Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,606
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    ArlyDude
    Newest Member
    ArlyDude
    Joined

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


Ginx snewx
 Share

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, dendrite said:

But that first low at 12z helped back the flow a bit and keep 925 from torching too much. It doesn’t matter with a track like this…there’s enough forcing and dynamics to overcome it. Just don’t let it get too far east. 

The main track of the primary is always most important in winter storms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The North Atlantic SST map seems to show that the Gulf stream has moved a bit south of where it was during most of the winter, to around 38N, and that may be another small factor in favor of a snowier outcome, I would not want to see 55-60F water just a few miles away from ACK, instead it seems to be low 40s and even at the benchmark it's just 49-50F. This would also argue for rapid intensification as the low moves from 37N to 39N across the core of the Gulf stream and the last opportunity to interact with warm ocean. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

You in ASH? You’d be better off with a low near the elbow. 

I won’t be In ash unless stars allign perfectly , not planning on ash 

anywhere from S monads to N Orh to Berks ..I’m pretty sure I know where I want this one . I see a increasing chance that a far wide right low doesn’t make it that close to elbow either and ends up well East . I would take a low at elbow thou I just don’t like seeing ensemble members MSLP’s 250 miles SE of ack back Nw and stopping 75 miles ESE of CHH For a short glancing CCB even if that’s what it takes to snow in Boston 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, TalcottWx said:

What the f am I looking atScreenshot_20230311_181322_Chrome.thumb.jpg.ee6d7f76db8919b35a2ba68fbe412e9c.jpg

I think the issuance of specific snow amount maps at this time is unwarranted and does more harm than good.  The numbers on the these maps are going to change over the next 2 days, and when they do, all folks are going to remember is how much snow was predicted for their backyard and now it has changed.  It leads folks mocking forecasters; they don't care about the reason, all they know is the number change?  I am ok with forecasters issuing FIRST CALL outlooks with appropriate caveats.  At this stage of the game, I think it is completely acceptable to use general probability terms on maps.  Here some of the terms I'm using... Ex. Moderate to High probability of heavy snow of at least 10 inches; Moderate to high probability of seeing less than 10 inches;  Moderate probability of seeing excessive snow totals more than 15 inches;. Of course the numbers I'm using are subjective.  I fully understand the desire for numbers and the now expected call for media folks to post them.  But we posting numbers long before we have reasonable confidence in those numbers verifying.  A storm like this is a prime example of why many times you need to play it close to the vest.  Again, first call maps like 40/70's with his detailed discussion and caveats are fine, but I guarantee there maps being posted now that will undergo major revisions over the next 2 days.  Just some ramblings of an old forecaster; lol

 

 

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FXWX said:

I think the issuance of specific snow amount maps at this time is unwarranted and does more harm than good.  The numbers on the these maps are going to change over the next 2 days, and when they do, all folks are going to remember is how much snow was predicted for their backyard and now it has changed.  It leads folks mocking forecasters; they don't care about the reason, all they know is the number change?  I am ok with forecasters issuing FIRST CALL outlooks with appropriate caveats.  At this stage of the game, I think it is completely acceptable to use general probability terms on maps.  Here some of the terms I'm using... Ex. Moderate to High probability of heavy snow of at least 10 inches; Moderate to high probability of seeing less than 10 inches;  Moderate probability of seeing excessive snow totals more than 15 inches;. Of course the numbers I'm using are subjective.  I fully understand the desire for numbers and the now expected call for media folks to post them.  But we posting numbers long before we have reasonable confidence in those numbers verifying.  A storm like this is a prime example of why many times you need to play it close to the vest.  Again, first call maps like 40/70's with his detailed discussion and caveats are fine, but I guarantee there maps being posted now that will undergo major revisions over the next 2 days.  Just some ramblings of an old forecaster; lol

 

 

This makes a lot of sense, agreed

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...