weatherwiz

If it's in the cards, I am down for a March an/or April snowstorm but I am really ready for warmer weather by then. I want to be watching playoff hockey outside in April.

The way things have been going it may as well be 60% of 0.

I am rooting for an early and warm spring at this point, unfortunately that probably won't happen. We'll probably enter a pattern second half of February and March that elicits, "if only we had this 4-6 weeks ago" while NNE is getting pounded and everyone else is in misery with cold rain or a sloppy mess

Unless you're northern New England the clock will begin ticking rather quickly shortly.

When I looking around at bufkit for several locations from the NAM there were a quite a bit of red flags being presented. But when you're dealing with a situation where it's predominately heavy banding or kind of bust...it can be extremely hard to forecast, especially if you're not certain where that heaviest banding will reside. For example, NAM had some great profile looks at ORH and you could have argued for 6-8" because of the banding signal...but if that band ends up not over them...well the 6-8" isn't happening.

BINGO....1000% agreed. This is also the approach that should be taken with the forecasting aspect. One needs to use knowledge/experience and try to gauge which model is going to handle certain elements the best and then kind of develop a blend within their head. I know NWS has ways and I think there are some pay sites where you can create model blends yourself. Even models that may have performed worse overall, it's quite possible they handled certain elements better than the models which performed best.

Probably depends on what metrics folks are using to to verify. But yeah....the RGEM didn't do well at all. I mean I don't even look at the model and I can't tell from seeing it being posted here lol. At least for me, when I think of verification, I want to see which model handled the pieces better and which model was the most consistent with how the pieces evolved. Stuff like SLP, QPF, snow maps...I don't really care too much about (SLP/QPF probably more so in the final 36 hours) but if you can get a strong handle on the mid/upper levels, you can get a good sense of SLP/QPF without even looking at those products. But like Will said, inside 72 hours the Euro really nailed it and I have to give props to the NAM...it certainly picked up on how this would evolve and I would not expect a model like the GFS to really pickup on precip shield structure.

There has been digging but there is a window of only how much it can dig...unless there are some changes with that southwestern energy. And yeah that is a brutal cold shot on the backside there. Then we'll see what happens...pattern could become more active, it certainly looks more chaotic and unfortunately that comes with the risk that we could encounter a significant warmup...which probably further enhances a more active pattern and that we'll rain

probably not much room to dig south either with that SW system ughhh

Could be quite the upslope snow event east side of the Rockies in CO

Maybe they've been holding practices the last few days on the ponds and like Scott said, with some rain last week and snow on top...not good for skating. But the Bruins can't seem to skate either...Lohrei looked drunk last night and there were a few others who couldn't stay on their feet.

Maybe if he didn't chop down all those cherry trees we wouldn't of had as much CO2 in the atmosphere when the Industrial period boomed in the 1800's.

I would be fine if we had like a 50 year and then a longer term...like here they have 1895-2000 https://psl.noaa.gov/data/usclimdivs/ but obviously that 1895-2000 would be adjusted.

I do wish when looking at the climatology instead of just comparing to the 30 year average it would also list additional periods. But it is what it is

It's too hard