Layman

Is there any benefit to providing a synopsis post-mortem on this? I seem to recall back in late Dec that there was a "massive" signal for this time period. Something was sniffed out at that time that you caught as well and looked like with a certain evolution could drop a heck of a storm on us. Sure, we watched it collapse in real-time over a period of 10-14 days or so, but thinking back to that initial signal, what needed to happen that didn't? Does it simply boil down to the speed of the N and S jets not capturing the energy in time or at least a proper sequence to manifest a storm here? Alternatively, if the signal was truly massive 10+ days ago, does that automatically imply something is going to happen somewhere down range regardless? If so, what is that end result here on the east coast? I know we're essentially seeing that now, but I guess that's indicative of the necessary evolution falling apart, taking a massive signal and shredding it to nothing along the way. I'm curious about this because I simply follow along and try to keep up but for those of you who do this for a living, I'm interested in your reflections on what went wrong, what went right, what went unexpectedly, etc.

A degree’d met moonlighting in sales - I like it!

Weren't you one of them?

Hopefully warm enough for one of these

Is it reasonable to say what we're seeing in the evolution could be chalked up to largely a timing issue? I'm assuming there are other mechanics at play impacting that timing but for the storm to follow a desired path to provide snow in New England, it needs to get captured as you mentioned it sent on up to our doorstep.

Are there specific atmospheric mechanics that make or allow this to happen (I'm assuming "yes" because the models are picking up on it actually/potentially happening) that can be discerned at some reasonably defined lead time? Or, is it something that simply just happens? I see terms being used like "holding the energy back" or "not diving in time" etc but am curious if there's something akin to a tangible reason why. Kind of like a block of NE Canada shunting storms eastward. This is an obvious and easy to understand concept for me but some of the other mechanics remain elusive.

Could this be where AI may ultimately shine? I see it as a huge hurdle to attempt to overcome but it'll be interesting to see if improvements can be made.

I remember it. No power, everything quietish outside except for the sound of ice dropping off trees and the consistent shotgun pops of tree tops, large branches and full trees coming down. That was another 5-7 day outage for us on the Seacoast of NH.

We've got woodpeckers galore here so I can definitely see that. Is there anything that can be done do stave off the emerald ash beetle if that is the cause? Thank you for the feedback and insight, I appreciate it!

In weather, when is this NOT a thing? It seems there's a near infinite amount of variables that can play with most any weather pattern aside from perhaps a summer COC teasing season.

@tamarack @dendrite Gentlemen, you two seem to know your trees. I’ve got this on my property - what is it and what’s happening to it? I don’t believe it’s dead as I believe it had leaves that dropped in the Fall, but it appears to have shed its entire outer layer of bark across each tree.

That was a helpful explanation for a casual onlooker like myself. It'll be interesting to see which model ultimately wins out here.

I found it safest to view every reply as an euphemism until proven otherwise. You'll soon see that damn near every post can be misconstrued

Does this imply that it should be, or is getting well sampled at this point and therefore can be more reliably believed to be participating as the models are showing?

“Light Breeze, Some Wind” J/K! It’s actually “Load Blown SouthWest” which I understand to be a New England forum exclusive term that I interpret as a/the storm developing or hitting to our Southwest, rather than hitting New England.

With so much angst, hand wringing and consternation about the weather, I thought I'd try to chime in with what I believe is helpful advice. While some folks like warmth, others snow, many enjoy active patterns, etc it all boils down to perspective. We can all choose to perceive the same information or data in either a positive or negative way. Here's a good example from my household that may help to shine a light on this better: Negative Approach: Wife says: "Please come upstairs and meet me in the bathroom." My response: "Ugh. Alright....I'll be there in a minute." Positive Approach: Wife says: "Please cum upstairs and meat me in the bathroom." My response: "Absolutely!!!!" There are subtle differences, sometimes only discernible to the keen observer, but certainly meaningful nonetheless. I've found it's always best to take the positive approach Good luck out there, I hope this helps.

The Crunge

Goody Two Shoes?

You guys got to know the Leeroy Jenkins meme, no? https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/leeroy-jenkins

F-it, I’m gonna thread it right now. Leeroooooooy Jeeeeeenkinnnnnns!!!!!

It’s a beaut! is that a TRX I spy…?

Our observed and recorded weather data set is so infinitesimally small in the grand scheme that it sometimes seems ridiculous to refer to our current "norms" and "averages". Maybe the past thousand years would be something that's more manageable from a recency-biased perspective of norms and averages. Hard telling. From my perspective, 40-100 years doesn't even scratch the surface but it's what we've got to work with.

This is critical for science to be meaningful and useful. It should be the utmost priority in any realm to ensure the input data is accurate. Tip was referring to multiple studies just yesterday citing how they were "science'd" (I believe that was the term he used) and peer reviewed/confirmed. If your input data is inaccurate, your peer-reviewed output data is also inaccurate. I'm not sure what data specifically was being used there and can't say one way or the other if that data was accurate but the point is much bigger than the accuracy of a handful of studies. The principles of science must be adhered to so it can be relied upon in all realms it's deployed. Whether it's improperly calculated instruments, human error, lax testing/recording, biased influencing, or any other inaccurate input it degrades the usefulness of the output. Perhaps, and realistically considering, science has always been this way and the innate level of ignorance borne from that has instilled too much confidence. With so much data at our fingertips now it's easy for a pro or average Joe to spot inconsistencies/inaccuracies and it certainly muddies the water of reliable consensus.

It's even simpler than that. May I introduce "poisonous fog": https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-14239417/thick-fog-mystery-chemical-smell-reports.html

If I'm interpreting this right, does this mean 6"+ of snow for NEMA and SENH?