Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,611
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    NH8550
    Newest Member
    NH8550
    Joined

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, SnoSki14 said:

This is looking like a no go, agree with Snowman on this one, don't see why this won't trend further west. This is a late bloomer that's chasing the cold, not good for more than a few mood flakes. 

It’s moving even further west, and it’s amping more on all models, writing is on the wall, we’ve seen this movie before. Models underestimated the WAR/SE ridge until the last minute. There is no -NAO to push this further east. Like I said, I think even Rockland County, NW of the city where I live rains for a time. Orange County on north and west should be good for snow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 248
  • Created
  • Last Reply

A major issue is the primary low models seem to have that moves up into PA, and screws up the transport of cold down to near the coast. You can see it on the Canadian, GFS and Nam. The coastal will really have to strengthen fast and take over in order to cool it back down. Mid levels are also screwed until the very end. Northeast of us, there's more time for the coastal to take over and cool the column with a developing CCB. Pretty typical too-late miller B that nails New England. 

Inland areas though seem to be cold enough throughout to keep snow, but hopefully the primary doesn't trend stronger, which would mean more warm air.

I'm just not feeling this one for the city and coastal areas, hopefully I'm wrong. You'd definitely want to be in New England. Maybe the bigger threat late next week can produce, especially if there's a 50-50 low that can stop a primary from trying to cut. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, SnoSki14 said:

This is looking like a no go, agree with Snowman on this one, don't see why this won't trend further west. This is a late bloomer that's chasing the cold, not good for more than a few mood flakes. 

Okay then stop tracking this is you think that's the final solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, jm1220 said:

A major issue is the primary low models seem to have that moves up into PA, and screws up the transport of cold down to near the coast. You can see it on the Canadian, GFS and Nam. The coastal will really have to strengthen fast and take over in order to cool it back down. Mid levels are also screwed until the very end. Northeast of us, there's more time for the coastal to take over and cool the column with a developing CCB. Pretty typical too-late miller B that nails New England. 

Inland areas though seem to be cold enough throughout to keep snow, but hopefully the primary doesn't trend stronger, which would mean more warm air.

I'm just not feeling this one for the city and coastal areas, hopefully I'm wrong. You'd definitely want to be in New England. Maybe the bigger threat late next week can produce, especially if there's a 50-50 low that can stop a primary from trying to cut. 

 

EURO !!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, snowman19 said:

It’s moving even further west, and it’s amping more on all models, writing is on the wall, we’ve seen this movie before. Models underestimated the WAR/SE ridge until the last minute. There is no -NAO to push this further east. Like I said, I think even Rockland County, NW of the city where I live rains for a time. Orange County on north and west should be good for snow

Models are moving west. We have seen this time and time again so far this winter. Looks like a late developing Miller B which is great for New England.

Still 2 days to iron this out but we want the northern stream to come in faster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Snow88 said:

Models are moving west. We have seen this time and time again so far this winter. Looks like a late developing Miller B which is great for New England.

Still 2 days to iron this out but we want the northern stream to come in faster.

Yea and with that westward trend were killing the boundary layer... it’s not all good with this one to have a westward trend

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Snow88 said:

We need the low to transfer quicker if we want to see a few inches but hey an inch or 2 of snow on Xmas would be nice.

NYC max upside is an Inch or Two. This is a New England snowstorm , but you will see snow.

 

Anything less than 60 and rain is a win.

 

A C to an inch or two is a huge win and that`s all this ever was in NYC 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Snow88 said:

We need the low to transfer quicker if we want to see a few inches but hey an inch or 2 of snow on Xmas would be nice.

I’ll take any flakes flying on Christmas after the cards we’ve been dealt the past few years.

 

Ideally a quicker transfer to the coastal could push this to close to advisory level for our sub forum, but Yanksfan is right when you look at 500 that doesn’t seem to be the case so we be happy with our inch or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Sn0waddict said:

Could be similar to 2002? Just not nearly as strong. I was young but I remember it was rain to a very heavy snow.

2002 had a very strong mid level low which created a comma head band to the west in the cold air. If the 500mb and 700mb lows close off, moisture can wrap around to the west and from the north, creating that band. This probably won't be that strong until it's east of us. Maybe there can be some snow showers as it departs (for the coastal areas). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jm1220 said:

2002 had a very strong mid level low which created a comma head band to the west in the cold air. If the 500mb and 700mb lows close off, moisture can wrap around to the west and from the north, creating that band. This probably won't be that strong until it's east of us. Maybe there can be some snow showers as it departs (for the coastal areas). 

2002 was crazy strong Upstate too, a HECS for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jm1220 said:

2002 had a very strong mid level low which created a comma head band to the west in the cold air. If the 500mb and 700mb lows close off, moisture can wrap around to the west and from the north, creating that band. This probably won't be that strong until it's east of us. Maybe there can be some snow showers as it departs (for the coastal areas). 

Ya was only 12 at the time so I didnt know the evolution of the storm. Thanks for the info!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, uncle W said:

snowing at 8am Christmas morning and accumulating hasn't happened since 1902 in NYC...1962 came close when snow started after 9am...1966 came close when snow ended before 6am...

I was shocked to hear that even Boston hasn't had snow on Christmas since 1974

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is pretty similar to a slightly more east version of 12/15/89 bust.  I haven’t looked at the CIPS page but I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if that was one of the analogs.  This one is somewhat less deep at 500 over the OH Valley but the setup is similar if you ask me.  I don’t think we see much in the Metro at the moment but the door is open for that to improve slightly.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, SnowGoose69 said:

This is pretty similar to a slightly more east version of 12/15/89 bust.  I haven’t looked at the CIPS page but I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if that was one of the analogs.  This one is somewhat less deep at 500 over the OH Valley but the setup is similar if you ask me.  I don’t think we see much in the Metro at the moment but the door is open for that to improve slightly.  

Same thought for CT coast?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snow cover on Christmas morning ...
1883 probably had the snowiest Christmas with over 12" on the ground and 5 more inches Christmas day...1912 had 11.4" snowfall on 12/24...11" was on the ground Christmas morning...1966 came in third...
year...snow on ground...dates of storms...
since 1910....

1876.....1"

1880.....1-2".....

1883...12"+......5" 12/25

1884.....3".......3" 12/24

1892.....trace...

1896.....1-2".....

1902.......6.5" 12/25...

1904.....T-1".....3" 12/25...

1908.....trace........

1912.....11".........11.4" 12/24
1914.....trace........0.6" 12/24.....0.4" 12/21...
1917.......4"..........9.6" 12/12-14.....0.2" 12/17.....
1919.......3"..........2.8" 12/24-25.....1.9" 12/19.....2.1" 12/16-17
1924.....trace.......0.8" 12/24-25
1925.....trace.......0.2" 12/24-25
1929.......1"..........1.4" 12/23
1930.......2"..........3.9" 12/23-24...
1935.....trace.......0.4" 12/23.....0.4" 12/20.....1.6" 12/25-26
1945.......7"..........8.1" 12/19-20...3.2" 12/14...0.6" 12/10...rain Christmas night...
1947.......1"..........2.5" 12/23
1948.......5"........16.0" 12/19-20
1955......trace.......2.7" 12/22
1959.......4"........13.7" 12/21-22
1960.......1"........15.2" 12/11-12.....1.3" 12/19
1961.......6"..........6.2" 12/23-24
1962......trace.......2.7" 12/21-22......0.3" 12/25...rain Christmas night...
1963.......6"..........6.6" 12/23-24......1.4" 12/18.....2.3" 12/12
1966.......7"..........7.1" 12/24-25......1.2" 12/21
1967......trace.......1.0" 12/23....rain Christmas night...
1970......trace.......2.1" 12/21-23
1975......trace.......1.8" 12/22...0.5" 12/25...Rain Christmas night...
1980......trace.......1.0" 12/24...0.6" 12/23
1983.......1"..........1.0" 12/23-24
1993......trace.......trace 12/24-25
1995.......4"..........7.7" 12/19-20...0.5" 12/16...1.7" 12/14...1.5" 12/9...
1998.......1"..........2.0" 12/23-24
2000......trace.......0.7" 12/20
2002......trace.......trace 12/25...5" 12/25 after morning rain...
2009.......2"........10.9" 12/19-20....rain Christmas night...

 

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...