Sunday-Monday Snowstorm - 2nd Call Snow Map

Yes true, i just get worried about the South shore influence.

RGEM HOLDING STEADY PEEPS. IN ITS WHEEL HOUSE HERE!

Yea Jeff Smith sticking to what I think 3 to 6 south to north.

0Z GFS shows much less snow for NYC/LI. Snow-ice for the Lower Hudson Valley.

Doc, here's the second set of images you asked for:





The first one is basically referring to vorticity and advection of vorticity. There are two types: Negative and positive. The negative vorticity is created in ridges, and in areas of horizontal wind shear on the anti-cyclonic side of a jet. This energy can be thought of as energy in the mid- and upper-levels that contains the same properties as surface high-pressure systems (fair weather, sinking motion, clockwise rotation). Assuming (ideally) that this energy exists only in the crests of large-scale ridges (although this is not entirely true, it is a fair enough assumption to demonstrate) then as the wind blows through this energy, it actually takes those properties with it as it continues downstream. Similarly, the positive energy can be assumed to be created in the bases of large-scale troughs as well as in horizontal wind shear on the cyclonic side of a jet. Thinking of this energy as having similar properties to surface low-pressure systems (counter-clockwise rotation, inclement weather, ascent), as the wind blows through it those properties are also carried downstream. The first image relates these ideas to the jet structure from earlier.

The second image relates these concepts to the overall trough-ridge pattern. Between the ageostrophic circulation that I discussed earlier (remember, it decreases to zero at the maximum distance away from a jet-streak, "blows" against the normal wind entering jet-streaks and with the normal wind leaving jet-streaks) and now these most recent concepts, this is what actually works to cause surface high and low pressure systems. For example, if you look at any set of 300/500mb maps of jets and/or vorticity (the energy created in the most recent concepts) and then of the surface, you WILL ALWAYS find that surface high-pressures are located directly beneath these two combined negative forcings, which ends up being directly at the inflection point between a ridge and a trough. On the contrary, surface low-pressure systems are always found where these two types of positive forcings are located, which is ALWAYS at the inflection point between a trough and ridge.

Math23x7 wrote:0Z GFS shows much less snow for NYC/LI.  Snow-ice for the Lower Hudson Valley.

Wait, I was looking at precip type, but the snow totals still says ~4 inches for NYC.

00z GFS, almost jackpots me lol, cool how the GFS notices the 1000'+ mountains just a mile or two to the NW of me and gives them more snow.

snow247 wrote:00z GFS, almost jackpots me lol, cool how the GFS notices the 1000'+ mountains just a mile or two to the NW of me and gives them more snow.

That looks colder for LI/NYC not less snow

Nice run by gfs, s.id 3-6 for city and more N & E

I'm really not worried about the sun angle bs

Math where do you see less snow on the gfs map posted??

Pro mets aren't going to budge from the 3-6" range. At this point they would rather bust on the over than predict 4-8" and barely hit bat range. Even though I see us hitting the upper range plus in areas n and e of city

Jeff's future cast shows all snow now for NYC/LI. Yet still has 1-3"........

FWIW, TWC's future cast is also all snow. I believe that is the RPM which did show a mix for NYC earlier

aiannone wrote:Jeff's future cast shows all snow now for NYC/LI. Yet still has 1-3"........

Alex I did not see hi forecast but I thought Jim said Smith said 3-6"?? If not then I a, calling him out. What the f is he looking at?? This is what pisses me off everything showing a good snowstorm and they say no to it by giving a clipper type of accumulation, give me a break!

Got to remember its march 1st it does make a more of a difference near the coast during daylight hours but its been so cold this February will see how big a deal that is.

amugs wrote:

aiannone wrote:Jeff's future cast shows all snow now for NYC/LI. Yet still has 1-3"........

Alex I did not see hi forecast but I thought Jim said Smith said 3-6"?? If not then I a, calling him out. What the f is he looking at?? This is what pisses me off everything showing a good snowstorm and they say no to it by giving a clipper type of accumulation, give me a break!

Mugs, if might do so without aggravating you; I agree with them. I think the dynamics of this storm are going to end up being sub-par, which will result in lower totals than what we are actually seeing right now....just like the last event. I'm headed to bed now, and tomorrow will already be too late for an analysis/map, but I think a general 3-5" and at most 6" is all we'll see from this, with 1-3" south of central NJ. This is not a setup for a sizable event. Just my opinion, and I truly hope I'm wrong lmao

amugs wrote:

aiannone wrote:Jeff's future cast shows all snow now for NYC/LI. Yet still has 1-3"........

Alex I did not see hi forecast but I thought Jim said Smith said 3-6"?? If not then I a, calling him out. What the f is he looking at?? This is what pisses me off everything showing a good snowstorm and they say no to it by giving a clipper type of accumulation, give me a break!

Well he brought the 3-6" down to the GW bridge. You are in 3-6" but NYC/LI is in 1-3"

amugs wrote:Math where do you see less snow on the gfs map posted??

I was looking at the precip type and for some reason it did not have that much snow or ice in NYC and LI. Yet, the snowmap had ~4" for NYC on weatherbell (not sure if it's an assumed 10:1 ratio).

Craig Allen on PIX had 3-6" for NNJ across to North shore with 1-3" south shore and the city.. Jeff had bumped NNJ up from 1-3" to 3-6" from the 6:00 forecast. Sounds like the mets believe NYC will get the 3"

Just got home 11:20 p.n.  ALL local mets on the radio (4 different forecasts) say 1 to 3" NYC.  More North less south.  What models are they looking at.  Why not try to get it right.  NWS has 3 to 6"  Why the discrepinsy?  

rb924119 wrote:

amugs wrote:

aiannone wrote:Jeff's future cast shows all snow now for NYC/LI. Yet still has 1-3"........

Alex I did not see hi forecast but I thought Jim said Smith said 3-6"?? If not then I a, calling him out. What the f is he looking at?? This is what pisses me off everything showing a good snowstorm and they say no to it by giving a clipper type of accumulation, give me a break!

Mugs, if might do so without aggravating you; I agree with them. I think the dynamics of this storm are going to end up being sub-par, which will result in lower totals than what we are actually seeing right now....just like the last event. I'm headed to bed now, and tomorrow will already be too late for an analysis/map, but I think a general 3-5" and at most 6" is all we'll see from this. This is not a setup for a sizable event. Just my opinion, and I truly hope I'm wrong lmao

Rb 3-5" is not 1-3". So even with this they are setting up for failure, no??

Btw cmc is colder and a tad wette.

Yes I agree rb hope for more but unlikely.

0z CMC

amugs wrote:

rb924119 wrote:

amugs wrote:

aiannone wrote:Jeff's future cast shows all snow now for NYC/LI. Yet still has 1-3"........

Alex I did not see hi forecast but I thought Jim said Smith said 3-6"?? If not then I a, calling him out. What the f is he looking at?? This is what pisses me off everything showing a good snowstorm and they say no to it by giving a clipper type of accumulation, give me a break!

Mugs, if might do so without aggravating you; I agree with them. I think the dynamics of this storm are going to end up being sub-par, which will result in lower totals than what we are actually seeing right now....just like the last event. I'm headed to bed now, and tomorrow will already be too late for an analysis/map, but I think a general 3-5" and at most 6" is all we'll see from this. This is not a setup for a sizable event. Just my opinion, and I truly hope I'm wrong lmao

Rb 3-5" is not 1-3". So even with this they are setting up for failure, no??

Btw cmc is colder and a tad wette.

Yes. But my point is that I don't think we actually receive the numbers that are being forecast. That's all.

Good night all!!!

jimv45 wrote:Yes I agree rb hope for more but unlikely.

Jim, something tells me we are only going to see 3-4 inches with this one. NWS has us in 4-6 but I don't see it.