Dark Star Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 2 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said: Its deepening will bring in some colder air, but the overall air mass involved isn’t especially cold. There might be some moderate wet snow at the height of the storm, but it will be a fast mover. Most of its precipitation will fall over a 12-hour period and it won’t all be accumulating snow. This morning, Quebec is generally in the mid 20s. Obviously this will change, but this area will likely warm as temperatures are expected to hit near 60 in NE Jersey on Saturday. You would need some rapid cooling in Northern New England Sunday into Monday for any cold air to be tapped into? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allgame830 Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 Right it’s never accumulated in the past with 50/60’s in the days leading up to a storm…. 1 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibertyBell Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 6 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said: Its deepening will bring in some colder air, but the overall air mass involved isn’t especially cold. There might be some moderate wet snow at the height of the storm, but it will be a fast mover. Most of its precipitation will fall over a 12-hour period and it won’t all be accumulating snow. Is the real issue not having enough - NAO blocking? I noticed that even when the AO is negative, the NAO doesn't seem to turn negative anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJO812 Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 1 minute ago, allgame830 said: Right it’s never accumulated in the past with 50/60’s in the days leading up to a storm…. Exactly People are being way too cautious. I understand if the track changes though. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibertyBell Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 3 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said: Several inches is something that's on the table. 6" or above is unlikely. I think we should be happy if we get 2-3 from this storm. 3-5 is still possible but unlikely near the coast. I just don't understand the forecasts saying zero accumulation for the coast. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJO812 Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 Just now, LibertyBell said: I think we should be happy if we get 2-3 from this storm. 3-5 is still possible but unlikely near the coast. I just don't understand the forecasts saying zero accumulation for the coast. Maybe they think it will trend west but at least forecast some snow.. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 Recent NBE estimates for NYC: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibertyBell Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 1 minute ago, donsutherland1 said: Recent NBE estimates for NYC: I like that we use only 0z and 12z model runs for this and the amounts seem to be going up, slightly.... I like a forecast of 2-3 for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILoveWinter Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 2 minutes ago, MJO812 said: Exactly People are being way too cautious. I understand if the track changes though. Yea it's about rates and dynamic cooling. Accumulation will happen if we have both regardless of antecedent airmass. The same is true for the opposite scenario, just look at the paltry accumulation in NYC during that 2nd "event" a few weeks ago even though the airmass in place was plenty cold. Rates just stunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 Just now, LibertyBell said: I like that we use only 0z and 12z model runs for this and the amounts seem to be going up, slightly.... I like a forecast of 2-3 for now. It comes out hourly, but I post the 0z and 12z numbers. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibertyBell Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 2 minutes ago, MJO812 said: Maybe they think it will trend west but at least forecast some snow.. It's good to see both the GFS and Euro show a south of benchmark track, however we will need some cold air, because a good track with not enough cold air is just cold rain or a cold rain changing to snow showers at the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibertyBell Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 1 minute ago, ILoveWinter said: Yea it's about rates and dynamic cooling. Accumulation will happen if we have both regardless of antecedent airmass. The same is true for the opposite scenario, just look at the paltry accumulation in NYC during that 2nd "event" a few weeks ago even though the airmass in place was plenty cold. Rates just stunk. Happening at the right time of day and preferably night will also help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEG NAO Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 4 minutes ago, LibertyBell said: It's good to see both the GFS and Euro show a south of benchmark track, however we will need some cold air, because a good track with not enough cold air is just cold rain or a cold rain changing to snow showers at the end. need a lower pressure more dynamic system passing across the Del Marva at a less progressive pace to give the colder air a chance to infiltrate the storm circulation...... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatamy Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 06z GEFS/EPS solutions are very close this morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great Snow 1717 Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 16 minutes ago, LibertyBell said: I like that we use only 0z and 12z model runs for this and the amounts seem to be going up, slightly.... I like a forecast of 2-3 for now. in the SNE subforum they would assume you are refereeing to "feet" not inches... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian5671 Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 30 minutes ago, allgame830 said: Right it’s never accumulated in the past with 50/60’s in the days leading up to a storm…. Urban areas may struggle...ground is warm and the days leading up to the storm are warm-a night time event with heavy rates would do the trick however. Best shot is N and W where you have some elevation to work with and closer to any available colder air.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatamy Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 14 minutes ago, NEG NAO said: got any graphics to support this ? plus 06Z = outdated data Look on Pivotal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 23 minutes ago, LibertyBell said: I like that we use only 0z and 12z model runs for this and the amounts seem to be going up, slightly.... I like a forecast of 2-3 for now. I think the focus on a light event is warranted until there is more support for something bigger. The GFS is too aggressive. Apparently, a social media account compared the upcoming event to the February 1969 Lindsay Storm (15.3” in NYC and 20.2” at JFK). But that account didn’t tell a key part of the story: the temperature for that storm fell from 34 into the middle 20s. Most of the precipitation fell with readings that were below freezing. That’s not the case this time around. Were there a similar air mass, then we’d be looking at a significant snowfall. One other omission, the 1969 storm was much wetter than what is likely this time: NYC: 1.82” and JFK: 2.49”. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brasiluvsnow Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 3 hours ago, wishcast_hater said: Sign me up. I'm in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastonSN+ Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 30 minutes ago, DDweatherman said: 6z EPS snow map Courtesy of MA forum. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibertyBell Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 6 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said: I think the focus on a light event is warranted until there is more support for something bigger. The GFS is too aggressive. Apparently, a social media account compared the upcoming event to the February 1969 Lindsay Storm (15.3” in NYC and 20.2” at JFK). But that account didn’t tell a key part of the story: the temperature for that storm fell from 34 into the middle 20s. Most of the precipitation fell with readings that were below freezing. That’s not the case this time around. Were there a similar air mass, then we’d be looking at a significant snowfall. One other omission, the 1969 storm was much wetter than what is likely this time: NYC: 1.82” and JFK: 2.49”. Wow, I thought it might be more like a lesser version of April 2, 2018 The Lindsey storm was an HECS lol. Why do we make these models available to the general public? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatamy Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 1 minute ago, donsutherland1 said: I think the focus on a light event is warranted until there is more support for something bigger. The GFS is too aggressive. Apparently, a social media account compared the upcoming event to the February 1969 Lindsay Storm (15.3” in NYC and 20.2” at JFK). But that account didn’t tell a key part of the story: the temperature for that storm fell from 34 into the middle 20s. Most of the precipitation fell with readings that were below freezing. That’s not the case this time around. Were there a similar air mass, then we’d be looking at a significant snowfall. One other omission, the 1969 storm was much wetter than what is likely this time: NYC: 1.82” and JFK: 2.49”. I believe the Synoptics with that event were quite different than those expected with this one. The ‘69 storm was a Miller B. The total snow amount where I was on the north shore of LI was in the neighborhood of 20-24”. I have a picture of 5-6 foot drifts in our backyard. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibertyBell Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 8 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said: I think the focus on a light event is warranted until there is more support for something bigger. The GFS is too aggressive. Apparently, a social media account compared the upcoming event to the February 1969 Lindsay Storm (15.3” in NYC and 20.2” at JFK). But that account didn’t tell a key part of the story: the temperature for that storm fell from 34 into the middle 20s. Most of the precipitation fell with readings that were below freezing. That’s not the case this time around. Were there a similar air mass, then we’d be looking at a significant snowfall. One other omission, the 1969 storm was much wetter than what is likely this time: NYC: 1.82” and JFK: 2.49”. I wonder if some of those 60s storms were undermeasured at Central Park because there's a few of them that had more snow at JFK. Besides the Lindsey storm (which also dropped 20" at LGA), there was also the February 1961 blockbluster which dropped 24.1" of snow at JFK (even though it mixed over at times!) That was the biggest snow storm at JFK until PD2, which was then exceeded by January 2016. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 1 minute ago, Tatamy said: I believe the Synoptics with that event were quite different than those expected with this one. The ‘69 storm was a Miller B. The total snow amount where I was on the north shore of LI was in the neighborhood of 20-24”. I have a picture of 5-6 foot drifts in our backyard. Yes. There's really no meaningful comparison between that storm and the upcoming one. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibertyBell Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 2 minutes ago, Tatamy said: I believe the Synoptics with that event were quite different than those expected with this one. The ‘69 storm was a Miller B. The total snow amount where I was on the north shore of LI was in the neighborhood of 20-24”. I have a picture of 5-6 foot drifts in our backyard. Maybe undermeasured at Central Park, like perhaps February 1961 also was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jm1220 Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 40 minutes ago, LibertyBell said: I think we should be happy if we get 2-3 from this storm. 3-5 is still possible but unlikely near the coast. I just don't understand the forecasts saying zero accumulation for the coast. If it can snow heavily it will definitely stick. Midtown might be tough as it always is but a little distance away should be fine. But we’d be in much better shape if we weren’t going into it with 50s temps to deal with. The storm will have to be dynamic to bring cold air down with good rates. The SNE crew is excited for this for good reason, since the almost universal trend for these stronger southern branch storms is north at the end and it could very easily end up congrats I-90. I just don’t want people to set up for disappointment. In 2 days if we’re still staring at a good hit I’ll be thrilled to change my mind. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 Just now, LibertyBell said: I wonder if some of those 60s storms were undermeasured at Central Park because there's a few of them that had more snow at JFK. Besides the Lindsey storm (which also dropped 20" at LGA), there was also the February 1961 blockbluster which dropped 24.1" of snow at JFK (even though it mixed over at times!) That was the biggest snow storm at JFK until PD2, which was then exceeded by January 2016. More snow fell out at Queens and on parts of Long Island than Central Park in the 1969 storm. The storm total precipitation was quite a bit higher at JFK (2.49") than at Central Park (1.82"). JFK sometimes receives more snow depending on the storm's track, dynamics, etc. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibertyBell Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 1 minute ago, donsutherland1 said: More snow fell out at Queens and on parts of Long Island than Central Park in the 1969 storm. The storm total precipitation was quite a bit higher at JFK (2.49") than at Central Park (1.82"). JFK sometimes receives more snow depending on the storm's track, dynamics, etc. Yes, I've found that as long as it doesn't change over or mix (much), JFK does better because it's close to the ocean. Was February 1961 also one of these cases-- did JFK have more moisture than NYC in this one too, Don? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatamy Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 2 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said: More snow fell out at Queens and on parts of Long Island than Central Park in the 1969 storm. The storm total precipitation was quite a bit higher at JFK (2.49") than at Central Park (1.82"). JFK sometimes receives more snow depending on the storm's track, dynamics, etc. There was also banding with it which is common with those types of events. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hudsonvalley21 Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said: Recent NBE estimates for NYC: Don, does it have estimates for other locations inland such as KSWF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now