Afternoon NAM giveth, NAM taketh away. This is why you discount the nam, especially on northern edges of the precip. However, I do think its coming to its solution - GFS went from .26 at 6z to .45. Euro is at .46. Nam is at 1.5 -sounds too high still although the three images below show a sharp dropoff. I still like 3-5, but we may get my original 6-8. The NWS is at 3-5 for Fairfield county now, and their min is 0, max is 20. So.....
|0z >2 feet|
|6z top edge getting less|
|12 whole state getting less.|
Morning Still holding 3-5 for CT until either the NAM or GFS caves. This is really a blend and if the GFS wins, we could be seeing 1", and if the NAM wins, 10"+
Low confidence forecast for CT, South of CT should get 6-12-18" North to south.
SREF ensembles, NAM and short range models continue to show copious amounts of moisture penetrating CT, with 1" qpf making it far north as Worcester. GFS at 0z on the other hand is still bouncing around at DXR, with .09 at 12z, .3 at 18z (yesterday), down to .08 at 0z and back to .26. Its having a problem both with the precip field, but also continues to reform a low 200 miles to the east (see below). The cause of this is speculative - some have said convective feedback (model chasing tstorms to reform the low), others divergence, with my theories being another baroclinic boundary as the cold air comes around the low and into the gulf stream. My theory is a bit off, as the gulf stream is further south, but the water temps are much higher. Thus, cold air forcing warmer air up causing thunderstorms and a new low to form. On the other hand, the GFS routinely sends precip/tstorms out of the low pressure resulting in convective feedback, which usually corrects by now. So which is it - the low chasing the tstorms on the model, or thunderstorms forming due to a new low formed by the entrance of colder air over warmer water.
After the gfs roller coaster yesterday, plus the increase in Euro, then decrease, the global operational models are indicating.... flurries.
|accuweather version nam|
So... 6-8 still looks unlikely, unless you weigh equally the sref with the gfs. Typically the SREF is overstated, as is the NAM, when it comes to precip (QPF). So I usually take 50-60% of that figure which still gives us 6". This usually matches the GFS, but since it doesn't, blend in the GFS/Euro models and you get 3". Have to lower to 3-5", but keep an eye on the still sharp cutoff. One thing the NAM picture on instantweather is that the cutoff from 12" to 0"is about 30 miles wide, if not smaller.
And then there is the incredability that this set up on the UKMET is not going to bring us more than flurries.