Looks like a bust for the more populated areas of state and region thankfully.
Good luck yo those effected.
Good luck yo those effected.
OT: Potential Winter Storm on 3/7-8
- Thread starter RU848789
- Start date
Have to question the snowfall map. I live in South Brunswick and work in Monroe, and believe me, I have twice as much snow at home in South Brunswick. The reports show otherwise. I had about 8 inches at home and 4 at my store.
If you look at your post to me, you will find it says "posted at 11:10. Last edited by a moderator at 11:41 p.m." I've never seen that before. (see Spanky's post right above this post, although I don't know what Spanky is referring to.)
He deleted the opening square bracket of the post he quoted by you, so that it did not show up as a quote. I just edited it to add that square bracket back in. Here, I'll do the same with your post below:
QUOTE="camdenlawprof, post: 3215786, member: 642"]If you look at your post to me, you will find it says "posted at 11:10. Last edited by a moderator at 11:41 p.m." I've never seen that before. (see Spanky's post right above this post, although I don't know what Spanky is referring to.)[/QUOTE]
And here I thought his lawyer paid your lawyer $130k for the favor.
you're not the only one that claimed this. my sister claims that they got up to 14 inch and she lives in South Brunswick. it's possible you could have caught a band in your neighborhood. I also saw a misprint on a report that South Brunswick got 14 in when it should have said 4.
[/QUOTE]
C'mon Spanky, that was a big swing and a miss - you had the opportunity to make something heinous or crazy up, lol.
Yeah, you and your shit snowstorm. Some plow operator damaged my car yesterday out in Pennsyltucky.
Didn't realize @bac2therac plowed that far west, lol...
That sucks, but are you trying to get your car banged up? First it was Boston to NJ through nor'easter one, I believe (or was it 2/17?), and then you were driving through this one, too? I actually enjoy driving in snow, but not long distances in snow. Drove around yesterday a bunch, locally, just to see what was going on, but it was a pretty easy drive.
Last edited:
Thought I posted this around 10:30, but fell asleep instead, lol. Just woke up. Anyway, here ya go...
My last post of the day. Needless to say, I'm spent after several days of tracking, posting and then watching and enjoying today's storm (not to mention shoveling). Not a lot of sleep involved. Anyway, thought this was a nice map made from the NWS storm reports - really shows where that death band was (in pink), as well as the biggest bust of the storm - the unexpectedly low snowfall amounts east of the NJTPK from about Woodbridge to Hackensack, including Newark, Hoboken, JC, and most of NYC, where only 2-5" generally fell.
No model had these areas at less than 10" other than the GFS and it had that amount due to rain and that wasn't the issue - the issue was a combination of subsidence, where those areas simply never got the intensity of snowfall, due to all the intensity being sucked up to the west, borderline surface temps, leading to melting (with less intensity, more melting), and poor ratios (supposedly, CPK had 1.2" fall as snow, but only got 3.1" on the ground; urban heat island didn't help, either). I didn't know it at the time, but in hindsight, I was lucky to get the 8.5" I got, as just 5 miles east of me in Perth Amboy and Carteret, they got 4-5". NYC snow lovers are are ready to to attack the NWS office in Upton with pitchforks, lol, as much of Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens and SI only got 2-4" (3.2" in Central Park).
One last thought. Don't sleep on the 3/12 threat. Looks to go to our south, but 1 or 2 models over the past day or so have been showing the storm heading up the coast as a snowy nor'easter and even now a couple of models show a modest hit south of 195. This one has potential to come further north and if it does it would be significant.
First, below is an updated version of the NE snowfall map and second is his graphic, which illustrates nicely the "problem" we had along most of the 95 corridor - that area of sinking air (subsidence) between the two major mesoscale snow bands meant we just got a fair amount less precip leading to a lot more initial melting before the heavier snows came and covered the surfaces and leading to simply less overall snow. Compound that with slightly warmer surface temps and worse snow/liquid ratios and less snow depth resulted (even though I'm pretty sure our 8.5" was the equivalent of 14-16" of 10:1 ratio snow - the sleet and rain also hurt).
As I said earlier, given the surface low track relatively close to the NJ coast, often, but nowhere near always, the best precip bands are 150-200 miles W/NW/N of the low and that was generally the case yesterday. Plus areas that far inland are further from the warmth of the ocean and usually at greater elevation than 95/coast, so they're less likely to get any rain/sleet and to have better ratios of snow to liquid. Add those things up and you get 16-24" under that death band instead of 4-10" for most of 95 +/-10 miles NW/SE of 95.
If the bands (and precip) had been evenly distributed, it would have been more like 12-18" instead of 16-24" for those that got that much and 8-12" instead of 4-10" for most of the 95 corridor, since inland areas are a bit cooler, so less melting, and would've had better ratios, too, plus no mixing, so that's why they were predicted to have more by the NWS. The problem is it's literally impossible to know where the heaviest bands are going to hit before a storm starts. The data and the models are simply not good enough for that and may never be due to the limitations of chaos theory in high energy systems.
Finally, below is the NWS map, which my wife thinks is nowhere near as pretty as Tomer's maps, but they do contain more detail, with selected accumulations, and easier to distinguish colors. And my one comment on NWS reports is that I know some are wrong, but if they get enough reports, those likely come out in the wash, at least in the graphs like the one above or the ones I'm posting below. And they always delete the reports from before a storm was over, as those are useless for total snowfall, especially when places were getting 2-3" per hour. And all you have to do is look at the raw data or the graphics to know how steep the gradient was in some locations, especially near that mega death band - it's very believable for places 5 miles apart to have 8" vs. 14" - just by me, we had 8.5" and Carteret and Perth Amboy, 5 miles away, reported 4" or so.
And I heard most of it came in the huge band after the 4" at 4 pm report, is that right?
The 12Z Euro was a big miss, out to sea, but the 18Z GFS, 6 hours later, is a few inches for the 95 corridor and a pretty big hit (6" or more) for SNJ east of the Delaware and south of 195 and for eastern LI and SE New England. The GFS sucks from a thermal profile snow vs. rain perspective as we just saw in the last 2 storms, but it's decent at bigger picture global synoptics and tracks, so it could be right. If more than 1 model shows a hit tonight, I'll start a new thread. Pros on 33andrain, who have hit a grand slam calling for this pattern weeks ago, including calling for several nor'easters with wintry precip, are mostly bullish on this one affecting us at least somewhat. We'll see...
The last map is more in line with what I saw locally but doesn't match up to the the numbers listed by local "trained" spotters. There is no 6in or 7in on the map by me that was listed in your earlier list.First, below is an updated version of the NE snowfall map and second is his graphic, which illustrates nicely the "problem" we had along most of the 95 corridor - that area of sinking air (subsidence) between the two major mesoscale snow bands meant we just got a fair amount less precip leading to a lot more initial melting before the heavier snows came and covered the surfaces and leading to simply less overall snow. Compound that with slightly warmer surface temps and worse snow/liquid ratios and less snow depth resulted (even though I'm pretty sure our 8.5" was the equivalent of 14-16" of 10:1 ratio snow - the sleet and rain also hurt).
As I said earlier, given the surface low track relatively close to the NJ coast, often, but nowhere near always, the best precip bands are 150-200 miles W/NW/N of the low and that was generally the case yesterday. Plus areas that far inland are further from the warmth of the ocean and usually at greater elevation than 95/coast, so they're less likely to get any rain/sleet and to have better ratios of snow to liquid. Add those things up and you get 16-24" under that death band instead of 4-10" for most of 95 +/-10 miles NW/SE of 95.
If the bands (and precip) had been evenly distributed, it would have been more like 12-18" instead of 16-24" for those that got that much and 8-12" instead of 4-10" for most of the 95 corridor, since inland areas are a bit cooler, so less melting, and would've had better ratios, too, plus no mixing, so that's why they were predicted to have more by the NWS. The problem is it's literally impossible to know where the heaviest bands are going to hit before a storm starts. The data and the models are simply not good enough for that and may never be due to the limitations of chaos theory in high energy systems.
Finally, below is the NWS map, which my wife thinks is nowhere near as pretty as Tomer's maps, but they do contain more detail, with selected accumulations, and easier to distinguish colors. And my one comment on NWS reports is that I know some are wrong, but if they get enough reports, those likely come out in the wash, at least in the graphs like the one above or the ones I'm posting below. And they always delete the reports from before a storm was over, as those are useless for total snowfall, especially when places were getting 2-3" per hour. And all you have to do is look at the raw data or the graphics to know how steep the gradient was in some locations, especially near that mega death band - it's very believable for places 5 miles apart to have 8" vs. 14" - just by me, we had 8.5" and Carteret and Perth Amboy, 5 miles away, reported 4" or so.
First, below is an updated version of the NE snowfall map and second is his graphic, which illustrates nicely the "problem" we had along most of the 95 corridor - that area of sinking air (subsidence) between the two major mesoscale snow bands meant we just got a fair amount less precip leading to a lot more initial melting before the heavier snows came and covered the surfaces and leading to simply less overall snow. Compound that with slightly warmer surface temps and worse snow/liquid ratios and less snow depth resulted (even though I'm pretty sure our 8.5" was the equivalent of 14-16" of 10:1 ratio snow - the sleet and rain also hurt).
As I said earlier, given the surface low track relatively close to the NJ coast, often, but nowhere near always, the best precip bands are 150-200 miles W/NW/N of the low and that was generally the case yesterday. Plus areas that far inland are further from the warmth of the ocean and usually at greater elevation than 95/coast, so they're less likely to get any rain/sleet and to have better ratios of snow to liquid. Add those things up and you get 16-24" under that death band instead of 4-10" for most of 95 +/-10 miles NW/SE of 95.
If the bands (and precip) had been evenly distributed, it would have been more like 12-18" instead of 16-24" for those that got that much and 8-12" instead of 4-10" for most of the 95 corridor, since inland areas are a bit cooler, so less melting, and would've had better ratios, too, plus no mixing, so that's why they were predicted to have more by the NWS. The problem is it's literally impossible to know where the heaviest bands are going to hit before a storm starts. The data and the models are simply not good enough for that and may never be due to the limitations of chaos theory in high energy systems.
Finally, below is the NWS map, which my wife thinks is nowhere near as pretty as Tomer's maps, but they do contain more detail, with selected accumulations, and easier to distinguish colors. And my one comment on NWS reports is that I know some are wrong, but if they get enough reports, those likely come out in the wash, at least in the graphs like the one above or the ones I'm posting below. And they always delete the reports from before a storm was over, as those are useless for total snowfall, especially when places were getting 2-3" per hour. And all you have to do is look at the raw data or the graphics to know how steep the gradient was in some locations, especially near that mega death band - it's very believable for places 5 miles apart to have 8" vs. 14" - just by me, we had 8.5" and Carteret and Perth Amboy, 5 miles away, reported 4" or so.
As I was reporting live in this thread yesterday I live in that dark red area above Morristown. I measured 28 inches IMBY
What do I win?
My son, who's 23 and going to RU for a Master's in Information Science (just finished his BA at RU in Dec), and lives with 6-7 friends in a classic NB flophouse a block off of Neilsen, told me a funny little snow story today, when I asked him about how he enjoyed the storm. Turns out he was trying to get his roommates to get out of the house to enjoy the snow a little, when it was really pouring snow and they all complained saying it was too cold. So he basically said, I'll show you pussies how cold it isn't and ran outside in his underwear and made a bunch of snow angels. One of my proudest parental moments, lol.
Only the GFS shows some snow. From what I can tell every other model keeps its south. Doesn’t mean it can’t change but nothing to worry about as of now
Yup, according to TWC the GFS shows an "event" while the Euro shows OTS. One agreement seems to be fairly significant snow for WV and Western Va.
Hopefully they've changed their procedures since Sandy. I remember a crew from Alabama telling me the biggest detriment to restoring power was JCP&L first and their aging infrastructure second.
So I was reading NJ.com and saw the posting about people complaining about having no power.
It's hard for me to feel sympathy for the one person complaining when they post a picture of the outside of their house and it's easily a 600-700k house. If you can afford a house that expensive, you can afford a generator.
We had no power for nearly 10 days after Sandy in East Brunswick.
It's hard for me to feel sympathy for the one person complaining when they post a picture of the outside of their house and it's easily a 600-700k house. If you can afford a house that expensive, you can afford a generator.
We had no power for nearly 10 days after Sandy in East Brunswick.
Do all the people who lose power have above ground power lines? Never happens in the city so curious if that's the main reason.
Many people do lose power due to above ground power lines. However, while my development in Marlboro has underground electrical lines, all houses (as well as a nearby Whole Foods) lost power for several hours this past Wednesday following a transformer failure/explosion across town. A decent chunk of NYC did lose power during Superstorm Sandy, due to an explosion at a Con Edison substation by the East River.
I used to have power failures in thunderstorms despite having below-ground utilities. Fortunately the problem has been fixed by PSE &G; at least it doesn't happen any more.
Similar threads
OT: Minor to Moderate (2-4?) Snowfall Likely Sat morning (2/17); will be <32F, so expect slick roads
