How would 5 to 10 inches sound to you now?
I'm not saying that's how much we'll get when the Tuesday/Wednesday storm finally checks in, although 5-to-10 does seem to be a conservative assessment of the current thinking among the meteorologists I've checked.
UPDATE, Noon: The NWS has just updated their Winter Storm Watch. You won't like it:
"ACCUMULATIONS...POTENTIAL FOR 8 OR MORE INCHES OF SNOW. THERE IS
A GOOD LIKELIHOOD OF SNOW IN EXCESS OF 10 INCHES."
Earlier post resumes below:
But after the 21-inch storm in December, and the 24-inch (maybe) storm last weekend, 5 to 10 inches just doesn't seem to pack the panic value it might have, say, last year. Am I wrong?
Anyway, the National Weather Service is putting the storm potential at 5 inches or more. But that's misleading. It just reflects their belief that the coming storm will meet their criteria for issuing Winter Storm Watches, which begins at 5 inches. So that's the floor for this storm. The watches cover all of Maryland except the southernmost counties.
We are now moving within the 36-hour window for this storm, so the forecasters at Sterling have begun to put out accumulation forecasts. So far, however, that only covers Tuesday before sundown. And even though they expect the snow to start after 2 p.m. in Baltimore, they're only predicting "less than one inch" for that time period. Sound familiar? That's about how the last storm began. The snow started late morning, and snowed until sunset without much accumulation.
We should get the Tuesday night and Wednesday accumulation predictions from Sterling later today.
In the meantime, other forecasters are all over this new storm. Mr. Foot and his stable of student prognosticators, who have done extremely well this season, are looking for 5 inches in 
Washington, and 10 inches in Baltimore.
AccuWeather.com has a very tight wedge on its map, where Central Maryland appears to be looking at 3 to 6 inches, with more (6 to 12) in the extreme northeastern corner of the state.
The key to this storm appears to be exactly where the coastal low decides to form and intensify after twin lows now crossing the continent out of the Southwest and the Northwest finally merge. The farther south that happens - say, off the Carolinas - the more time the storm will have to gather strength and moisture off the Atlantic and drop it on us. If all that happens off Delmarva, we'll get less snow as the storm drifts northeastward to pound New York and New England. We'll see.
NOAA's Hydrometeorological Prediction Center in Camp Springs, Md. is saying this morning it believes the coastal low will begin to form over the Carolinas, but that the worst of the snow would fall to our north and east. Here's a bit of their discussion:
"Expect the potential for blizzard conditions during Wednesday north and west of the intense surface low ... with a potential for one foot plus amounts from eastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey to parts of southern New England."
Finally, here's Eric the Red, a professional meteorologist from Baltimore, who sounds worried:
"The bullseye is once again centered over I-95 corridor and points east. [Precipitation] totals will also be less south of DC, but the immediate DC burbs are under the gun again..."
He is also forecasting strong winds - higher than during the last storm, which fueled blizzard conditions in parts of the state:
"... [W]hat we just experienced is nothing compared to what is coming in terms of wind... Wednesday will feature extremely dangerous conditions if these models are right... If I had to paint a guess ... a 10-20" snowstorm is on the menu, with perhaps a bit less west of Frederick and south of DC. But the wind will be a major major issue with this one."
The good news appears to be that yet another Gulf Coast low that's expected to develop later this week will stay down there, leaving us in sunny but colder-than average weather through the weekend.
Comments
Too depressing for words. Let's all (those of us who aren't emergency personnel) stay firmly planted in the 21st century and TELECOMMUTE. Don't drive. Let emergency workers do their jobs!
Posted by: Lisa Simeone | February 8, 2010 11:34 AM
Oh boy, where are we supposed to put this stuff. I still have 30" on my unplowed road. Telecommuting does not work for those of us who have security issues involved with our work :-(
Posted by: City Redux | February 8, 2010 11:50 AM
Winters like this one cull the weak and add to the Florida, Texas, and Arizona Congressional majority!
Posted by: Drew.Lenear | February 8, 2010 12:03 PM
Thank goodness I work for the feds and have the day off.
I went to SuperFresh and the shelves - particularly the baking aisles - are empty. The SuperFresh lady told me the suppliers are having a hard time getting through.
I managed to stock up on groceries and books from the library, so bring it on! I'm ready with my black bean soup and cornbread :)
Posted by: Amy | February 8, 2010 12:20 PM
If the high winds will blow some of the snow off our canvas porch awnings and not collapse them, I'll be okay with that. Where we'll put another 5-10 inches of snow is a different story...
Posted by: Mar | February 8, 2010 12:30 PM
"How would 5 to 10 inches sound to you now?" If I told you how I really felt you could not print my response...At our company we work from home one day a week but it is possible I may have to work from home Monday through Thursday this week. I feel bad because there are always hearty souls who make it in to the office. Very stressful thinking about all of that not to mention where all that snow will go.
Posted by: Gina | February 8, 2010 12:33 PM
So much for global warming!
Posted by: Capt Jack | February 8, 2010 1:07 PM
Mr. Foote and Friends are calling for 10 inches here in the city. Frank, any idea whether this will be the light and fluffy variety of the frozen cement style I spent two days digging my care out of this weekend? Just wondering so I know how much Tylenol to set aside for my wife and myself.
FR: Temperatures look pretty much like those on Friday and Saturday, so I expect the snow will be at least as wet as the last storm. Heavy. Especially to our south, where sleet may mix in. Sorry.
Posted by: kungpow12 | February 8, 2010 1:33 PM
Oh, god, Frank, these people who don't understand climate change and keep chiming in with simplistic statements about "global warming." Then again, this is the era of Sarah Palin Gantry, so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.
FR: Some folks have "So much for global warming" written on their palm.
Posted by: Lisa Simeone | February 8, 2010 1:43 PM
I see those who know little are once more posting what they know zero about - heavy snow storms is EXACTLY what Gobal Warming models predict. This in of its self doers not supportr GW but it is showing the exact trend that GW predicts - try learning what a theory saysbefore you show your lack of knowledge and embarrass yourself.
Posted by: DBrown | February 8, 2010 2:58 PM
DBrown, we will never convince the Capt Jacks of the world. They're all over these boards claiming that snowstorms prove climate change (or global warming) doesn't exist. They are unreachable. They inhabit an evidence-free zone.
Posted by: Lisa Simeone | February 8, 2010 3:51 PM
Good for you dbrown "about the global warming ID10T's. I had this conversation myself at home and know this is just the tip of the iceberg (no pun intended). This is exactly the type of weather the "global warming" experts have been telling us to begin expecting.
Posted by: Pbrenza | February 8, 2010 4:34 PM
"I see those who know little are once more posting what they know zero about - heavy snow storms is EXACTLY what Gobal Warming models predict."
If these snowstorms are exactly what was predicted by this AGW nonsense. What was it back in 177x when there was 30-36 inches as I read somewhere else on this blog?
Climates have changed for thousands of years and to suggest that humans are the cause of all the change recently is just arrogant.
Posted by: Perry | February 8, 2010 4:37 PM
@ Lisa Simeone-- It is not evidence when you have to lie and obfuscate the data to make it look like global warming is occurring. In the winters of 77-78, 78-79 the bay froze and we had heavy snows both years, the climate scientists were saying we were heading into the next Ice Age. If you want people to believe you don't lie about the data if it is not 100% supportive of your claim.
FR: For the record, notwithstanding the flurry of media stories during that 1970s cold spell, that business about "heading into the next ice age" was never the consensus of climate scientists, not even in the 70s. You can look it up.
Posted by: gueman | February 8, 2010 4:43 PM
Perry writes: "Climates have changed for thousands of years and to suggest that humans are the cause of all the change recently is just arrogant."
No one is claiming this! We are claiming that humans DO have an effect on the climate, just like lots of other factors have an effect on the climate. And our effect has intensified.
How you can think that 6 billion people on this planet have no effect defies common sense, let alone empirical evidence. We put things out into the atmosphere. We put things out into the world. We have an effect. This is a radical idea??
Posted by: Lisa Simeone | February 8, 2010 6:40 PM
"Climate change" is more accurate and comprehensive than "global warming" -- though the globe is, indeed, warming up overall. And a lot of this is caused by human activity.
And it's not about whether you in your little pocket of the world are colder or warmer than normal. It's about the global climate overall, over a period of years. And more extreme weather patterns are precisely what scientists have been predicting.
Posted by: Lisa Simeone | February 8, 2010 6:52 PM