (and forgive me mods I doubt this is the correct thread for this debate, but it is applicable towards the upcoming event). Snow growth and ratios can be interpreted as two different things, the snow growth yesterday appeared to be quite favorable, however with surface temps near or above freezing, the final ratios came out atrocious. While surface temps are not THE determining factor in ratios, they SURELY play a role.

 

Now, let's close that chapter and get back to this upcoming event. In my opinion here are some things that matter. My mentor always told me to do a checklist of good and bad, and you will come out with a forecast likely superior to a given single model run.

 

Good:

CAD CAD CAD (nuff said on this one) with the placement and strength of the arctic high and stronger deeper cold airmass then last time around

Progressive flow- it may sound counterintuitive but this strikes me as a setup where we are going to do best based off of our WAA and NOT anything from the coastal or lack thereof

 

Bad:

Coastal- It can only really  hurt as modeled, since it will turn the winds and torch us (take what you get from overrunning I95 and be happy darnit!)

Mid levels- Not enough can be said here, an 850 low going to PITT does not an I95 snowstorm make. Sure... ice can and will be an issue, and further NW is likely OK, but I95 find me some examples of a SECS/MECS with an 850 low going that far west that stayed all or mostly snow (hint: it's going to be tough)

 

With that said folks, I don't think I95 should hang their hat on all snow here. Take what you get from the overrunning and run with it.

 

First, welcome. Someone gets this gentlemen a red tag

 

Second, I appreciate the explanation. Always good to hear/learn something from someone who actually knows what he/she is talking about. Keep posting, this forum desperately needs knowledgeable/quality posters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SnowGoose69

SnowGoose69

Posted
Posted

That's my fear with this storm, all the overrunning goes north of us. Then we are left with a period of mix to rain along the coast. I would love to lock in the euro

In this pattern we will not get a costal bomb with a Ccb. Flow to fast and se ridge

 

It could definitely happen, there was a similar storm setup in the 10-11 winter where the overrunning band looked for the world it would nail us until 24 hours out, Upton even had advisories for 3-6 inches and it ultimately all ended up in the lower Hudson Valley and CT

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allsnow

Allsnow

Posted
Posted

It could definitely happen, there was a similar storm setup in the 10-11 winter where the overrunning band looked for the world it would nail us until 24 hours out, Upton even had advisories for 3-6 inches and it ultimately all ended up in the lower Hudson Valley and CT

 

yes! I believe it was the feb 2 2011 storm….

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheCloser24

TheCloser24

Posted
Posted

The event you're speaking of was on 1/7/11. It dropped 12 to 16 inches in the hills of western CT.

It could definitely happen, there was a similar storm setup in the 10-11 winter where the overrunning band looked for the world it would nail us until 24 hours out, Upton even had advisories for 3-6 inches and it ultimately all ended up in the lower Hudson Valley and CT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...