40/70 Benchmark

Not a hail mary, but odds against it...something like 6-8", especially north, is doable....but like foot plus will be very tough.

I just wrote about that.....all three ensemble packages are through NNE.

Regarding next week's potential.... https://easternmassweather.blogspot.com/2020/01/all-eyes-on-next-sunday-monday.html

Yes...which at mid season is an average pace.

In latter January, that's fine by me...pin the cf over KLWM. No CJs.

I knew the GFS was wrong...its the Euro solution that I'd be worried about, but OP is too far south imo.

I don't think we can get one that intense at this latitude...that even looks worse than 1978.

That is average.

Confluence actually trended worse.

LOL Not many posts...

H5 is a bit further south than 00z on the EURO....bleh

Yep..

lol

CMC hanging back confluence to the north more....

NAO was supposed to still look like crap at this point. We should know how things will play out within the next month.

Well, they were referencing a modeled pattern that is not going to verify....having a cross polar flow linked through an enormous ridge that engulfs the majority of the EPO and PNA domains renders the NAO much less relevant. I was surprised to see that guidance that gung-ho on the Pacific, and it makes more sense to me that the idea was abandoned.

Cristina Abernathy has issued a warning...

Obviously the GEM is very good. The problem with the GFS is that the H5 low is further to the north, bodily over sne and a bit weaker....the Euro tracks similarly to the GEM, but it looks to me like the low up east of Greenand is not nearly as pronounced, which doesn't allow the system to dig as much and intensify. That is correctable.....GEM is closer to reality than GFS...that said...doesn't necessarily mean a big snow storm for sne.

I mean, I think it will ebb and flow, but don't expect a 2015 ridge to sit on the eskimo's face.

Back in November, I picked 12/5 to 12/19 and 2/20 to 3/5 as my periods.

Yea, we need timing....this is a good example of the value of an NAO. Its overrated in the sense that there is a misperception that you need it for a big event. You don't, but if we had it here, then the path to a fun solution would be much wider because the confluence would be held in place and the system would be forced to dig.

DT has had a rough couple of years.

Walt, please drop in here whenever time permits....appreciate the thoughts.

If the Atlantic doesn't change, then I can see an early spring, but I still feel as though it will. The Pacific should largely remain crap....that is what I have said since Novie.

https://easternmassweather.blogspot.com/2020/01/verification-january-18-19-winter-storm.html It was stated that this was a relatively easy forecast, and in hindsight that assessment was correct. Here is the forecast, which was originally issued last Wednesday at 8pm: This is the outcome: Modeling remained steadfast from a fairly extended lead that the original parent system would track well to the west, and it would begin to redevelop as it traversed the area, which would limit snowfall of greater than 6" across the region. This was indeed what transpired. However the mixing was not quite aggressive as forecast due to the resistance of the arctic high to the north. This was largely immaterial to the forecast snow amounts, since the majority of mixing was not expected to occur until the event was winding down, but the upper cape did receive a bit more than the forecast of around 1", This is evidenced by the 2.5" reported in Sandwich, MA. Additionally, the upper bound of the 4-7" forecast range to the north of Boston would have been better served to be 6", as opposed to 7". The anticipated subtle topographical enhancement in Berkshires did not play out, likely due to the very progressive nature of the system.