Western Pa / Pittsburgh area Winter Discussion ❄️☃️

[MikeB_01]

Still be careful if you have to go out this morning. Pretty classic looking FZDZ on the sounding this morning. 

[TimB]

Just now, MikeB_01 said:

Still be careful if you have to go out this morning. Pretty classic looking FZDZ on the sounding this morning. 

The last observation at PIT was 28 with freezing drizzle, so I believe it.

[TimB]

My threshold for what would be “acceptable” is 4” or more, and 0” of plain rain.

I see the NWS hasn’t issued a watch yet. We’re about 48 hours, maybe a little less, from onset, depending on which model you like. Is the lack of a watch due to not wanting to confuse the non-weather-enthusiast peasants before this event is completely done, or because they’re nervous about issuing one after this past model bust?

[CoraopolisWx]

If nothing else, we now have a nice protective shell over the snowpack.

[TimB]

12 hours ago, KPITSnow said:

SOme perspective here....a lot of places around the country are in for a lot of hurt from this storm. The deep south, MA, and pacific northwest were all pretty paralyzed by it so I guess we got off a bit easy at least. TX, LA, OK, AR...they are all looking at a ton of power outages and near 0 temperatures. I am still amazed that Houston is going to hit the single digits tonight.

Ths was an epic artic outbreak, one for the record books, just not for us. It is going to be -5 in little rock tonight. -12 in Oklahoma City. 2 in dallas. 

By any measure, this is still historic and amazing to watch. 

Indeed. KDFW is sitting at -1 at the moment (a temperature we haven’t even come close to in two years).

[Ecanem]

3 minutes ago, TimB84 said:

My threshold for what would be “acceptable” is 4” or more, and 0” of plain rain.

I see the NWS hasn’t issued a watch yet. We’re about 48 hours, maybe a little less, from onset, depending on which model you like. Is the lack of a watch due to not wanting to confuse the non-weather-enthusiast peasants before this event is completely done, or because they’re nervous about issuing one after this past model bust?

I can tell you

i would be apprehensive if I were them after this storm. 

[RitualOfTheTrout]

19 minutes ago, Ahoff said:

Are we ready to be hurt again, lol?

Lol.. just give me a few hours and I'll be back to form. I don't see any threats after the Thursday deal, going to be weird not having 3 different storms to keep track of, not sure if I'm depressed or relieved over that fact. 

No real signs of ice here, guessing most of it melted off. Still have some snow on the ground, will probably glacierize throughout the day. I'd be curious after it all refreezes today what the liquid content is, not sure I have the tools to do a core sample on hand and melt it down though lol

I'm a bit surprised by the NWS map with 6-8.. That would make up for this last event.

 

[Ecanem]

So back on the old accuweather forums. There was this adage that all big storms shift west around 24-48h before the storm. 

Looking back at this last storm, I even said that being in the jackpot zone 48h out is a curse.  Right now we see that zone in eastern pa and the DC area.  So hoping we get that western shift to move the jackpot to us.  
 

I would have to go back but I’m pretty sure the December storm was a similar shift. 

[MikeB_01]

12 minutes ago, TimB84 said:

My threshold for what would be “acceptable” is 4” or more, and 0” of plain rain.

I see the NWS hasn’t issued a watch yet. We’re about 48 hours, maybe a little less, from onset, depending on which model you like. Is the lack of a watch due to not wanting to confuse the non-weather-enthusiast peasants before this event is completely done, or because they’re nervous about issuing one after this past model bust?

I'm also not sure that the probabilities support the watch yet. Someone correct me if I'm wrong ( i feel like we talk about this all the time, but i can never remember), but. i think the criteria for watch/warning is 7in over 12 hours or 9in over 24. 

 

I think we are more in the advisory range  and those don't get issued until 36 hours at the earliest.  Im not 100% sure though. 

 

WPC probabilities  show the chance is there, but not super high probabilities either.

[MikeB_01]

[dj3]

I'm surprised the NWS is bullish on this one. It looks like a relatively weak low and it doesn't really strengthen much as it turns up the coast despite taking a pretty good track for us. 

[Ahoff]

21 minutes ago, TimB84 said:

Indeed. KDFW is sitting at -1 at the moment (a temperature we haven’t even come close to in two years).

You're really a birddog on these negative numbers.  We get there quite a bit sometimes a few years go by, sometimes it's multiple times a year.  Dallas likely hasn't been that low in decades to over a century.  It's not like it's a new normal.

And if Dallas, TX can get below 0 we certainly will again in the future.

[TimB]

36 minutes ago, Ahoff said:

You're really a birddog on these negative numbers.  We get there quite a bit sometimes a few years go by, sometimes it's multiple times a year.  Dallas likely hasn't been that low in decades to over a century.  It's not like it's a new normal.

And if Dallas, TX can get below 0 we certainly will again in the future.

That is indeed true. So a quick glance says -1 is tied for 3rd on their list, so it’s about the equivalent of us getting to -18, which as we know is extremely rare.

[Burghblizz]

41 minutes ago, dj3 said:

I'm surprised the NWS is bullish on this one. It looks like a relatively weak low and it doesn't really strengthen much as it turns up the coast despite taking a pretty good track for us. 

Lot of moisture streaming up though, and better HP placement. I don’t think this has the 10” potential the last one did,  it I’d rather shovel 5” of snow than 10” of potential 

[TimB]

NAM looks good, all snow now but a pretty quick hitter.

[jwilson]

53 minutes ago, MikeB_01 said:

I'm also not sure that the probabilities support the watch yet. Someone correct me if I'm wrong ( i feel like we talk about this all the time, but i can never remember), but. i think the criteria for watch/warning is 7in over 12 hours or 9in over 24. 

This varies per region, but in Pittsburgh the watch is 50% confidence minimum in 6" over 12 hours or 8" over 24 hours (or 1/4" of ice).  You're quite close!

An advisory event is 3" over 12 hours, any freezing rain, or a "high impact" event.

1 hour ago, RitualOfTheTrout said:

Lol.. just give me a few hours and I'll be back to form. I don't see any threats after the Thursday deal, going to be weird not having 3 different storms to keep track of, not sure if I'm depressed or relieved over that fact. 

I'm personally relieved and need a break.  I don't mind having stuff to track, but having them stack on top of each other only a couple days apart makes it a headache.  It is quite difficult to resolve anything.  Plus we're coming out of this with nothing significant, so that makes the time sink even more frustrating, at least for us "big game" hunters.

[Ahoff]

So, NWS is at 6-8” for Thursday, Ron Smiley just had 2-4”.

Who’s going to win there?

[southpark]

3 minutes ago, Ahoff said:

So, NWS is at 6-8” for Thursday, Ron Smiley just had 2-4”.

Who’s going to win there?

Ron may be scared after his 6 to 9 call early for yesterday lol

[Ahoff]

9 minutes ago, southpark said:

Ron may be scared after his 6 to 9 call early for yesterday lol

Probably.  I think the NWS should be more scared as well.

[north pgh]

14 minutes ago, Ahoff said:

Probably.  I think the NWS should be more scared as well.

They should all be scared. It is too early to post accumulation amounts. They should use the old forecast from years ago and say ...snow with some accumulation possible. Wait until tomorrow when these models are more in line. 

[Burghblizz]

3 minutes ago, north pgh said:

They should all be scared. It is too early to post accumulation amounts. They should use the old forecast from years ago and say ...snow with some accumulation possible. Wait until tomorrow when these models are more in line. 

Right - I like the old “significant accumulation possible” as an alert. But I’d wait for actual totals.

Or you pop up a couple scenarios.

 

 

[jwilson]

Initial reaction to that 6-8" call is it's too high given the precip maximum on most models for this area hovers around .5" total.  We'd have to average better than 10:1 ratios for the duration to hit 6" of snow.  Under a couple decent bands that can inflate rates and maximize snow growth, that's possible, but I don't see support for it in the models right now.

If you go into the detailed view, anyway, the local forecasts call for a "wintry mix."  We're close on the NAM to that and maintain southerly winds for the duration, but we do stay below freezing at 850.  This isn't the same low pass as yesterday - even if the initial trough position is similar.

[north pgh]

9 minutes ago, Burghblizz said:

Right - I like the old “significant accumulation possible” as an alert. But I’d wait for actual totals.

Or you pop up a couple scenarios.

 

 

The Weather Channel is falling into that hype on accumulations by using weather models. 2 Days ago they had potential snowfall totals scrolling across their screen. They had Pittsburgh as 12-18 inches possible by Friday. We all know that long term models always show lots of snow for us. This is going to screw with the average viewer because now they won't believe anything anyone says about snow totals. I know in their case it is about ratings and they are just looking for extremes. I wish they would go back to the old TWC but they never will. 

[OutnOakmont]

No watches or warnings! It's got to be a sneak attack overperformer for us. My superstitious side is really coming out now after getting burned yesterday haha. 

[Ecanem]

Side note.  It’s colddd out. I live on a hill and shoveling my driveway ice  with a constant 15 mph wind and I’m very cold. 

[north pgh]

GFS took a step in the right direction for us. I would be happy with a solid 4-6 for our region.

[Burghblizz]

I’m not sure places north and west did that great, even into western  Ohio and New York State. Seems like a lot of low ratios and quick moving. I didn’t really look until now, but wanted to see what we missed out on. 

[TimB]

1 hour ago, Burghblizz said:

Right - I like the old “significant accumulation possible” as an alert. But I’d wait for actual totals.

Or you pop up a couple scenarios.

 

 

Has NWS Pittsburgh ever put the wording into their county forecasts like “light snow accumulations” or “moderate snow accumulations” or “heavy snow accumulations”? I lived in a CWA that did that at one point but this was ten years ago. (Of course, said forecasts closer to the event would say “about 5 inches of snow expected” rather than a less precise but more logical “3-7 inches of snow expected”.)

Of course, KMSN’s winter is a lot more predictable than KPIT in general.

[dj3]

Just now, TimB84 said:

Has NWS Pittsburgh ever put the wording into their county forecasts like “light snow accumulations” or “moderate snow accumulations” or “heavy snow accumulations”? I lived in a CWA that did that at one point but this was ten years ago. (Of course, said forecasts closer to the event would say “about 5 inches of snow expected” rather than a less precise but more logical “3-7 inches of snow expected”.)

I recall state college NWS doing that back in the early 2000s. There were several storms that had "significant accumulations possible" listed for a particular day/night in their point and click forecasts. Funnily enough I can't recall if PIT had that as well because I usually followed state college more for their detailed forecast discussions. 

[RitualOfTheTrout]

1 hour ago, Ecanem said:

Side note.  It’s colddd out. I live on a hill and shoveling my driveway ice  with a constant 15 mph wind and I’m very cold. 

Yeah I went out to check the cars to see if anything needed cleared off before refreezing and noted the breeze. That's one thing our storms have lacked this year is a wind component. I don't recall any that really created any drifts etc.