OceanStWx

Imagine if it was snow.

Ours starts a week from Monday, but the course was also supposed to open yesterday and I don't think that happened. Would make it a late opening this year, but only by a few days.

Would I miss snow and severe? Sure. But I could probably live out the rest of my days in the trades and be just fine.

I mean his personal life may have been a mess, but that doesn't mean we can't be awed by his talent. It was very cool watching him win this tourney again. I mean Jack was 46 when he won, Tiger is 43 and needed to fuse part of his spine together to compete again. It's AT LEAST as impressive as Jack if not more.

Going to be a stiff breeze tomorrow too. MAV and MET are around 15 knots (MAV a little higher) which would be good for gusts into the 30 mph range. I like the final score to not be much lower than it is today, maybe -15.

2.5" new so far today brings me to 70.2" on the season...

ITH is sitting at 70. Oh to be back at college. 64 at POU while BDL rots at 42.

My biggest issue is posture I think. I get lazy and slouch over. Currently I'm athletic enough to get through the ball with a crap turn, but that's usually a handsy swing and hook. When I stand tall and swing to a good finish I get my baby draw back. But all those years fearing a slice and now I LOATHE a hook.

I took tropical meteorology during my semester "abroad" at UH Manoa. The only time we discussed TCs was the cases when the form from the TUTT (the prof's general reasoning being that we spend far more days without TCs than with them). Just a whole semester on sea/land breezes, trade winds, inversions, shear lines, etc. It was fascinating really. TCs are fairly obvious elements of a tropical forecast, but day to day tropical meteorology is so subtle.

So the FV3 fixes were implemented at the end of February. In a nutshell this past summer and fall they discovered a couple problems with how snow was melting under warm conditions and calculating the solar zenith angle. If was fixes to those problems that created excess accumulating snow in marginal conditions, and exacerbated the lower level cold bias (which also affected snow accumulation). The new fix to those problems now looks at the fraction of frozen precip when it comes to accumulations, and the cold bias has been reduced. So far the AC scores are much improved. More or less matching the UKMET over the last month.

Breathe it in, springtime in New England.

Tip's warm front arrived. Wind flipped south and the temp jumped 10 degrees in an hour there.

Why choose. Half day lift ticket and hit 9 holes on the way home.

He definitely misses some online reports, but always fills out his website. We are actually backfilling the info locally so that we can run our snowfall forecasts against his observations to find out just how bad we are up there. Because we're bad, the question is just how bad.

Drop it under 2 m too so you can grab the near surface moisture.

Another 1.5" overnight brings us up to 67.4" for the season.

I know you're trolling but... There's a reason why you yourself forecast 4-7 with lollis to 10" during events. You know there will be areas that get higher, but you don't know exactly where. Local flow, local elevation, etc will all effect snowfall amounts. But so will measurements. Cory was measuring (not clearing) frequently, and reported his highest snowfall depth which is totally within the guidelines. But if someone measured when the snow ended only, or an hour after, or an hour before, snowfall could be inches different. And mapping software just isn't equipped to handle that level of detail when you have to fill in areas of no obs compared to areas with 3 very different obs in the same town. We could create that map and put it on the website and you would complain it looks like swiss cheese with all the circles in it, but that's what happens when you include every outlying ob. There is zero issue with a map that says 8-12" over a large area but including lollis to 16".

Most likely someone forgot to LSR it and that's why it didn't show up. They had 6.2" total, and 58.5" on the season.

Our internal storm report system logs it all. We can even log null events if we are cold calling spotters. It’s just that the maps look so bad when there are high and low bullseyes everywhere. And snow is so subjective to begin with that you end up with a lot of reports not jiving with each other.

Actually Joe D rows a dinghy out into the harbor with a portable snow board and 8" gauge during every snow storm now. I really wouldn't waste too much time worrying about whether you're in the PNS or not, especially the final PNS. We use those to generate our observed snowfall maps. And outliers make the map look like shit, even if you're an outlier because of elevation. We remove reports all the time to smooth the map out. It's not an indictment of your measuring technique (except when it is *cough* Lunenburg *cough*).

The time listed is just the time of the LAST report, it doesn't say anything about the number of measurements. BOS being an LCD site means that the contract observer is measuring every 6 hours. Also ASOS liquid is considered the standard, with only rare circumstances requiring contract observer liquid being used for the official ob. So the fact that the ASOS measured 1.06" is likely just coincidence, because the treatment plant's 8" gauge would likely be different by a small number and their observer wouldn't be hitting refresh on the web to find out how much BOS measured to estimate snowfall.

6.8" brings me to 63.5" for the season. I honestly may be in the best spot for snowfall while still be in the city limits of PWM (running 5" ahead of the official city obs). The way the coastal front sets up I'm about as far away as one can get in town.

We need one more good one to make sure this is your most forgettable solidly above normal snowfall winter.

Official coop guidance now is one clear every 24 hours. But as long as you aren't clearing more frequently than every 6 hours, I'm fine with it. We only require that at LCD sites though.