Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,600
    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

2 minutes ago, weatherwiz said:

I'm thinking that if CT is going to get pounded there will have to be some dealing with the dry slot. Dry slot is a product of the developing mlvl center's which happens right over us, but once they're east...the CCB gives us Hershey kisses from the sky

That really doesn't look to me like a good solution for CT outside of the litchfield hills. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JC-CT said:

That really doesn't look to me like a good solution for CT outside of the litchfield hills. 

IMO, it would result in big power issues. Obviously the shoreline is still cooked, but even the GFS has continued to tick colder with the BL in response to the increasing dynamics and heavier banding. We don't need 6...7...8''+ of snow for problems. Anyone getting 4-6'' is going to have problems and in this solution, 4-6'' is extremely reasonable for many. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, weatherwiz said:

IMO, it would result in big power issues. Obviously the shoreline is still cooked, but even the GFS has continued to tick colder with the BL in response to the increasing dynamics and heavier banding. We don't need 6...7...8''+ of snow for problems. Anyone getting 4-6'' is going to have problems and in this solution, 4-6'' is extremely reasonable for many. 

4 inches is my worry point for heavy / wet / sticky snow... 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, weatherwiz said:

IMO, it would result in big power issues. Obviously the shoreline is still cooked, but even the GFS has continued to tick colder with the BL in response to the increasing dynamics and heavier banding. We don't need 6...7...8''+ of snow for problems. Anyone getting 4-6'' is going to have problems and in this solution, 4-6'' is extremely reasonable for many. 

Yes that’s a fantastic run for many that would be even better than what it shows verbatim with the mid level look. An intense band would pivot over ct on NAM/GFS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sey-Mour Snow said:

Yes that’s a fantastic run that would be even better than what it shows verbatim with the mid level look. An intense band would pivot over ct on NAM/GFS

Exactly! We get screwed initially with the dry punch, but it turns out to be a benefit in the end. The evolution on those models would be about as perfect as possible for probably even all of Connecticut really. Hell, you could argue eastern CT could get "screwed" in the sense the band may lose some punch by then if occlusion happens quickly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TalcottWx said:

They're going with 3-6" for Hartford on North it appears. 

I just talked to someone at Eversource: they are definitely concerned. "We're hoping these forecasts are very wrong". 

I just spoke with one of their engineers about an unrelated job, and he said exactly the same thing. Said they'd been hoping the treat would fizzle lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, weatherwiz said:

Exactly! We get screwed initially with the dry punch, but it turns out to be a benefit in the end. The evolution on those models would be about as perfect as possible for probably even all of Connecticut really. Hell, you could argue eastern CT could get "screwed" in the sense the band may lose some punch by then if occlusion happens quickly. 

NAM or bust :weenie:

  • 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...