Tracking Another Possible Godzilla Mon-Tues, March 12th-13th

AS of hour 19 NAM is west of 18z.

nutleyblizzard wrote:AS of hour 19 NAM is west of 18z.

Yet sfc QPF is a tick east of 18z at 26

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sC5s86IpYtE&feature=push-lsb&attr_tag=_wQPmoMAIkfqEXwk-6

00z NAM might just be the nail in this coffin.

SoulSingMG wrote:00z NAM might just be the nail in this coffin.

The snow barely makes it into the area, even further east but the LP looks odd, is it chasing convection? Will it actually be more expansive on western side.

Syo, SREF also has NYC 11-12.5 so close enough to a gofdzilla and warrents a WSW IF that were to solution but still think we are far from it and under 24 hrs here..

This could be similar to "Juno" NYC on west gets a couple inches while just east on LI into NE get's a significant snowfall

aiannone wrote: This could be similar to "Juno" NYC on west gets a couple inches while just east on LI into NE get's a significant snowfall

CPK got 9.8" from "Juno", Bellerose got 13" of snow, Islip got 24", Orient Point 30". I don't think any of those locations will get the snow they got from "Juno"

I am curious if Frank is gonna pull the plug? He must found a place hasnt been on all day.

You know I noticed on all the runs the system starts as rain for all.

jmanley32 wrote:I am curious if Frank is gonna pull the plug? He must found a place hasnt been on all day.

He's busy setting up suicide nets...

I’m going to stick with my snow map from earlier. Current trends favor the bottom of those ranges, but the top of the ranges still allows for the possibility of a slight n&w shift tomorrow. It may be prudent if nothing changes tomorrow for me to simply shift all of those bands 30 miles east. If so that will be what I’ll do with my final call map tomorrow. Until then, bedtime. Lol.

jmanley32 wrote:You know I noticed on all the runs the system starts as rain for all.

That it does not

aiannone wrote:

Wow one lousy inch, no chance this jumps back to where it was this morning, if it did that would be a huge feat.

How does 3km snow for 14 hrs over the areas west of LI and accumulate 0.2 qpf, that makes no sense. the reflectivity looks heavier than that.

jmanley32 wrote:

aiannone wrote:

Wow one lousy inch, no chance this jumps back to where it was this morning, if it did that would be a huge feat.  

We're out of time, Jman. That northern vort just can't catch it in time to phase near where it's worthwhile for us

Guys I noted something interesting the qpf and mslp map does not match the simulated radar at all
while it shows snow over the area for most of the night into about 12pm tues the qpf/mlsp map shows only a few hrs of precip not starting until much later than simulated radar, this the 3km nam.  Is the model flawed here? Would explain the extremely low qpf.

Wow Alex Twin Forks getting nice dump

A example of one frame same hr 32.

oldtimer wrote:Wow Alex  Twin Forks getting nice dump

And most of eatern mass sees 20-30 inches....this makes me cry

JMan you are right. The NAM shows prolonged light to even at times moderate snow over NJ/NYC tomorrow night but virtually no accumulated precip. I would toss most of these accumulation maps right now (they’re usually ridiculously wrong and wildly fluctuate anyway) and focus on the storm track and projected precipitation field. Note the NWS forecast is higher than what is shown on those maps.

SoulSingMG wrote:

jmanley32 wrote:

aiannone wrote:

Wow one lousy inch, no chance this jumps back to where it was this morning, if it did that would be a huge feat.  

We're out of time, Jman. That northern vort just can't catch it in time to phase near where it's worthwhile for us

Yep GN all, was nice tracking nothing LOL

jmanley32 wrote:Guys I noted something interesting the qpf and mslp map does not match the simulated radar at all
while it shows snow over the area for most of the night into about 12pm tues the qpf/mlsp map shows only a few hrs of precip not starting until much later than simulated radar, this the 3km nam.  Is the model flawed here? Would explain the extremely low qpf.

JMan, I like the way you are holding these models to task if what they output doesn't match what the input says it should. All winter long, when that has happened, the model output has ended wronger than hell.

Is that happening here? Ha ha, beats me!

(FYI- that's totally meant as a compliment)

billg315 wrote:JMan you are right. The NAM shows prolonged light to even at times moderate snow over NJ/NYC tomorrow night but virtually no accumulated precip. I would toss most of these accumulation maps right now (they’re usually ridiculously wrong and wildly fluctuate anyway) and focus on the storm track and projected precipitation field. Note the NWS forecast is higher than what is shown on those maps.

Maybe, i dont see this going west its been progressively going east since this morning, who knows maybe will miss eastern NE too. Hopefully if we dont see it I dont want them too for sure.

Here’s where I’d leave it tonight (interestingly exactly where I started with my first post this morning):
1. If you’re expecting Godzilla it will probably be a disappointment because that seems a stretch for most people with this, but if you can be happy with a 2-4/3-5 snowfall you may just be happy with what you get;
2. We all woke up last Wednesday to a 30-50 mile shift in the low track. These things do happen - sometimes for better sometimes for worse in the final 24 hours, so nothing is off the table until tomorrow afternoon when this thing is actually forming.

SENJsnowman wrote:

jmanley32 wrote:Guys I noted something interesting the qpf and mslp map does not match the simulated radar at all
while it shows snow over the area for most of the night into about 12pm tues the qpf/mlsp map shows only a few hrs of precip not starting until much later than simulated radar, this the 3km nam.  Is the model flawed here? Would explain the extremely low qpf.

JMan, I like the way you are holding these models to task if what they output doesn't match what the input says it should. All winter long, when that has happened, the model output has ended wronger than hell.

Is that happening here? Ha ha, beats me!

(FYI- that's totally meant as a compliment)

I am not holding onto anything, but to me it seems like theres a flaw within the same model and its own run.  If this is not to be looked at themn why spend the money to make them, just make H5 and thats it, cuz thats all that seems to matter, not sure if you were jabbing me there or not but am not model hugging just saw a weird output from a model within a model.

Updated: Oh okay, I wasnt sure how to take it.

Do I think it's wrong, yes!