Jan 23/24 2016 obs/nowcast - the fight for the North

[JC-CT]

As a "fun" map. I would state probably the most recent map published. Accuracy I already disclaimed. Most snow-cover maps are rudimentary anyway. CHILL

I'm very chill, I just thought it was funny. You chill.

[CT Rain]

I saw a report that IJD had 15.5

But PnS says 9.5

 

That's a weenie report

[ineedsnow]

Had about a half inch here extended looks like crap at this point I'm rooting for the least snowiest winter congrats to everyone that got it good

[ROOSTA]

I'm very chill, I just thought it was funny. You chill.

I'm in Florida....hard freeze this morn...I chill. All good.... 

[JC-CT]

That's a weenie report

Any reports from Hebron or Lebanon?

[Damage In Tolland]

That's a weenie report

It was on a TWC map on Twitter lol

A poster here had 13.25 on Colchester/ East Hampton line

[JC-CT]

I'm in Florida....hard freeze this morn...I chill. All good....

My map comment wasn't about yours, I just meant it in general. I didn't even see that you had posted one until after.

[Damage In Tolland]

Any reports from Hebron or Lebanon?

PNS 9.0 in Hebrew

[JC-CT]

It was on a TWC map on Twitter lol

A poster here had 13.25 on Colchester/ East Hampton line

That's believable IMO

[CT Rain]

That's believable IMO

 

Yeah we had a report of 12" in East Hampton. I normally wait for the cocorahs/coop obs. The problem with a lot of reports we get is that they're measured on a deck with snow blowing off the roof. 

I actually measured 7.5" on my deck but only 5.5" on the snow board away from the house. 

[JC-CT]

Yeah we had a report of 12" in East Hampton. I normally wait for the cocorahs/coop obs. The problem with a lot of reports we get is that they're measured on a deck with snow blowing off the roof.

I actually measured 7.5" on my deck but only 5.5" on the snow board away from the house.

True, you know some of these reports that are 30-40% higher than immediately surrounding areas are measuring drifts. But it also has to be hard given the extreme banding nature of this storm knowing the sharp cutoffs do exist. You almost have to vet it against the radar I guess.

Anyway, I was on the northern edge of that first band for a while before finally getting into the really good stuff. The returns over my head were being blown into Lebanon that's why I think they got crushed.

[FXWX]

FYI

Rarely (almost never) post but thought I would throw my 2 cents into the NAM discussion!  As Ryan indicated and showed & also harped correctly about all week was the best forecast for most areas was a blend of the GEFS / Euro numbers.  That was the starting point for most of my predictions and while it will usually serve you well, the need to not focus on actual qpf numbers and do some tweaking (up or down) is essential based on other non GFS and/or Euro products.  I had 2 conversations with a well-known NWS forecaster now at MT Holly Thu & Fri... He has always stressed to look at the NAM frotgen and forcing products as a means of refining some of your forecast zones.  He was adamant about boosting numbers into the excessive range across much of the NYC/LI areas and increasing the I-95 corridor and points just north to a bit south of the I-84 corridor into RI and then hitting Cape Cod area even harder than most modeled qpf.  The NAM modeled forcing and banding products were a red flag that numbers had to be picked up into the historic category for the greater NYC area and boosted east northward across southern CT into RI/Cape and that some banding would eventually get into parts of nrn CT and eastern Mass based on the phenomenal 850/700 inflow modeled just south of SNE.  The NAM qpf numbers were not to be believed and were not used, but the forcing / banding products were a red flag to pick numbers up big time across NYC area, as well as parts of CT/RI and Cape Cod area.  That is what the issue is really all about.  Forget the actual qpf numbers; use the ensemble means as a great starting point and tweak accordingly by analyzing other products such as the NAM forcing/banding products and other available info.  To say the NAM qpf #'s verified is pretty much flat out wrong, but it was a useful model and was a great indicator of where to boost numbers in the area that was already known to likely get into the good precip shield.

[powderfreak]

Funny NYC turns the tables on us from last January. The difference though was the rug taken out from under them last year.

Well the modeling leading up to this helped a lot with the sentiment of the SNE portion of the storm.

It's amazing how much that makes a difference in an opinion about a storm.

Had the models continued the huge hits they were showing at Day 6 (2-3" QPF in SNE), and then it regressed to where it did in the final 48 hours, everyone would be devastated right now. However the rug was pulled out from you guys with enough lead time to make peace with it, and changed the tune to "just give me 1-3 inches". Then when it comes back slightly to a better event it seems like a positive bust almost.

Just the timing of changes in modeling makes a huge difference in the "overall feel" of an event.

[CT Rain]

Rarely (almost never) post but thought I would throw my 2 cents into the NAM discussion!  As Ryan indicated and showed & also harped correctly about all week was the best forecast for most areas was a blend of the GEFS / Euro numbers.  That was the starting point for most of my predictions and while it will usually serve you well, the need to not focus on actual qpf numbers and do some tweaking (up or down) is essential based on other non GFS and/or Euro products.  I had 2 conversations with a well-known NWS forecaster now at MT Holly Thu & Fri... He has always stressed to look at the NAM frotgen and forcing products as a means of refining some of your forecast zones.  He was adamant about boosting numbers into the excessive range across much of the NYC/LI areas and increasing the I-95 corridor and points just north to a bit south of the I-84 corridor into RI and then hitting Cape Cod area even harder than most modeled qpf.  The NAM modeled forcing and banding products were a red flag that numbers had to be picked up into the historic category for the greater NYC area and boosted east northward across southern CT into RI/Cape and that some banding would eventually get into parts of nrn CT and eastern Mass based on the phenomenal 850/700 inflow modeled just south of SNE.  The NAM qpf numbers were not to be believed and were not used, but the forcing / banding products were a red flag to pick numbers up big time across NYC area, as well as parts of CT/RI and Cape Cod area.  That is what the issue is really all about.  Forget the actual qpf numbers; use the ensemble means as a great starting point and tweak accordingly by analyzing other products such as the NAM forcing/banding products and other available info.  To say the NAM qpf #'s verified is pretty much flat out wrong, but it was a useful model and was a great indicator of where to boost numbers in the area that was already known to likely get into the good precip shield.

 

Totally agree with this.

 

Up here it was really easy to toss the NAM in the garbage. It was easy to see it wouldn't come close to verifying.

 

That said, down south where there was pretty good agreement that solid low/mid level moisture would be in place and there would be solid synoptic forecast you could easily "value add" using some of the signals on the NAM.

[JC-CT]

Rarely (almost never) post but thought I would throw my 2 cents into the NAM discussion! As Ryan indicated and showed & also harped correctly about all week was the best forecast for most areas was a blend of the GEFS / Euro numbers. That was the starting point for most of my predictions and while it will usually serve you well, the need to not focus on actual qpf numbers and do some tweaking (up or down) is essential based on other non GFS and/or Euro products. I had 2 conversations with a well-known NWS forecaster now at MT Holly Thu & Fri... He has always stressed to look at the NAM frotgen and forcing products as a means of refining some of your forecast zones. He was adamant about boosting numbers into the excessive range across much of the NYC/LI areas and increasing the I-95 corridor and points just north to a bit south of the I-84 corridor into RI and then hitting Cape Cod area even harder than most modeled qpf. The NAM modeled forcing and banding products were a red flag that numbers had to be picked up into the historic category for the greater NYC area and boosted east northward across southern CT into RI/Cape and that some banding would eventually get into parts of nrn CT and eastern Mass based on the phenomenal 850/700 inflow modeled just south of SNE. The NAM qpf numbers were not to be believed and were not used, but the forcing / banding products were a red flag to pick numbers up big time across NYC area, as well as parts of CT/RI and Cape Cod area. That is what the issue is really all about. Forget the actual qpf numbers; use the ensemble means as a great starting point and tweak accordingly by analyzing other products such as the NAM forcing/banding products and other available info. To say the NAM qpf #'s verified is pretty much flat out wrong, but it was a useful model and was a great indicator of where to boost numbers in the area that was already known to likely get into the good precip shield.

Great post! Please do it more often :-)

Ryan also picked a spot just north of the sharp cutoff as his verification spot. Makes sense since it is a population center and close to his hood, but it does skew it a bit.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it also seemed to have a clue synoptically that it would tuck closer to the coast before kicking east.

[Baroclinic Zone]

It was on a TWC map on Twitter lol

A poster here had 13.25 on Colchester/ East Hampton line

My brother in law had 13" in Colchester.

[powderfreak]

Great post! Please do it more often :-)

Ryan also picked a spot just north of the sharp cutoff as his verification spot. Makes sense since it is a population center and close to his hood, but it does skew it a bit.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it also seemed to have a clue synoptically that it would tuck closer to the coast before kicking east.

To me it just seemed like a classic NAM/mesoscale over-correction. Like a sign things are bumping north a bit but as usual the NAM takes it way too far.

The SREFS were completely useless with consistent runs of 1.0" QPF or more in the Pike region. They even had like a quarter inch in NNE.

The global models are a lot less prone to the wild NAM shifts, and while it may have taken the globals a extra run or two to get there, the consistency was good in slowly moving north.

[CoastalWx]

I think we all agree about the factors that were red flags. You just need to know how to use the NAM. It's easy to see when to toss it, but you can use it to your advantage when you already have mass agreement on a storm. The NAM can actually help you identify and target areas for S+. But by no means should this storm now cause people to dry hump it. Let's see what happens with multiple s/w's involved with cyclogenesis.

[JC-CT]

To me it just seemed like a classic NAM/mesoscale over-correction. Like a sign things are bumping north a bit but as usual the NAM takes it way too far.

The SREFS were completely useless with consistent runs of 1.0" QPF or more in the Pike region. They even had like a quarter inch in NNE.

The global models are a lot less prone to the wild NAM shifts, and while it may have taken the globals a extra run or two to get there, the consistency was good in slowly moving north.

Yup. It went way north twice, then came back to earth. But I think I said that if the globals moved 10% to the NAM and the NAM moved 90% to the globals, if would be material to the areas on the fringe.

[CoastalWx]

Well the modeling leading up to this helped a lot with the sentiment of the SNE portion of the storm.

It's amazing how much that makes a difference in an opinion about a storm.

Had the models continued the huge hits they were showing at Day 6 (2-3" QPF in SNE), and then it regressed to where it did in the final 48 hours, everyone would be devastated right now. However the rug was pulled out from you guys with enough lead time to make peace with it, and changed the tune to "just give me 1-3 inches". Then when it comes back slightly to a better event it seems like a positive bust almost.

Just the timing of changes in modeling makes a huge difference in the "overall feel" of an event.

I never felt the rug pulled out feeling. It had that feeling of a MA storm all along, even without the bumps north at times.

[HIPPYVALLEY]

I don't understand how a storm that was advertised for a week by the media results in 18 deaths along the East Coast and 500 cars buried on the PA turnpike. Absurd.

[Damage In Tolland]

My brother in law had 13" in Colchester.

Does he post here under October 1979?

[Damage In Tolland]

One thing for sure .. The Euro blew

[codfishsnowman]

Awesome storm to watch unfold despite being fringed. Congrats south and east peeps.

even the difference from where i am to you is huge

[codfishsnowman]

Had about a half inch here extended looks like crap at this point I'm rooting for the least snowiest winter congrats to everyone that got it good

im with you on that...fk this lol......

[CT Rain]

Great post! Please do it more often :-)

Ryan also picked a spot just north of the sharp cutoff as his verification spot. Makes sense since it is a population center and close to his hood, but it does skew it a bit.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it also seemed to have a clue synoptically that it would tuck closer to the coast before kicking east.

 

I did BDR too

[CT Rain]

One thing for sure .. The Euro blew

 

Actually - Euro ensemble mean probably was close to the best for your backyard.

[Baroclinic Zone]

Does he post here under October 1979?

No, can't recall his screen name. He's only posted a few times.

[dan11295]

I think people in PA were caught a bit off guard, as the forecasters weren't buying into the NAM's high amounts for places like Harrisburg until closer to the event. hat said, always seems like the PA Turnpike is a bad place to during winter storms.

[Arnold214]

The haves and have nots.