weatherwiz

can't blame him

I got just over 1.5"

What fell this morning essentially has melted already with additional melting. Good...get the streets all clear

I wouldn't mind going out with a bang. But if we're getting something around or just after mid-month it better be a big one.

I think there may have been a SWS but we've had WWA issued for 37F and some specs of freezing drizzle that only freeze onto car tops and garbage bins

I'm fine with continuing with some winter storm threats until about March 15 but on or around then I'm going to be itching for warmer weather. Obviously I know how springs go around here...could be 70F one day and 38F with drizzle the next but you just take what you can until June or so.

I was thinking to myself yesterday, I was shocked there weren't WWA issued

There doesn't seem to be anything that could really support that solution.

Funny how the 12z GFS continues to be north

It's a huge weakness of the NAM where it can often struggle at initializing precipitation

12z 3km picked up a little more on the evening squall potential

Just a bit over 1.5" here so right about what I expected

Right on the back edge of this now (although some lighter echoes still west). Will go measure once this exists shortly. Going to say maybe 2" looking outside at the table.

Been very consistent with it. the 3km has shown it a bit but no where near as impressive as the HRRR. Models though do hint at a bit of instability with some steepening lapse rates moving through during the evening though. Some pretty strong elongated shortwave energy right across the region. HRRR probably too aggressive though

Some of the latest HRRR soundings, particularly across southern CT are pretty impressive...some really good lift just punching into the base of the DGZ

When did they start introducing 3 hour delays? It was always usually either 60 min, 90 min, or maybe 2 hours but I don't ever recall 3.

The HRRR is been horrible but its been very consistent with some hefty squalls this evening

Nice steady snow here!

There was no way to measure but I am figuring probably 6" or so. There were some totals around here that were a bit more than that. I thought I would get around a foot here (maybe closer to 18" if the banding worked right). I expected to get screwed but not this much. One of the biggest killers (outside of being in between bands) was the snow ratios absolutely sucked. Lift was definitely above the DGZ (which was also shown well on bufkit for this area). I'm honestly more mad CT wasn't widespread 18-24" than I am missing out

I would 1000% agree with that

Fatigue and time constraints absolutely play a role. It's why I'm not particularly active anymore blogging unless there is a big event. I have to do forecasts for all over the country and when its crazy I am so exhausted I don't have the time or energy to put the focus and detail I would like into the maps/blogs I post...it kind of sucks. This is why I am going to transition to doing videos instead. I suck with technology but I'm slowly getting there. I went to bed around 7:30 Sunday night and woke up just before 3:00. One look outside and I knew I was totally screwed but I'll say, it did bring me joy and some sense of peace reading the accounts from others who got into the goods.

Absolutely. As I stated above, I'm a bit frustrated because the signs and signals where there and present, but not sure why I avoided them. Ultimately, I think I did too much to talk myself out of why I didn't think it would happen instead of taking as a flag. I might have let some of the latest QPF jumps (Friday) get to me and I don't know why because QPF totals are actually the very last thing I really look it. When I was looking at hose fronto maps from FSU and going nuts...I kept telling myself its weird how quick it is with the front and how it evolved it to depict the two bands but didn't want to believe it I guess.

I'm actually really glad there was really no way for me to measure so while I'm disappointed because I don't know what I got, I am sheltered because I don't know how much less than expected. Although it really sucks because I probably won't be able to get to 100" now.

The broad brush ranges certainly makes things much easier lol. But I can understand why there has been more of a movement to include more ranges and place greater emphasis on max/min zones. If you're in say an emergency planning vertical or DOT, landscaping, etc. the broad brush ranges often don't serve a great value (this is where the private sector come in because you can pay for greater local detail). Anyways very impressive to see that the short-term guidance and mesos absolutely nailed how this would evolve...literally to a T, especially with the evolution of the two bands and what would happen in between and even more impressive, the timing this would begin. These large events (or really any event) so there is much focus and so much sweat on analyzing QPF and QPF trends, snow maps and snow map trends and comparing from one model to another and one run to another run...that's a pretty terrible way to assess storm trends and evolution, IMO. In fact, on one of my lecture slides the professor even has stated in bold...these products do not explain why trends in storm track or precipitation intensity are there. This shall be another fun case study storm

Very annoyed with myself because that was a glaring signal on all guidance...extremely glaring signal but for some reason I didn't want to buy it and buy into exactly how bad the potential for subsidence would be in the valley. The signals were all right there, laid out right there and just totally overlooked. Great stuff on the differences in alignment regarding 850mb fronto and 700mb fronto and what happens when the two become stacked. Moving forward I am going to give stronger attention to this. Anytime there are situations where models are big with the 700mb fronto, I've disregarded what's happening at 850 in terms of fronto. I wonder if this stuff would be covered in my course this week focusing on isentropic analysis. The other challenging part when dealing with the potential for subsidence zone(s) is how to portray that on a snowfall forecast map without making the map look stupid (Speaking for myself here). I guess maybe one way to do this is don't go crazy with the ranges and then add some text or an outline indicating where max totals may be. It's much easier to highlight max zone versus min zone I think anyways