40/70 Benchmark

I'm not upset at you at all . The frustration is strictly over the weather....

It's cute how you list all of these meteorological milestones in areas where I do not reside, as if that will sway my opinion of my much it's sucked diseased donkey balls where I live.

When you got boned in both "blockbusters", absolutely. I mentioned January 2024 because I didn't get boned in the January 7th event....I would also take December 2019, and February 2021.

I'll get excited when I'm up to my knees and shoveling without amounts half of everywhere around me.

Keep me updated

I think that is extended a bit too far to the north...MHT has like 14", which is at least normal for them....but I am not far se of them and only have 8".

I don't give a rat's greasy taint about pond hockey...give me one huge storm surrounded by 50's, over cold and dry. It's easy to mock the IMBYism when you aren't in someone's shoes...it's been nearly a decade since I have sniffed a normal snowfall season. That is extraordinarily unusual and did NOT happen in the 80s.

Yea, another sucky month in terms of snow AFAIC......only reason it isn't abysmal is the 3" right before XMAS. But I'm not sure how you consider it a good winter month when your largest storm is 3". I'd take January 2024 over December 2025 100/100 times.

Thanks for mentioning....I noticed that that actually made my map look worse if extrapolating it out haha.

I have no idea why anyone would be using the -IOD to forecast at this stage, as it's long-gone. https://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/indices.shtml?bookmark=iod

I don't think the first half of January will be colder than the second half.

I agree that is a big miss on that central area, but I still sent B- bc the rest of the forecast was essentially perfect...but yea, I had pause. I am usually a pretty tough grader, but threw myself about bit of a bone there...many outlets were also too robust in the max area, too...hell, NWS went 8-12". I was torn between B- and C+, so that is reasonable.

Even Tippy's 582DM Miami rule is met there, but easy to do at hr 222.

No, not him...but he likes January, too. I don't speak with Dave much via DM.

Friday-Night Saturday AM Snows Verification Strong Overall Forecast With One Major Exception Failed Hedge Against Data For Best Banding The vast majority of the forecast was very accurate, as can be seen by the juxtaposition of maps below. However, the one glaring fault with the map is unfortunately where it mattered most, which is respect to the all-important best banding. As it turned out, the 6-10" "bonanza area" should have been placed approximately 50-60 miles to the southwest, over the southwestern half of Connecticut, as the consensus of guidance had emphatically signaled. The rest of the forecast was perfect with the exception of the north shore of Massachusetts, where the ocean enhancement did not come to fruition, so 1-3" would have sufficed as opposed to the chosen 2-5" range. But this issue pales in comparison to the aforementioned discrepancy with respect to the erroneous placement of that extremely heavy band that contained snowfall rates of up to 3-4" for a short period of time. Overemphasis Placed on 700MB Warm Front The main forecast premise in Eastern Mass Weather's Final Call yesterday was that guidance was not emphasizing the placement of the 700mb warm front enough as it pertained to where the band of exotically heavy snowfall would materialize. This was obviously crucial since this band ultimately led to major accidents despite a lower holiday volume of traffic. The forecast rationale was that the band would focus where the 700mb warm front stagnated, which was over the upper Connecticut river valley of Massachusetts, much of Worcester county and into the hills of extreme northeastern Connecticut and northwestern Rhode Island. However, the reason that guidance was not targeting this area where the mid level front stagnated, as it would under conventional synoptic circumstances ,is that the dynamics of the system were eroding and being displaced southeast at that point due to the resistance it was met with by the confluent flow to the northeast. This is an issue that the forecast took into account and contemplated when considering the disparity between the ominous forecast soundings over western Connecticut and, the tamer scenario being depicted over Worcester in central Massachusetts. However, Eastern Mass Weather incorrectly took a leap of faith that guidance was eroding the dynamics too quickly, which was the ongoing trend. This would have allowed central Massachusetts to better avail of the stagnating midlevel warm front to endure a protracted period of enhanced snowfall rates, but ultimately these rates occurred instead further to the south, over Connecticut, as the consensus of guidance had been indicating. Final Grade: B-