March 14, 2017 Roidzilla 1st Call Snow Map / Synopsis

@Frank_Wx wrote:

@rb924119 wrote:Great work, as usual, buddy!!! Terrific discussion! The only thing I personally disagree with, is your upper limit on totals, but that is forecaster preference hahaha otherwise, your gradients and what I had roughed out in my head are identical haha great job!!

Where's you map? What would you make them?

I posted the reason in the other thread, but the abridged version: I worked until 7:30pm and had every intention to pour over data for hours when I came home so I could issue one. When I went to start, I quickly discovered my internet decided to not work tonight so I am following the forum via mobile with a highly restricted ability to analyze and NO ability to make a map lol I'm livid to say the least.

Anyway, I think the cap may be the 18-24" range, largely because I don't see this system slowing. With the lack of any confluence over New England, the surface low will likely run away from the main upper-level feature coming through the Great Lakes before the southern stream energy starts being drawn inward toward the main upper-level low when it gets over northern New England. Therefore, I'm thinking a 12-15 hour duration at best, so to get more than 24" it's going to have blitz through a large portion of the event. Just thoughts based off highly limited data ahahaha

@amugs wrote:SREFS HOLY CRAP!!!

Looks great, but the snow mean for LaGuardia Airport on the 21Z run is several inches lower than the 15Z run. The qpf is impressive but if it's sleet/rain no good...

@CPcantmeasuresnow wrote:

@amugs wrote:Posted in last thread so putting it here.

A very misleading stat so I assume it's from the weather channel. This refers only to midnight to midnight snowfall amounts and does not include storm totals if they happened on overlapping calendar days which of course the majority of storms do.

NYC (central Park) has actually had 11 snow storms of 10 inches or more after March 1st including 2 in April. I saw the idiots on TWC posting this today and of course never explaining it only tells half a story.

Exactly CP, very misleading by the dolts at TWC. Albany had 48 inches from the 1888 storm that went from the 11th to 14th.

I feel really stupid because I can't get things to add up for my (red)neck of the woods. The SREF is calling for 1.25" qpf with ratios of 15:1 and a total snowfall of 10-15. Is there something that could be taking place at 850 or higher up or do I just feel stupid because I am?

@MeganHyjack wrote:@Frank_Wx

Not bad! But I like Mr. Roidzilla in the banner in some way. Maybe send me some in private messages. Thank you

Is the serfs good for everyone or bad for people

@rb924119 wrote:

@Frank_Wx wrote:

@rb924119 wrote:Great work, as usual, buddy!!! Terrific discussion! The only thing I personally disagree with, is your upper limit on totals, but that is forecaster preference hahaha otherwise, your gradients and what I had roughed out in my head are identical haha great job!!

Where's you map? What would you make them?

I posted the reason in the other thread, but the abridged version: I worked until 7:30pm and had every intention to pour over data for hours when I came home so I could issue one. When I went to start, I quickly discovered my internet decided to not work tonight so I am following the forum via mobile with a highly restricted ability to analyze and NO ability to make a map lol I'm livid to say the least.

Anyway, I think the cap may be the 18-24" range, largely because I don't see this system slowing. With the lack of any confluence over New England, the surface low will likely run away from the main upper-level feature coming through the Great Lakes before the southern stream energy starts being drawn inward toward the main upper-level low when it gets over northern New England. Therefore, I'm thinking a 12-15 hour duration at best, so to get more than 24" it's going to have blitz through a large portion of the event. Just thoughts based off highly limited data ahahaha

Makes sense, thanks!

Also worth mentioning is that the ranges on my snow map, besides my upper limit, are within 5 inches. I saw some snow maps of 1 to 2 feet, but that's a pretty big difference no??

@track17 wrote:Is the serfs good for everyone or bad for people

Great for northwest of I-95, east and southeast of there it gets dicey, as 850's during the heaviest precipitation.

Do you have a snow map for the serfs rb?

@Frank_Wx wrote:Also worth mentioning is that the ranges on my snow map, besides my upper limit, are within 5 inches. I saw some snow maps of 1 to 2 feet, but that's a pretty big difference no??

Oh yeah, totally agree!!! Yours are a reasonable range; and are almost all less than 50% of the lower bound. I saw a forecast FROM THE NWS for 8-18", I think Mt. Holly; why not just forecast 0-20" and call it a day? Lmao not to rag because they have a difficult forecast area, but at least break it down some. Understandably, the range is adequate, but to just put that in a blanket advisory is kind of embarrassing and misleading imo. I strongly dislike people that forecast huge ranges like that because it takes so much less skill and looks bad to the public.

@track17 wrote:Do you have a snow map for the serfs rb?

Not exactly, but the probability of exceedance maps will be out momentarily, which I'll post for you.

@track17 wrote:I like the everyone does well comment amugs do you have a snow map from that model

Track sad to say they  don't. Just a qpf, liquid precip mean map.
You are in Ocean County? If so where northern?

ONe of the most fun parts of this storm will be watching that rain/snow line creep along the coast. I'm south shore of LI and nothing hurts more than when that damn line crosses into us.

Thank you so much

@rb924119 wrote:

@Frank_Wx wrote:Also worth mentioning is that the ranges on my snow map, besides my upper limit, are within 5 inches. I saw some snow maps of 1 to 2 feet, but that's a pretty big difference no??

Oh yeah, totally agree!!! Yours are a reasonable range; and are almost all less than 50% of the lower bound. I saw a forecast FROM THE NWS for 8-18", I think Mt. Holly; why not just forecast 0-20" and call it a day? Lmao not to rag because they have a difficult forecast area, but at least break it down some. Understandably, the range is adequate, but to just put that in a blanket advisory is kind of embarrassing and misleading imo. I strongly dislike people that forecast huge ranges like that because it takes so much less skill and looks bad to the public.

I read that alert on my phone with mom and we both chuckled. Not bashing but it's kinda funny...

@devsman wrote:ONe of the most fun parts of this storm will be watching that rain/snow line creep along the coast. I'm south shore of LI and nothing hurts more than when that damn line crosses into us.

You sure you aren't confusing "fun" with "torture" ahahaha I'd cry if that was me lmfao

Yea amugs northern ocean county about 15 min from Monmouth

Here, Track: top-left is probability of greater than 1", top-right is greater than 4", bottom-left is greater than 8", and bottom-right is greater than 12" (all in percent):



This at the time of maximum values for all panes.....

Thanks so much

Thanks Track.
You look like you may some mixing issues but this is going to have to be  monitored on the 0z and 12z runs. A 50 mile wobble east or west will decide wether you get 6" or 10-12".

00z NAM slower and sharper with the southern stream through 30

@rb924119 wrote:

@Frank_Wx wrote:Also worth mentioning is that the ranges on my snow map, besides my upper limit, are within 5 inches. I saw some snow maps of 1 to 2 feet, but that's a pretty big difference no??

Oh yeah, totally agree!!! Yours are a reasonable range; and are almost all less than 50% of the lower bound. I saw a forecast FROM THE NWS for 8-18", I think Mt. Holly; why not just forecast 0-20" and call it a day? Lmao not to rag because they have a difficult forecast area, but at least break it down some. Understandably, the range is adequate, but to just put that in a blanket advisory is kind of embarrassing and misleading imo. I strongly dislike people that forecast huge ranges like that because it takes so much less skill and looks bad to the public.

Funny thing is, that WAS Mount Holly breaking it down some because their area stretches from Cape May to Morris County and from Delaware through Philly up to the Lehigh Valley. They issued three separate advisories for their area: One for DE, Philly and interior South Jersey (6-12), no advisory except wind and flooding for Cape May and Atlantic, and the 8-18 for the NW Philly burbs to Lehigh Valley and Central/North Jersey.  I think given that breakdown they could have upped their bottom number to 12 (12-18) and it would have been a bit more reasonable.