Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,601
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    ArlyDude
    Newest Member
    ArlyDude
    Joined

March 13-14th Nor'easter Threat


NJwx85
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, EastonSN+ said:

Not in mid March this year and with this type of la Nina year. 

ugh not this again lol, la ninas are actually much more likely to have March snowstorms here.

It's just that there isn't much cold air around.  We need an airmass with temps in the upper 20s and lower 30s.

also people realize that it just doesn't snow a lot after the first week of March,  that's our climate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

ugh not this again lol, la ninas are actually much more likely to have March snowstorms here.

It's just that there isn't much cold air around.  We need an airmass with temps in the upper 20s and lower 30s.

also people realize that it just doesn't snow a lot after the first week of March,  that's our climate.

Ugh you are incorrect.

This was a record west coast trough and a strongly coupled La Nina. We do not snow in March in strong la Ninas.

We love El Ninos, but a strong El Nino like 97/98 we had perfect benchmark tracks and they all failed as it was too strong. Same here with the la Nina.

You are broad brushing Nina's which is 100% incorrect. Yes we snow in March in a weaker Nina. This year was historic. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Why is this storm SO small and why have storms recently been small like this?  January 1996 in this position would have heavy snow all the way back to the midwest.

January 2016 too.

 

If there is a closed 500mb low there is a good feed of moisture back to the west up to the point the flow backs around to northerly behind the closed low. If the upper air low supports transporting moisture west, it’ll do so. If there’s an open wave trough and it’s too progressive, that doesn’t happen. 

Jan 1996, 2016, Feb 2003 etc were Gulf origin lows with a huge moisture feed ahead of those lows into a dome of cold air that the moisture overran. That helped create the huge area of snow and it’s another reason you want a large high pressure area for the low to head into. The massive overrunning surface creates a large area of heavy snow. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jm1220 said:

If there is a closed 500mb low there is a good feed of moisture back to the west up to the point the flow backs around to northerly behind the closed low. If the upper air low supports transporting moisture west, it’ll do so. If there’s an open wave trough and it’s too progressive, that doesn’t happen. 

Jan 1996, 2016, Feb 2003 etc were Gulf origin lows with a huge moisture feed ahead of those lows into a dome of cold air that the moisture overran. That helped create the huge area of snow and it’s another reason you want a large high pressure area for the low to head into. The massive overrunning surface creates a large area of heavy snow. 

I guess that's why el ninos or la ninas that happen after el ninos are better for that sort of thing.  If I remember correctly, we had the same thing on February 2, 2021, but the storm was a hugger so the highest snowfall amounts were near Binghamton.  Still getting a foot or more even down here was pretty amazing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, EastonSN+ said:

Ugh you are incorrect.

This was a record west coast trough and a strongly coupled La Nina. We do not snow in March in strong la Ninas.

We love El Ninos, but a strong El Nino like 97/98 we had perfect benchmark tracks and they all failed as it was too strong. Same here with the la Nina.

You are broad brushing Nina's which is 100% incorrect. Yes we snow in March in a weaker Nina. This year was historic. 

 

 

I'm mostly referring to ones like March 1956 and March 2018 and April of both years though.

It is much more about that persistent and extreme west coast trough.  This la nina would have had a March 2018 result if it weren't for that trough being so extreme.  That extreme west coast trough wasn't caused by the la nina either, because la ninas don't produce all that rain and snow in California.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LibertyBell said:

More likely Tuesday than Monday?  Since this seems to be a rain to snow scenario.

I’m just referring to the timeframe of the storm. For NYC and nearby areas, Tuesday could be the better bet. We should get a lot of precipitation and strong winds, even if the snow disappoints.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, donsutherland1 said:

I’m just referring to the timeframe of the storm. For NYC and nearby areas, Tuesday could be the better bet. We should get a lot of precipitation and strong winds, even if the snow disappoints.

Sounds more like a further NW Fools Day 1997 rather than March 2001.

Or maybe a combo of those 2 storms.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NJwx85 said:

I think the danger is we're three days out and a lot can go wrong. IE the low developing too late or dynamics not being strong enough to cool the BL ect. 

But as things stand now verbatim, I think most would do very well. It wouldn't be an epic blizzard for the coast but it would easily be the biggest snowfall of the season.

 

Yeah I have no concerns about the air mass with this unless it basically just tracks so far east it misses but if this thing goes up over SNE its likely going to snow everywhere 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, SnowGoose69 said:

 

Yeah I have no concerns about the air mass with this unless it basically just tracks so far east it misses but if this thing goes up over SNE its likely going to snow everywhere 

what do you think of a combo analog of Fools Day 1997 and March 2001 for this storm?  Further NW of course

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

what caused us to bust in Fools Day 1997?  also a late capture from a flat ridge?

 

The upper low position funneled the precip/snow into SNE and dry slotted most of us. We need the upper low further south to avoid that outcome. I don’t remember 4/1/97 at all, probably for the best. Would’ve been infuriating. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, jm1220 said:

The upper low position funneled the precip/snow into SNE and dry slotted most of us. We need the upper low further south to avoid that outcome. I don’t remember 4/1/97 at all, probably for the best. Would’ve been infuriating. 

Being after our greatest winter made it less annoying than most.

The prediction was for 8-16 inches of snow lol

We got 1-2 and closer to 1.

More snow south of us on the Jersey Shore (6-8) and a lot more snow north and northeast of us.

Sort of the same thing happened in April 1996 but we got 4-5 inches here and the dryslot was over the city, while south of us on the Jersey Coast got 6-8 inches and in Suffolk County it was 12-16 inches with blizzard conditions all the way to the Hamptons.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, SnowGoose69 said:

 

We dry slotted more or less...we were cold enough 

Yep, hence the 6-8 inches of snow on the Jersey Shore (same thing happened in April 1996 but at least JFK and western Nassau county got 4-5 inches in that one).

The 6-12 inch prediction for the city in April 1996 was a bust though and an even bigger bust was the 8-16 inch prediction for the city in April 1997.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

I'm mostly referring to ones like March 1956 and March 2018 and April of both years though.

It is much more about that persistent and extreme west coast trough.  This la nina would have had a March 2018 result if it weren't for that trough being so extreme.  That extreme west coast trough wasn't caused by the la nina either, because la ninas don't produce all that rain and snow in California.

 

Take a look at the trough positioning. You will see why California had all this precipitation. It's still a west coast trough displaced west of the Rockies. That is la Nina.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, EastonSN+ said:

Take a look at the trough positioning. You will see why California had all this precipitation. It's still a west coast trough displaced west of the Rockies. That is la Nina.

But we had this discussion before about the -PNA getting to less negative than -1 helping out.

All that rain in California is actually more like an el nino, if it were like a la nina the trough would be crashing into the Pac NW.

When this happened in December and January do you remember we said that all this rain and snow in California was more like a strong el nino and the records for rainfall being broken were from 1982-83?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LibertyBell said:

But we had this discussion before about the -PNA getting to less negative than -1 helping out.

All that rain in California is actually more like an el nino, if it were like a la nina the trough would be crashing into the Pac NW.

When this happened in December and January do you remember we said that all this rain and snow in California was more like a strong el nino and the records for rainfall being broken were from 1982-83?

 

That was January only. December February and March had a deep trough over California allowing the storms to move South and the cold air to drain. Please take a look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, EastonSN+ said:

El Nino looks like this. It's a positive PNA undercut by a strong PAC. A la Nina is the opposite with a trough.

74225430_GRAPHIC-WintertimeElNinopattern-square.jpg.0cdff785fe28dacdf8d05b010e0a3396.jpg

But still has the extreme rainfall into California, which is why this year broke records from 1982-83.

But isn't a la nina supposed to be dry in California?  I remember previous la nina years were so dry in California that they had forest fires.....in winter!

  • 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...