JAN 6th-7th Storm Part II

It’s over snow stop sun is trying to come out

4.25 total from storm. 34* this morning cut down greatly on accumulations drom the 3 hours of heavy to moderate wrap around snows.

Ended up with 9.3 inches here. I couldn't quite make the double digits so many just 10-15 miles north and west of me enjoyed.

Still a nice storm, I'll enjoy it for a few days until the dreaded GLC. Definitely three more letters I have to ban from OOTI in addition to the already banned letters of MJO..

This link is cool. Search "new york" in the location bar and then use the zoom functionality to check out local snow reports

https://www.weather.gov/source/crh/snowmap.html?zoom=7&lat=34.21&lon=-95.69&hr=48

Considering how quickly this moved...impressive accumulations N&W

Frank_Wx wrote:Considering how quickly this moved...impressive accumulations N&W

I measured here this morning and we had 11”. Absolutely PHENOMENAL snowfall forecast, Frank!

Not sure what 1190ft got for snow moisture content, but ours was absolute powder last night. The couple inches we got this morning were definitely wetter, though, as expected. We did get a slight crust between the two snows from freezing drizzle that occurred after that main warm advection moved through, but before the wrap-around CCB.

My 11-17 approximation wasn’t terrible, but I took a beating everywhere else. In summary, I think my ideas on where the lower-level circulation would wind up were good. But again, the expected response was not. And the more that I sit back now that it’s over and think about it, there were definitely signs that I didn’t consider, and lessons that I can take away from this and (hopefully) remember. The most important one, I think, is that even though we had an overall favorable evolution at the 850 hPa level and below (toward the surface, i.e. the boundary layer), we were still working with a net southerly/southwesterly flow above that. It’s near impossible to snow on a south wind away from any elevations, and even there usually you still taint anyway. I’ve seen that movie too many times before, but apparently, I didn’t learn my lesson yet.

Another factor, and this is to heehaw’s earlier point, and it links in with the above, was  the strength of the trough out west (-PNA). I thought that given all of the other factors, its resistance to troughing over the eastern CONUS would be overwhelmed. The problem with that, though, is that it can only be overwhelmed to a point. We DID get the eastward shift; our storm was originally a GLC, and the boundary layer circulations did respond as I thought. The problem, though, was the mid-level circulations (H7 and H5), which both tracked to our northwest.

A third factor that ties in with my first two points, was that the above mid-level circulations were not strong or intensifying. This allowed the general flow to remain southwesterly thanks to the resistance from the western trough (-PNA), and we just had the boundary circulations embedded within it. So even though they tracked to our southeast, it really wasn’t a great setup, to Frank’s credit.

To my final point, I just want to thank you all for the support and acceptance of my apology last night for my poor performance with this event. It definitely means a lot to me. But I want you to know that I don’t take it lightly - yeah the discussion is fun, and when it comes to snow and even big, impactful storms, it’s exciting. But those of us who forecast also take on an inherent responsibility to provide you with the best and most accurate information that we can, because there are lives and property that are directly affected by what we say, and the actions that are taken in response to that. So when I get something wrong, yeah, I’m hard on myself, because there’s a lot of responsibility to account for. Plus, and a little more lightheartedly, I don’t like losing lmao but yeah, I definitely appreciate your understanding, and I wanted to make that clear. I’ll definitely try to do better for you all next time!

rb924119 wrote:

Frank_Wx wrote:Considering how quickly this moved...impressive accumulations N&W

I measured here this morning and we had 11”. Absolutely PHENOMENAL snowfall forecast, Frank!

Not sure what 1190ft got for snow moisture content, but ours was absolute powder last night. The couple inches we got this morning were definitely wetter, though, as expected. We did get a slight crust between the two snows from freezing drizzle that occurred after that main warm advection moved through, but before the wrap-around CCB.

My 11-17 approximation wasn’t terrible, but I took a beating everywhere else. In summary, I think my ideas on where the lower-level circulation would wind up were good. But again, the expected response was not. And the more that I sit back now that it’s over and think about it, there were definitely signs that I didn’t consider, and lessons that I can take away from this and (hopefully) remember. The most important one, I think, is that even though we had an overall favorable evolution at the 850 hPa level and below (toward the surface, i.e. the boundary layer), we were still working with a net southerly/southwesterly flow above that. It’s near impossible to snow on a south wind away from any elevations, and even there usually you still taint anyway. I’ve seen that movie too many times before, but apparently, I didn’t learn my lesson yet.

Another factor, and this is to heehaw’s earlier point, and it links in with the above, was  the strength of the trough out west (-PNA). I thought that given all of the other factors, its resistance to troughing over the eastern CONUS would be overwhelmed. The problem with that, though, is that it can only be overwhelmed to a point. We DID get the eastward shift; our storm was originally a GLC, and the boundary layer circulations did respond as I thought. The problem, though, was the mid-level circulations (H7 and H5), which both tracked to our northwest.

A third factor that ties in with my first two points, was that the above mid-level circulations were not strong or intensifying. This allowed the general flow to remain southwesterly thanks to the resistance from the western trough (-PNA), and we just had the boundary circulations embedded within it. So even though they tracked to our southeast, it really wasn’t a great setup, to Frank’s credit.

To my final point, I just want to thank you all for the support and acceptance of my apology last night for my poor performance with this event. It definitely means a lot to me. But I want you to know that I don’t take it lightly - yeah the discussion is fun, and when it comes to snow and even big, impactful storms, it’s exciting. But those of us who forecast also take on an inherent responsibility to provide you with the best and most accurate information that we can, because there are lives and property that are directly affected by what we say, and the actions that are taken in response to that. So when I get something wrong, yeah, I’m hard on myself, because there’s a lot of responsibility to account for. Plus, and a little more lightheartedly, I don’t like losing lmao but yeah, I definitely appreciate your understanding, and I wanted to make that clear. I’ll definitely try to do better for you all next time!

As I said to you last night weather is not a exact science, you got parts right and some not so right, but in part overall it did happen the way you could best forecast it. Curious if you can post your ideas on how bad the midweek cutter will be, dunno if you looked into it at all. Theres another thread for that. As for snowstorms onto the next whcih sounds like it could possibly be Sat? I wonder how many meterologists feel the way you do, of course we don't hear their take on themselves like we do from you. I would not say you need to apologize for anything.

rb924119 wrote:

Frank_Wx wrote:Considering how quickly this moved...impressive accumulations N&W

I measured here this morning and we had 11”. Absolutely PHENOMENAL snowfall forecast, Frank!

Not sure what 1190ft got for snow moisture content, but ours was absolute powder last night. The couple inches we got this morning were definitely wetter, though, as expected. We did get a slight crust between the two snows from freezing drizzle that occurred after that main warm advection moved through, but before the wrap-around CCB.

My 11-17 approximation wasn’t terrible, but I took a beating everywhere else. In summary, I think my ideas on where the lower-level circulation would wind up were good. But again, the expected response was not. And the more that I sit back now that it’s over and think about it, there were definitely signs that I didn’t consider, and lessons that I can take away from this and (hopefully) remember. The most important one, I think, is that even though we had an overall favorable evolution at the 850 hPa level and below (toward the surface, i.e. the boundary layer), we were still working with a net southerly/southwesterly flow above that. It’s near impossible to snow on a south wind away from any elevations, and even there usually you still taint anyway. I’ve seen that movie too many times before, but apparently, I didn’t learn my lesson yet.

Another factor, and this is to heehaw’s earlier point, and it links in with the above, was  the strength of the trough out west (-PNA). I thought that given all of the other factors, its resistance to troughing over the eastern CONUS would be overwhelmed. The problem with that, though, is that it can only be overwhelmed to a point. We DID get the eastward shift; our storm was originally a GLC, and the boundary layer circulations did respond as I thought. The problem, though, was the mid-level circulations (H7 and H5), which both tracked to our northwest.

A third factor that ties in with my first two points, was that the above mid-level circulations were not strong or intensifying. This allowed the general flow to remain southwesterly thanks to the resistance from the western trough (-PNA), and we just had the boundary circulations embedded within it. So even though they tracked to our southeast, it really wasn’t a great setup, to Frank’s credit.

To my final point, I just want to thank you all for the support and acceptance of my apology last night for my poor performance with this event. It definitely means a lot to me. But I want you to know that I don’t take it lightly - yeah the discussion is fun, and when it comes to snow and even big, impactful storms, it’s exciting. But those of us who forecast also take on an inherent responsibility to provide you with the best and most accurate information that we can, because there are lives and property that are directly affected by what we say, and the actions that are taken in response to that. So when I get something wrong, yeah, I’m hard on myself, because there’s a lot of responsibility to account for. Plus, and a little more lightheartedly, I don’t like losing lmao but yeah, I definitely appreciate your understanding, and I wanted to make that clear. I’ll definitely try to do better for you all next time!

Hey rb, great job on all the analysis. The way some of the totals added up, it was such a difficult forecast. I will say, the snow here in my neck of the woods was wet, perfect for making snowballs and snowmen. If you have time (lol) would you be able to go back and do the math again to determine where the wet snow/dry snow ends up? I think it would be quite interesting. Thanks again for all your hard work!

Nice little storm. Picked up 12 inches, about 6 of that in about 2 hours last night.

Between 12-3 am, it rocked

Final total here in Monroe NY was 10.5 inches.

6.5" for me here in Albany, NY

Hello Mike!!

Elizabeth Taylor once said "Success is a sweet deodorant".

Let me say: "Snow in winter is a sweet deodorant" for the faithful