Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,588
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    LopezElliana
    Newest Member
    LopezElliana
    Joined

Super Snow Sunday


40/70 Benchmark

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

 

RGEM total snow through 8am Sunday is weak. Under 6" all of SNE

 

What a damn mess this whole event is. 

Nothing makes sense....even seeimgly perfect soutions are foiled by some sled dog in Navahut not having a moist enough coat of fur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you can just throw out the GGEM, Ukie, and NAM. That's a pretty large cluster of models that suggest a relatively minor impact compared to expectations and to ignore it in favor of the GFS(which is currently an outlier right now and we've already seen it be too wet on a couple of systems this winter) is a dangerous move I think. Big euro run coming up to see if the GGEM/ukie are out to lunch or if the further northern track has some real support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only one giving me some pause is CMC and it's better cousin is balls to the wall.

 

I don't even mind the GGEM look really...it's being funky with th einverted trough like it has the whole time, but the ML center was clearly south of the Ukie/NAM...and actually, in all honesty, the NAM wasn't that bad either. QPF queens didn't like it, but that would probably be a pretty high end warning event for E MA (>8"). Ukie is by far the ugliest for the upper/mid level look. I'd like the GGEM to be a bit stronger with the ULL...but it's on the 40th parallel, so location isn't the detriment there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The American consensus vs. foreign suites not sitting easy right now...

Ukie and GGEM looks make this 12z Euro run even more critical for confidence in the bigger SNE impact, and historically, we have reason to be nervous.

You and I went through this on the last big system and this one is even more of an issue. I think we may be underplayng the tug for this one to attempt to develop way offshore, or at least split/delay consolidation between the intense thermal boundary vs in advance of ULL. By the time it consolidates it's just too late.

Assuming high ratios Boston nws seems fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You and I went through this on the last big system and this one is even more of an issue. I think we may be underplayng the tug for this one to attempt to develop way offshore, or at least split/delay consolidation between the intense thermal boundary vs in advance of ULL. By the time it consolidates it's just too late.

Assuming high ratios Boston nws seems fine.

The GFS was in that east camp last time and the NAM was actually on the west camp. Now you have them switched for this one. That too me is a bigger red flag, meaning the same will not happen. You have a less reliable camp now of the UKIE/GGEM/NAM instead of GGEM/UKIE/GFS. If the GFS isn't in the east camp I think the east camp is a bogus one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK OK OK.... Ponder This.... This is off the freaking Charts.  In Of the 4 months that can have record snow every year, and the records going back 140 years or so.  That's 560 Months.  Of those 560 Months, THIS Month is going to Break the ALL-TIME Record in Less than HALF the Month AND this does NOT even Count the Blizzard of 2015 which happened BEFORE February Started!!!!  

 

attachicon.gifSnow for February in Boston.png

 

Yeah, things are pretty much off the charts. But calendar months are arbitrary, I pulled climate numbers and have been looking at trends and they are pretty much as dramatic.

 

Also, this is pretty banterish, so mods feel free to move …

 

Snow records at BOS back to 1892, but daily at the airport back to 1936 (before then was a) a different site, B) a separate data pull and c) there were no huge years before then). Previous snowiest four weeks was 58" in 1978 (yeah, those storms) and 1996. The past four weeks stand at 72.8, with only 0.8 in the first 10 of those days, so if there's another foot in the next week (certainly in the realm of possibility given Sun and maybe Weds) you're looking at 84"—7 feet!—in a month. Which is nearly 50% more than the previous record. As far as standard deviations go, it's off the charts.

 

Then there's temperature: previous snowy periods had at least some melt (The first storm in 1978 was down to 4" of snowcover when the blizzard hit). For BOS since the snow started falling in earnest (Jan 24), there have been three days above freezing. Three. All in the mid-30s. We're currently in a streak of 7 days below freezing, but that may wells stretch to 14 or longer. Boston gets a week solid below freezing about once every two or three years. But two weeks? That's happened three times since 1936, and the record is 16 days.

 

And it's cold, too. Currently BOS is averaging 20.3˚ for February, and that should go down with the next couple of days. Unless there's a big warm up, Boston has a good chance to set the second-coldest month on record (and February: the record was 1934 when the average was 17.5˚, which also happened to be the month when the city hit -18˚, the coldest temperature on record). Considering February temperatures have trended up nearly 5˚ since 1872, this is particularly impressive. There has been one February below 25 since 1936. This month could be the coldest February by an impressively wide margin.

 

Add the cold temperatures and the snowfall, and it creates the huge problems. And if it's 65 in March and pours rain, watch out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could essentially post the same thing about the other good model solutions...maybe outside of far NE MA. The best stuff falls between 12z and 18z on most of the big hits.

You've already said it, the mid levels are looking great. I'll ignore the QPF for now, and trust that it ends up falling for eastern areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like I need to go buy some flowers today, bonus midnight shift I think on Saturday.

Sir, could you comment for a moment on how snowfall looks for 1500 feet just north of Jackson, NH? I see some enhancement on the models from the Whites. Curious if I am looking at 12 inches, or 16(+). I imagine the winds are going to be impressive too. Carter Notch Rd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks east to me. Why is it eye popping?

that surface low is deepest I have seen; it can be east little -- it's close enough given its size/depth, while the other attributes are astounding.

 

the 700mb is closed several contours with >90% RH everywhere... some one is getting exotic snow fall rates while wind is routinely gusting over 40mph even inland. 

 

The other guidance have all this, but this particular depiction has panache

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that surface low is deepest I have seen; it can be east little -- it's close enough given its size/depth, while the other attributes are astounding.

the 700mb is closed several contours with >90% RH everywhere... some one is getting exotic snow fall rates while wind is routinely gusting over 40mph even inland.

The other guidance have all this, but this particular depiction has panache

Yeah that run wraps the TROWAL pretty far west.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sir, could you comment for a moment on how snowfall looks for 1500 feet just north of Jackson, NH? I see some enhancement on the models from the Whites. Curious if I am looking at 12 inches, or 16(+). I imagine the winds are going to be impressive too. Carter Notch Rd.

Depends on how far west we can get that CCB flow. Because otherwise ageostrophic component will be mostly N and there could be some down sloping issues. That would be good for backside wind gusts though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...