Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,585
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    23Yankee
    Newest Member
    23Yankee
    Joined

February 5-7 Wintry Mess Potential


weatherwiz
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, HoarfrostHubb said:

The roads are a mess from what friends are telling me.   Large area towns with long empty roads and small DPWs.   Takes them a while to salt.  

I was referencing my area more so as there is no reason for delays here but I’m asking you because you would know where schools get their forecasts from. Privately or from the NWS?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said:

I was referencing my area more so as there is no reason for delays here but I’m asking you because you would know where schools get their forecasts from. Privately or from the NWS?

Ours uses the DPW and doesn’t really use a forecasting service. The DPW does though. Not sure who they use though. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting that this system spent about two or three cycles where it adjusted SE across all guidance, in a lead time range where no other system this year has been able to exhibit that behavior in guidance'  They've all started going back NW earlier on - but of course still too late to have saved the hopefuls from their own expectation monsters.   

Anyway, it's like in a creepy sense of it, the models knew we were onto the seasonal trend and came up with a way to taunt by introducing that SE faux attempt, anyway.   haha.  

Seriously, I do still think there is a potential here to not see that surface low actually do what these guidance' are showing by slicing from ~ White Plains NY to PSM like that.  Here's the rub ...if these eye-roller/tossed NAM solutions show some genius there by squeezing a surface low ...oblonging it around the interior BL resistance ( not an altogether poorly theorized conjecture by that particular guidance regardless of the court of public opinion btw ), it may not mean 30 F icing anyway.  The mechanics may in fact decouple from the lower 3K of this thing and glide over the top of 35 F air ... It's a matter of density/viscosity in cyclonic inhibition and can happen anywhere in the temperature spectrum.  

My guess on the way this winter season seems to be 'spooky action at a distance' running out of it's way to personally violate the bums of anyone that dare's the impertinent dream of wonder and fun... my guess is that we will prove that the low does not go that far NW, while simultaneously "freezing" at 33.1 F 

But, the flow is fast ... and the GGEM is lining up two winter storms thru D10 ..roughly 3 day periodicity.  The Euro's got 'em too, but it doesn't have the cold in the lower troposphere and thus it's lower mean polar boundary is situated N and warm sectors/threatens those.  The GFS splits the difference.   Neither of these models have really blown us away this season for 'special insight' beyond short ranges so the take away from proving their fallibility is that ( imho ) the GGEM has just as much f'n right to be correct as the others.  Bottom line ...things to watch for so not a boring pattern beyond whatever really happens from this.  

I also think the wind potential in this event isn't getting nearly the coverage it needs.   Whether this low does do the less theoretically reconciled White Plains to PSM transit -vs- being blobbed around the BL resistance in the interior... in either scenario, the arriving motion of the total system offsets the PGF response associated with the deepening low pressure, such that we subtract the rapid storm motion from the velocity of the wind as an index finger rule. But, that has to be added back on the back side when the low pulls rapidly away toward later Friday. And it would be worse during those add-back times, because the low will have deepened more... ( Euro was 968mb at PSM I believe!) The 06z NAM shows a single interval pulse to 36 kts at Logan from the WSW ... There's a pretty whopper isallobaric wind potential here where restoring exceeds the PGF and we may get a problem where ever there is an ice load say southern VT/NH ... 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Brian5671 said:

LOL.   CT is so ridiculous with this stuff. CT DOT was riming I-95 last night  (For 38 and rain)  Silly waste of money

DOTs are use it or lose it for their budgets next year.   They'll be out sanding and salting like the hammers of hell for any minor event from here on out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, amarshall said:

DOTs are use it or lose it for their budgets next year.   They'll be out sanding and salting like the hammers of hell for any minor event from here on out. 

Yes, They have to use it, Waste of money or not or you get your budget cut then screwed the next winter if its a bad one and you run out of product before it ends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something fairly obvious ..tho I wasn't giving it enough consideration and probably should feel a little silly ... 

If you look at WPC's current sfc product found here:  https://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/sfc/90fwbg.gif 

... the surface high pressure is receding due-east.  That does mean the BL resistance is reducing in time. 

Yeah, I was was tacitly aware of this... but, looking at this and then factoring in the incredible wind max anomaly blasing off the MA .. maybe should have given it more respect. I mean the left exit region of that super-jet does partially clip roughly NYC-to BOS and points SE with incredible 100 to 130 kt wind at 500 mb ...etc.. 

This thing has just failed to thread the needle for us. That's the rub - you don't got much wiggle room with darts at mid range guidance/lead times. It could certainly have all situated just 100 mile E in whole-scale synopsis, but ...that's just the breaks.  The western ridge is ultimatley too far west...it's probably just a function of anomalous jet level velocities everywhere, that this flow is 'stretched' enough to bring this thing along it's total deep layer positioning at all.. Because technically the more typical r-wave length argument should have run this thing up through Buffalo. But then again ...150 kt wind maxes that are huge in also volumetric atmospheric mass transport...are not that common at 500 mb either so.. .we get what we get given the limitation integrating - 

Frankly I don't see how system behavior will be different going forward ... we need a pattern change.   Period. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...