NortheastPAWx Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 6 minutes ago, Snow88 said: Para has over 1.75qpf for nyc. Wow. Yeah, but there's taint for the city verbatim. A chunk of that is lost to sleet or rain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keno19 Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allgame830 Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 1 minute ago, NortheastPAWx said: Yeah, but there's taint for the city verbatim. A chunk of that is lost to sleet or rain. Also have a problem with that as well... a system this dynamic the only place that will mix or have a remote chance of rain is the twin forks.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem81 Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 4 minutes ago, UlsterCountySnowZ said: Just entertainment... It's a boy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnoSki14 Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 We'll probably see a widespread 12-18" storm with jackpots of 20"+ in the end. Due to some insane dynamics they'll likely be 3-4" per hour rates for some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormlover74 Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 Just now, allgame830 said: Also have a problem with that as well... a system this dynamic the only place that will mix or have a remote chance of rain is the twin forks.... I'm more concerned with the fast movement than qpf. Like I said it's not even 12 hours on the regular nam so heavy banding or not it's going to be difficult to see the big totals( not saying it's right just what this run shows) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jm1220 Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 Please stop with the bickering and overreacting. Those posts are being deleted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnoSki14 Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 5 minutes ago, Stormlover74 said: I'm more concerned with the fast movement than qpf. Like I said it's not even 12 hours on the regular nam so heavy banding or not it's going to be difficult to see the big totals( not saying it's right just what this run shows) The faster movement will only be an issue if you are looking at widespread 20"+ totals otherwise we should easily see 12-18" even with a 10-12 hr storm given the potential for very high snow rates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UlsterCountySnowZ Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 Ignore the last map it was 06z on accident... butttt........12z is Juicier than 06z... para Nam increased totals for everyone..fwiw Is that an Ulster County Jackpot I see? Totally kidding btw^^^ my money is still on Long Island jackpot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allgame830 Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 2 minutes ago, Stormlover74 said: I'm more concerned with the fast movement than qpf. Like I said it's not even 12 hours on the regular nam so heavy banding or not it's going to be difficult to see the big totals( not saying it's right just what this run shows) That is also another thing I disagree with what the NAM is showing. Better interaction is resulting in a better phase which will slow down the evolution of the storm. I can see only a 12 hour storm... even in 12 hours though with heavy rates that still could put down 12-18" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allgame830 Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 1 minute ago, UlsterCountySnowZ said: Ignore the last map it was 06z on accident... butttt........12z is Juicier than 06z... para Nam increased totals for everyone..fwiw Wow!!! That really is quite the increase... about a 3-5" increase across the board! GREAT TO SEE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nyblizz44 Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 No one and I mean NO ONE should be hyperventelating for any reason at this juncture. The vast majority of reputable modeling has swung strongly to a historic monster inbound. So we didnt get NAMed. Big deal. We are still not in its sweet spot which starts at 0 Z. Breathe and enjoy what is likely to be a bueatiful ride. And dont let the trolls get you down, there are some in here that like to get you down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WintersGrasp Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 Sure, it could be in and out for the most part in 12 hours..but at an inch per hour, that's a foot of snow. Throw in a heavier band for a couple hours, and it's easy to see why the NWS went 12-18". I'm still hoping for 8-12" but would love if we got more than that. A blizzard watch in mid-March...couldn't ask for more!!Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euripides Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 What happend to the storm crawling for a 24hr event? Now 10-12hrs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UlsterCountySnowZ Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 1 minute ago, Euripides said: What happend to the storm crawling for a 24hr event? Now 10-12hrs? Those almost never happen, always in and out faster than modeled Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJO812 Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 2 minutes ago, UlsterCountySnowZ said: Those almost never happen, always in and out faster than modeled Except with the great ones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rtd208 Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 1 minute ago, UlsterCountySnowZ said: Those almost never happen, always in and out faster than modeled I am not so sure its going to be as fast as the NAM though, I think it will be a bit slower, maybe not a 24 hour event but slower then what the NAM is showing IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superstorm Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 Those almost never happen, always in and out faster than modeled Yep, people have been spoiled by these 24 HR plus powder shows the past 20 years.6 to 8 hours is average snowstorm time.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weatherpruf Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 4 minutes ago, WintersGrasp said: Sure, it could be in and out for the most part in 12 hours..but at an inch per hour, that's a foot of snow. Throw in a heavier band for a couple hours, and it's easy to see why the NWS went 12-18". I'm still hoping for 8-12" but would love if we got more than that. A blizzard watch in mid-March...couldn't ask for more!! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro I would think this would actually make for a more dangerous storm with dreadful conditions for people stuck in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Gorilla Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 4 minutes ago, Euripides said: What happend to the storm crawling for a 24hr event? Now 10-12hrs? The gyre would have to stall and loop for that to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allgame830 Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 3 minutes ago, Superstorm said: Yep, people have been spoiled by these 24 HR plus powder shows the past 20 years. 6 to 8 hours is average snowstorm time. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk This will most certainly not be just a 6-8 hour snow event LOL... come on guys now relax!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F5TornadoF5 Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 RGem looks good up to 48, always a bit difficult to read black and white maps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snywx Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 12z RGEM @ 48 hrs.. She is a beaut way inside the benchmark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allgame830 Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 1 minute ago, F5TornadoF5 said: RGem looks good up to 48, always a bit difficult to read black and white maps. Even from looking at those crappy images you can see that there is a 994 MB low tucked in off the NJ coast... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UlsterCountySnowZ Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 RGEM is really tucked to coast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WintersGrasp Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 RGem looks good up to 48, always a bit difficult to read black and white maps. http://collaboration.cmc.ec.gc.ca/cmc/cmdn/pcpn_type/pcpn_type_gem_reg.htmlCheck that link..update it to 12z..the new RGEM is a BEAUTIFUL run for everyone Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJwx85 Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 Lol at 6-8hrs. This will easily last 12-18 hours. Need that blocking to hold a little stronger so we get more overrunning before the coastal ever gets up here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJO812 Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 Rgem is way snowier than the Nam . Looks like the CMC of last night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mranger48 Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 Rgem is way snowier than the Nam . Looks like the CMC of last night.According to tidbits it's got 10-11" by 12z Tuesday Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrye Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 47 minutes ago, F5TornadoF5 said: Except Euro/Ukmet/Cmc showing more. Overall I liked this run as well. Upper levels were better. All the models have their biases. That is why a met factors each in to a forecast but doesn't ride on any particular one. While the Euro/UKMet/Cmc may show more, they could be showing more because they don't quite have the right track or because their assessment of the storm's velocity is off ... as opposed to a bias. It's one good reason to consider the ensembles where possible. We've all seen examples of where such large amounts were spit out by the models and they busted. Point is ... let's weight the models properly in the forecast (and in reality) and not take any one model verbatim. If they were all in solid agreement with QPF and track location (which will never happen), that would be one thing. But ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.