Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,600
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    ArlyDude
    Newest Member
    ArlyDude
    Joined

February 3-4 significant icing event for the interior, some sleet/snow possible. Coast mostly rain.


NJwx85
 Share

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, NJwx85 said:

Watches/Advisories coming potentially

The GEFS probability
of freezing rain has been increasing with each successive model run
for this event, with a 50%-60% chance of freezing rain for KLGA and
just over 50% for KISP. The 21Z SREF also had between a 20% to 40%
chance of freezing rain for the city and Long Island, which are high
probabilities for this model, although the most recent run has
backed off on these chances. Finally, the deterministic models
generally came in colder with the 00Z runs. If this colder solution
continues, more in the way of ice is possible, especially because
that could mean the colder air filters in during a period of more
moderate precipitation. For now, went with ice accretion of between
a tenth and a quarter of an inch for western Long Island, New York
City, northeast New Jersey, the Lower Hudson Valley, and southwest
Connecticut. Elsewhere a few hundredths of an inch to a tenth of an
inch is expected. Higher elevations in the Lower Hudson Valley would
likely see the highest ice accretion amounts. Additionally, any
standing water from rain and snow melt will refreeze during this
time frame. While these values do not prompt Winter Storm Watches to
be issued (0.50" of ice would be needed), will have to monitor for
this potential if it looks like a significant impact to either or
both commutes on Friday, as there still remains uncertainty with the
exact timing of the transition to the wintry mix. Otherwise, given
these ice accretion amounts, Winter Weather Advisories would need to
be issued with this afternoon`s forecast package or Thursday
morning`s package.

This seems like a bad outcome to me. Hopefully it won't verify. Even a little ice is bad news. One other thing about some of the ice events over the years, the temps warmed up as the day wore on; seems here dropping temps are the problem, no? That would be bad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean the setup didn’t really change a ton on that run.  The NAM simply donked off all the precip back to PIT/ROC it had from 72-84 the previous run.  The thermals post 12Z Friday weren’t tremendously milder so ultimately if the QPF swing isn’t real the threat is still very much the same for now 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SnowGoose69 said:

I mean the setup didn’t really change a ton on that run.  The NAM simply donked off all the precip back to PIT/ROC it had from 72-84 the previous run.  The thermals post 12Z Friday weren’t tremendously milder so ultimately if the QPF swing isn’t real the threat is still very much the same for now 

I love how one run of the long range NAM somehow tops the rest of the guidance.

You would think everyone on here was either born yesterday or has a very short memory.

The NAM is erratic and unreliable until inside of 36hrs and even then it's susceptible to major run to run shifts. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, NJwx85 said:

I love how one run of the long range NAM somehow tops the rest of the guidance.

You would think everyone on here was either born yesterday or has a very short memory.

The NAM is erratic and unreliable until inside of 36hrs and even then it's susceptible to major run to run shifts. 

Who said it topped other guidance? Under 48 hrs so not crazy long range.  Yes one model but we are discussing model runs here right!?!?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Brian5671 said:

Who said it topped other guidance? Under 48 hrs so not crazy long range.  Yes one model but we are discussing model runs here right!?!?

The model gets a lot more attention than it deserves. It has scored a few points in recent years but overall it's terribly unreliable. The next run could give us 10" of snow. That's how wild it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, NJwx85 said:

Enough for the entire Hudson Valley to be under an ice storm warning.

zr_acc.us_ne.png

That seems like a plausible outcome.  If you are 50+ miles north or west of NYC, it's def time to pay attention.  Down here in the city, a glaze can cause headaches, but 1/2" of ice can cause real problems up by you all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, NJwx85 said:

Similar to what?

The NAM is currently the slowest of all the guidance to bring the cold air in at the surface and is weakest.

With ice accumulations for the tri-state and into SE upstate NY. Granted the FV3 is more bullish otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, USCG RS said:

With ice accumulations for the tri-state and into SE upstate NY. Granted the FV3 is more bullish otherwise.

The threat area really hasn't changed in several days. Truly amazing how locked in most of the guidance has been.

12z GFS is running. First big model of the day.

  • Like 1
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...