The last hurrah? Putting all the eggs in the Tuesday 3/14 basket

[Damage In Tolland]

4 minutes ago, crownweather said:

It makes the snow map I created look like something else for sure.  Went with 10-15” south of ORH and 15-20” ORH to Route 2 .  CT River Valley may get shadowed and see 5-10”.  

That sounds pretty much on track . I know you know your stuff . Just gotta assume it was a mistake  . We miss the days with Walt and Ekster and folks that knew SNE wx and Climo 

[78Blizzard]

5 minutes ago, wxsniss said:

Agree this will likely change… unless anticipating further east all happens after 8pm Tuesday, and guidance has trended later with the further east captures 

The GFS 18z run had 4" for WOR after 8pm Tuesday.  But through 8pm it had anywhere from 7-19" depending on that insane cutoff.  So they must be ignoring the GFS scenario.

[TalcottWx]

19 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said:

Box map is an absolute mess . I mean beyond lol

What the f am I looking at

[Roger Smith]

Two questions about RGEM, I only see it going out to 48h on EC website, does it really go to 84 or does some vendor just find the corresponding GGEM maps and tack them on? And if it really does go 60, 72, 84 where do you find those? TIA.

[KoalaBeer]

4 minutes ago, STILL N OF PIKE said:

They are obviously very gun shy  with the idea of a a Strong CCB thru 8pm Thursday .

one of the more consistent features (if there has been one ) is the N stream heavy precip over Catskills and Berks and to a lesser degree the monads and they are keying in on that .

Also they probably have a good bit of continuity in their forecast and I think they would probably up elevations in NE CT and I would guess that if the CCB works out you can tack on 6-9” to that map? Where that hits 

Id like to see their 10% or maximum map to see their confidence level which I assume is low 

 

[TalcottWx]

I don't know what to say. 

[weatherwiz]

Ughh I typed this and it went away

but one underrated aspect of this that will have to be discussed is thundersnow potential. Some soundings are quite unstable through the DGZ…you get intense lift through that and you’re getting 3-4” per hour rates somewhere. And ratios will be better then 10:1

[Ginx snewx]

1 minute ago, Roger Smith said:

Two questions about RGEM, I only see it going out to 48h on EC website, does it really go to 84 or does some vendor just find the corresponding GGEM maps and tack them on? And if it really does go 60, 72, 84 where do you find those? TIA.

Tropical Tidbits Pivotal Weathermodels.com 

[Damage In Tolland]

3 minutes ago, 78Blizzard said:

The GFS 18z run had 4" for WOR after 8pm Tuesday.  But through 8pm it had anywhere from 7-19" depending on that insane cutoff.  So they must be ignoring the GFS scenario.

They ignored every single model and played pin the tail on the dinkey with mouse paintbrush 

[UnitedWx]

6 minutes ago, tavwtby said:

a little more on par for what I was thinking for mby, but ALY has me at 18-24, I thought the three stations were going to collaborate with the snow maps, after the debacle a few years ago, I think the box map is what shows all of SNE, no? but I'd be shocked if we get more than a foot here and BDL gets like 2-4, that is a sick gradient... although, I got 1.4 this morning and just up the hill a bit they got close to 4

Several times over the past 40 years I've seen Bradley get practically nothing and Granby center get smoked, so between you and BDL it's actually easy in the right circumstance 

[STILL N OF PIKE]

9 minutes ago, TalcottWx said:

I don't know what to say. 

hopefully they bump it up , still 60 hours to go 

This is a downslope elevation dandy w putrid airmass in valley BUT the box 10% map seems to say if things go right anticipate this much ..that map seems more in line to me for Union area but we shall see 

 

[Roger Smith]

18z JMA has more distant stall like 18z NAM. I weight them 2% each so that moves the consensus 10 miles east. 

And where is the consensus (based on 30% Euro, 30% GFS, 20% GGEM, 10% UK, 6% RGEM, 2% JMA, NAM) you may ask? Works out to being a loop or stall 30 miles e.s.e. BOS at 978 mb. From that, I have to say that 2" for ORH is a heck of a gamble, must be based more on thermals than track and dynamics. I would go with 10" for ORH expecting 15-20 quite possible. I also wonder if the damaging wind and storm surge potentials are being underestimated. Lucky this falls halfway from full to new moon (at the moon's approach to its southern declination max which nowadays is a hefty 27 deg as we approach the peak of an 18.6 year cycle). I think that tidal forces on this developing low will add that useful 20-30 mile southeast pull at around 12-18z Tuesday. 

[ineedsnow]

Think there just playing it safe for now



Heavy Wet Snow Threat...

As mentioned above, strong jet dynamics, explosive deepening/
intensification and duration of event supports qpf up to 2 inches
per ensembles and 3+ inches per deterministic guidance! Definitely a
lack of cold air on the front end of this system, with only a 1020
mb high over southeast Quebec, but this is common for mid March.
Thus, cold air for snow will have to come from dynamical and
diabatic cooling processes, which is possible given the high qpf
from ensembles and deterministic guidance. As mentioned above, the
exact timing, location and evolution of closed low south of New
England will determine rain/snow line. Typically this time of year
elevation is favored for heavy wet snow, but given the 2-3" of qpf,
it can snow at lower elevations, including the coastline, depending
on where the dynamical and diabatic cooling processes take place. So
the eventual track and evolution of this system will have to be
watched closely. Current guidance (ensembles and deterministic) and
trends support a moderate to high risk for 6-12" (possibly higher
amounts) across northwest CT into western MA, including northern
Worcester County. Given this, a Winter Storm Watch has been issued
for this area beginning Monday evening and continuing into Wed
morning. Less snow is expected south and east, closer to the storm
track and warm airmass. Although, still 2-3 days away, so forecast
adjustments are likely. If these heavy wet snow amounts materialize,
the threat of power outages will exist, and is concerning given the
duration of this event.

[STILL N OF PIKE]

6 minutes ago, UnitedWx said:

Several times over the past 40 years I've seen Bradley get practically nothing and Granby center get smoked, so between you and BDL it's actually easy in the right circumstance 

Ya it’s not hard to see that for NW CT to BDL with this airmass and downsloping . Seems like a literal recipe for a gradient 

[Torch Tiger]

2 minutes ago, ineedsnow said:

Think there just playing it safe for now



Heavy Wet Snow Threat...

As mentioned above, strong jet dynamics, explosive deepening/
intensification and duration of event supports qpf up to 2 inches
per ensembles and 3+ inches per deterministic guidance! Definitely a
lack of cold air on the front end of this system, with only a 1020
mb high over southeast Quebec, but this is common for mid March.
Thus, cold air for snow will have to come from dynamical and
diabatic cooling processes, which is possible given the high qpf
from ensembles and deterministic guidance. As mentioned above, the
exact timing, location and evolution of closed low south of New
England will determine rain/snow line. Typically this time of year
elevation is favored for heavy wet snow, but given the 2-3" of qpf,
it can snow at lower elevations, including the coastline, depending
on where the dynamical and diabatic cooling processes take place. So
the eventual track and evolution of this system will have to be
watched closely. Current guidance (ensembles and deterministic) and
trends support a moderate to high risk for 6-12" (possibly higher
amounts) across northwest CT into western MA, including northern
Worcester County. Given this, a Winter Storm Watch has been issued
for this area beginning Monday evening and continuing into Wed
morning. Less snow is expected south and east, closer to the storm
track and warm airmass. Although, still 2-3 days away, so forecast
adjustments are likely. If these heavy wet snow amounts materialize,
the threat of power outages will exist, and is concerning given the
duration of this event.

No reason to go wild yet, but soon they will need to

[wxsniss]

15 minutes ago, STILL N OF PIKE said:

They are obviously very gun shy  with the idea of a a Strong CCB thru 8pm Thursday .

one of the more consistent features (if there has been one ) is the N stream heavy precip over Catskills and Berks and to a lesser degree the monads and they are keying in on that .

Also they probably have a good bit of continuity in their forecast and I think they would probably up elevations in NE CT and I would guess that if the CCB works out you can tack on 6-9” to that map? Where that hits 

Id like to see their 10% or maximum map to see their confidence level which I assume is low 

I’d have more confidence northcentral CT up to ORH than depicted… that area pretty consistently hit 

[CPcantmeasuresnow]

1 hour ago, 78Blizzard said:

Despite the mess, still not a bad outcome in the end here.

Not much wiggle room for me. From 1 inch to 15 inches in a 30 mile span. 

[EMontpelierWhiteout]

33 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said:

You wonder if Stevie Wonder was at the desk 

Maybe they are being objective, rather than looking through thick snow goggles.

[Snowcrazed71]

18 minutes ago, TalcottWx said:

I don't know what to say. 

Don't get discouraged man. I feel like this has been a yo-yo ride. But there's no definitive answer on what's going to happen yet. Today's models were so all over the place. There's just no way to say which way it's going to go. I wouldn't worry or rejoice until later tonight's model runs. 

[STILL N OF PIKE]

9 minutes ago, wxsniss said:

I’d have more confidence northcentral CT up to ORH than depicted… that area pretty consistently hit 

You can see they show the upside exactly over there on there 10% max map that was posted 20 min ago . Lots of details to work out . 
 

They have not much upside over Emass thru 8pm , but those maps are a bit 2 cute we simply need a consolidated low to track like 12z gfs and many more will score hugely ,  seems that has been more the exception than the rule last few model runs . That 12z run would destroy their 10% potential over E mass . 

[ineedsnow]

It's still amazing me how the CMC and RGEM are pretty much exact with their snowfall maps 

[Henry's Weather]

2 minutes ago, EMontpelierWhiteout said:

Maybe they are being objective, rather than looking through thick snow goggles.

"Objective" is different than being responsible for damage-control. The NWS can't forecast a snowy solution for borderline areas because they are responsible for public works' mobilization, not because they are strictly following guidance. Strict adherence to guidance = "objective", only yields a snowier forecast than the one they put out. They are more conservative not for the purpose of fundamental accuracy, but for risk management at this distance 

[Damage In Tolland]

11 minutes ago, Torch Tiger said:

No reason to go wild yet, but soon they will need to

Possibly your best post since we hung out in FMH so many years ago.

[ineedsnow]

8 minutes ago, wxsniss said:

I’d have more confidence northcentral CT up to ORH than depicted… that area pretty consistently hit 

Feeling good up this way but the NAM was concerning even if it is a crap model 

[donsutherland1]

27 minutes ago, 78Blizzard said:

The GFS 18z run had 4" for WOR after 8pm Tuesday.  But through 8pm it had anywhere from 7-19" depending on that insane cutoff.  So they must be ignoring the GFS scenario.

The map only goes through 8 pm Tuesday. 

[Damage In Tolland]

6 minutes ago, EMontpelierWhiteout said:

Maybe they are being objective, rather than looking through thick snow goggles.

Maybe you’ve had a few beers?

[8611Blizz]

[Snowcrazed71]

1 minute ago, ineedsnow said:

It's still amazing me how the CMC and RGEM are pretty much exact with their snowfall maps 

But some are taking the GFS run, and the NAM run like that's the final result.

[TauntonBlizzard2013]

40 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said:

You just have to assume it was a huge mistake and someone completely screwed up . Maybe it was bring your infant to work day in the office and the baby took the mouse over .

You wonder if someone brought a keg to work?

[TheSnowman]

31 minutes ago, KoalaBeer said:

 

BAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!!  
 

Even The High End 1 in 10 Map is a Freaking Disastah!  
 

Doesn’t everyone know, when a Winters trend THIS bad for 4 1/2 Straight Months of screwing everything Possible, it Continues to do so.  That’s the Law 99% of the time.  In the same way 1995-1996, 2002-2003, 2004-2005, 2014-2015 you Couldn’t get screwed if you Tried.  
 

The Trend is your friend….. unless it’s not.  And 2022-2023…. Is One of those NOT Years.