Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,589
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    LopezElliana
    Newest Member
    LopezElliana
    Joined

March 7th 2018 Coastal Storm Observations


Rtd208

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, weatherlogix said:

the others were worse....which was why I quoted the word "right"

I can’t think of one model that did well here. All at one point or another had 1”+ liquid as snow area wide (except maybe GFS but it was right for a bad reason). No model had a dry slot coming in and subsidence besides that from a mega band. The GFS thermals were definitely off when the intensity went up. The GFS had mostly rain here and we didn’t have mostly rain. 

One caution flag I saw that may have been a factor was a lack of lift in the DGZ I noticed on HRRR soundings here and it being dry above 500mb. But its radar and QPF were always heavy and pivoted the dry slot well before getting here. And no NJ mega band. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
27 minutes ago, RU848789 said:

Any reports from New Brunswick?  Just curiuos - also, I think there's an official station there - any idea how to check that?  Thanks.

Well Piscataway had 9-10, I'm guessing NB had more. I'm driving my son in to RU tomorrow the parking lots will be a mess. Schools in town closed I wouldn't be surprised if there were big differences in Woodbridge TWp itself. I'm betting the section of Colonia by the old Potter's Crossing had more. its very close to SCotch Plains and S Plainfield.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jm1220 said:

I can’t think of one model that did well here. All at one point or another had 1”+ liquid as snow area wide (except maybe GFS but it was right for a bad reason). No model had a dry slot coming in and subsidence besides that from a mega band. The GFS thermals were definitely off when the intensity went up. The GFS had mostly rain here and we didn’t have mostly rain. 

One caution flag I saw that may have been a factor was a lack of lift in the DGZ I noticed on HRRR soundings here and it being dry above 500mb. But its radar and QPF were always heavy and pivoted the dry slot well before getting here. And no NJ mega band. 

radar actually showed me just outside the yellow bands, which I am led to believe are the heavy ones. They were bike riding distance to my west. Yet SI to my east did better. Strange.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, riverrat said:

I can verify, 20" here in mountain view section. Have 4 trees down in my yard. Ugh.

If it makes you feel any better I still don't have power from last Friday's storm and now that I'm staying at my parents house a tree fell across the street and has blocked us in the cul-de-sac lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, nzucker said:

We didn't have much rain here, but it just didn't accumulate well until the rates got REALLY heavy later in the afternoon.

Staten Island and Southern Brooklyn/Queens lost a lot more to rain. Though even Bay Ridge, my old stomping grounds, had like 5". 

I actually think UHI was the biggest factor here. LGA was the lowest report at 1.7", and they have the worst UHI in the entire City. Staten Island has the least urban footprint, and they had 8"...the Bronx is in the middle and had 5-6". Bay Ridge, though far south, is really residential and did decently too, better than much of Midtown Manhattan well to the north.

I think also the system tracked west of the models.  Usually the heaviest snow falls 20-40 miles west of where you think it will and it did again  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, North and West said:

33325ad6420e1dc549defa967d96d797.jpg

The prelim to show the gradient.


.

Yup. I'm right in that light blue shade by a hair. Tell ya what, this is worse in terms of cutoff than 2/6/10 over here, and that's no BS.  I just don't care as much anymore. Getting too old for this.Looks like Sewaren and Perth Amboy had 1-3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, jm1220 said:

I can’t think of one model that did well here. All at one point or another had 1”+ liquid as snow area wide (except maybe GFS but it was right for a bad reason). No model had a dry slot coming in and subsidence besides that from a mega band. The GFS thermals were definitely off when the intensity went up. The GFS had mostly rain here and we didn’t have mostly rain. 

One caution flag I saw that may have been a factor was a lack of lift in the DGZ I noticed on HRRR soundings here and it being dry above 500mb. But its radar and QPF were always heavy and pivoted the dry slot well before getting here. And no NJ mega band. 

The models often did show on snowmaps a tiny area near the Arthur Kill with a lot less. Thought it was noise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup. I'm right in that light blue shade by a hair. Tell ya what, this is worse in terms of cutoff than 2/6/10 over here, and that's no BS.  I just don't care as much anymore. Getting too old for this.Looks like Sewaren and Perth Amboy had 1-3.

This storm seemed wonkier than 2/6/2010. That one had such a clean gradient, which we were on the wrong side of for.


.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, SnowGoose69 said:

I think also the system tracked west of the models.  Usually the heaviest snow falls 20-40 miles west of where you think it will and it did again  

The heaviest snows were always progged to be west of the river. It shouldn't be much of a surprise to anyone. I just think alot of people on here got burned by those snow maps. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, SnowGoose69 said:

I think also the system tracked west of the models.  Usually the heaviest snow falls 20-40 miles west of where you think it will and it did again  

Yeah, the actual track was probably more similar to yesterday's 12z/18z NAM, which freaked everyone out, rather than the colder 0z models that showed a massive snowstorm for NYC metro. That final tick back east may have been fictitious. 

Just shows how far we have to go in forecasting. The Euro had 13-14" for NYC, and the RGEM showed 50mm QPF as all snow..Central Park ends up with 2.5" and the outer boroughs end up with 6-8". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SnowGoose69 said:

The High Res RGEM actually did show rajn as the system pulled away

what about the hours of rain i (woodmere) had throughout the day today? I'm pretty sure the GFS insisted on it until last night - run after run

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, North and West said:


This storm seemed wonkier than 2/6/2010. That one had such a clean gradient, which we were on the wrong side of for.


.

I had to drive 30 minutes to the snow in that one. I only have to drive 7-10 minutes to nearly a foot in this one. That's some gradient. And I wanna say, people gave me a lot of noise just for reporting what I saw unfolding with my own eyes. And not just me. That really needs to stop. You aren't one of the offenders by the way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One last burst of snow outside. Surfaces beginning to be coated again.

And I disagree about just being fixated on snow maps. Models last night trended much colder and SE, with plentiful moisture and cold air except marginally at the surface. The Euro last night had 1.5” QPF where I am and expected about 1” liquid to fall as snow because it thought some initially may be lost to rain from the warm boundary layer. All other layers were below freezing. North and west where much more fell had less QPF in that run (but all of it as snow so it expected a few more inches there). The hi res Canadian also burned us again, consistently showing 9-12” of snow run after run. No model showed anything like what ended up happening today. Models at least had strong rates in the late afternoon areawide which didn’t happen here except for maybe an hour. Subsidence zones are always a risk in nor’easters, but this is an extreme case more like Feb 2006. The dryslot also was expected to remain offshore. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, snywx said:

The heaviest snows were always progged to be west of the river. It shouldn't be much of a surprise to anyone. I just think alot of people on here got burned by those snow maps. 

They were more than just west of the river though. I think eastern portions of NNJ didn't expect to do so poorly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While not awfully similar, this storm sort of reminds me of the March 6th 2013 storm for you folks in NYC. Despite rates in a really dynamic storm (got thundersnow in that too), many areas in DC itself didn't top 1" or 2". Pretty sure the storm dropped 1" QPF on DCA, and 1" QPF on Dulles Airport, but only 0.1" and like 3" fell respectively, despite heavy snow. Like I said, not a direct comparison, just details I thought matched up with this storm. Especially the heat island and lack of heavy snowfall accumulations in urban areas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, jm1220 said:

I can’t think of one model that did well here. All at one point or another had 1”+ liquid as snow area wide (except maybe GFS but it was right for a bad reason). No model had a dry slot coming in and subsidence besides that from a mega band. The GFS thermals were definitely off when the intensity went up. The GFS had mostly rain here and we didn’t have mostly rain. 

One caution flag I saw that may have been a factor was a lack of lift in the DGZ I noticed on HRRR soundings here and it being dry above 500mb. But its radar and QPF were always heavy and pivoted the dry slot well before getting here. And no NJ mega band. 

Agree 100%. There was one run of the HRRR this morning that cut totals back to around 7 in the city. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jm1220 said:

One last burst of snow outside. Surfaces beginning to be coated again.

And I disagree about just being fixated on snow maps. Models last night trended much colder and SE, with plentiful moisture and cold air except marginally at the surface. The Euro last night had 1.5” QPF where I am and expected about 1” liquid to fall as snow because it thought some initially may be lost to rain from the warm boundary layer. All other layers were below freezing. North and west where much more fell had less QPF in that run (but all of it as snow so it expected a few more inches there). The hi res Canadian also burned us again, consistently showing 9-12” of snow run after run. No model showed anything like what ended up happening today. Models at least had strong rates in the late afternoon areawide which didn’t happen here except for maybe an hour. Subsidence zones are always a risk in nor’easters, but this is an extreme case more like Feb 2006. 

Thank you JM. People respect you here so you won't get the grief I got for saying the same thing was unfolding over here. We got about 4.5 but when they are telling you to expect 12+ when your own eyes tell you it isn't possible any longer because it just isn't unfolding that way you shouldn't be criticized. People kept telling me stop whining because I was reporting that the storm was underperforming here. I can't report on what it did ten miles to my west because I wasn't there for chrissakes. I could see by about 2 pm that it wasn't gonna happen here. In the end I'm glad because the 4-5 of cement we got is a pain in the neck and causing all sorts of mayhem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, weatherpruf said:

They were more than just west of the river though. I think eastern portions of NNJ didn't expect to do so poorly. 

subsidence brother.. Anyone directly east of that band was skunked. Happens in all the big ones you just never know where till it actually sets up

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...