Feb 15 Clipper Obs

[N. OF PIKE]

This is it in a nutshell. If the posts had been about a 15 mile tug west people would have been disrobing at their keyboard. It's hard to point out caution flags with the forecast without being seen as the turd in the punchbowl.

It will continue to happen every single storm. Good think messenger has thick skin.

[TauntonBlizzard2013]

8.5" total.

Deep winter

[OceanStWx]

I think it was a little more progressive in addition to pulling a tad east..so yeah when you know the cutoff will be drastic west of the mid level frontogensis...it makes a big difference on snow amounts. It's the name of the game with tight gradients..but I don't completely agree with model fails and wave placement excuses. It happens...the Feb blizzard was more progressive and a tad east of where the models had it, but I don't see people noting this. Gee, I wonder why.

 

I think the models actually did a good job on the important features. And we know the important features aren't surface low placement and QPF. I know for a fact we got wrapped up in QPF amounts up here, and we bit it big time on our warnings. Not one is going to verify.

[CoastalWx]

I think the models actually did a good job on the important features. And we know the important features aren't surface low placement and QPF. I know for a fact we got wrapped up in QPF amounts up here, and we bit it big time on our warnings. Not one is going to verify.

 

I agree..I mean when the stakes are high and you are relying on comma head dynamics to give snow..there is certainly bust potential. I think people need to keep this in mind. Sure maybe the amounts came in on the lower range near the canal and out west..but honestly...the area that came in lower than expected here was near BOS and it is easy to see why.

[wxsniss]

Read my post in the banter thread...it was a small shift east...model fail isnt doing it justice and is wrong.

 

I understand Coastal, I agree it was a small shift east. But in this case that was critical and the models were wrong.

 

Euro and NAM and GFS at 12z all painted much higher QPF to Boston metro. Dead wrong right before go time.

 

Fact is, Harv and NWS bit the same bait incorrectly. We had blizzard warnings up and down the Mass coast...! Look at the maps Harv and NWS put up at 6pm...!

 

As I said, it was a small shift east, maybe 15-20 miles, but it made a huge difference.

 

And as for "not doing it justice"... I never said the shift east was the entire explanation... read the rest of my post... and I welcome other thoughts you have on the post-mortem:

 

Obviously ticks matter. In this case, the difference between a blue bomb and blue balls.

...

I'm still trying to figure out why the tick east. The hook east seemed to occur later in the game off of Long Island (i.e., not as the SLP was spawning off of Hatteras). I thought maybe the ULL over Quebec might have had a role as a kicker, but I went back through the model runs this evening and not sure I see a correlation.

 

Some other things that might have contributed:

--- PWAT spent on prior storm --- people did comment that returns were not that impressive even when this was down by NJ. I think this is underappreciated as a factor.

--- N-S orientation of 850 low and hence not much ocean enhancement?

[Damage In Tolland]

Ground blizzard today. it's blowing everywhere out right now

[OceanStWx]

I agree..I mean when the stakes are high and you are relying on comma head dynamics to give snow..there is certainly bust potential. I think people need to keep this in mind. Sure maybe the amounts came in on the lower range near the canal and out west..but honestly...the area that came in lower than expected here was near BOS and it is easy to see why.

 

PWM came in with 1.8". We had a forecast going of a little over 6" I believe. Ugly.

[CoastalWx]

I understand Coastal, I agree it was a small shift east. But in this case that was critical and the models were wrong.

 

Euro and NAM and GFS at 12z all painted much higher QPF to Boston metro. Dead wrong right before go time.

 

Fact is, Harv and NWS bit the same bait incorrectly. We had blizzard warnings up and down the Mass coast...! Look at the maps Harv and NWS put up at 6pm...!

 

As I said, it was a small shift east, maybe 15-20 miles, but it made a huge difference.

 

And as for "not doing it justice"... I never said the shift east was the entire explanation... read the rest of my post... and I welcome other thoughts you have on the post-mortem:

 

We simply don't have the capability to resolve these little shifts. They will happen again..it's the nature of the game and they happem more often than not, it's just that when you have a very narrow window in terms of getting heavy snow..the stakes are high. If models were that good...everything wouldbe automated and I would not have a job.

[OceanStWx]

I understand Coastal, I agree it was a small shift east. But in this case that was critical and the models were wrong.

 

Euro and NAM and GFS at 12z all painted much higher QPF to Boston metro. Dead wrong right before go time.

 

Fact is, Harv and NWS bit the same bait incorrectly. We had blizzard warnings up and down the Mass coast...! Look at the maps Harv and NWS put up at 6pm...!

 

As I said, it was a small shift east, maybe 15-20 miles, but it made a huge difference.

 

And as for "not doing it justice"... I never said the shift east was the entire explanation... read the rest of my post... and I welcome other thoughts you have on the post-mortem:

 

Well my argument is that the over the course of yesterday the models didn't shift their mid level features much, if any. It was the QPF that didn't change to match forcing aloft. This is why we give QPF queens such a hard time, the models forecast precip amounts poorly, even up until go time.

 

I know you've all heard us back Powderfreak off the edge of the picnic table by telling him he'll get under the deformation banding and snowfall will stack up despite low QPF output. In this storm that deformation signal was centered over the Cape. So high QPF to the west of that didn't make a lot of sense.

[Clinch Leatherwood]

I'm not so sure the big lift really crapped out, so much as we (NWS included) got carried away with it. If you look back at some of the images I posted yesterday, the models were awfully accurate in their placement of the best banding and lift signatures. Basically confined it to Plymouth County and SE.

I think the QPF pulled the wool over our eyes to some degree. The numbers looked so great, and it was bombing as it passed the Cape, so why not? In reality we should've trusted the sharp NW gradient with H7 features really suggesting SE of PVD-BOS. Those H7 progs were why I was never fully on board, especially N of BOS.

I think the progressive nature of the storm was poorly forecast too. I think we still had likely snow going at this time when we issued the forecast yesterday. It's been clear/sunny for hours up here.

You did a great job of much more subtly trying to point these things out yesterday than I did. The link you posted really highlighted some stuff that I think was important to read especially as the enormous gap opened up off the jersey coast in precip that helped to eat away at rates in some areas.

Turns out many models may have overdone the development of the mid level cores. As a result there was no tucking going on and more ticking.

I will disagree with others that the little wobbles and ticks didn't matter. They did and I thought yesterday they were pointing in a clear direction. They were indicative of a slight weakening/shift aloft that carried through in many models. I felt as we went from more widespread qpf to less west of the main shield/band we were seeing an attached weakening/shift in the key levels. I figured the heavy band area was in for a legit 12-18. But what happened is those ticks never stopped and it reached a critical mass where it shifted enough and was ragged enough it really didn't have the moisture to throw back into se areas and even when it did up until about 930 the rates were 1 to 1.5. Closer to 10 it finally injected more moisture but then it rotated out. I figured we we're a lock for 12 here yesterday am but saw that vanishing during the day. I hoped for 10 and fell short with 9. Nice storm though.

More progressive because it was weaker too. Less intense precip lower pwats which were largely ignored. It broke worse down here than I thought it would. But the next time the rgem refuses to bite on 1.5 to 3" qpf maybe it'll at least be used in a consensus.

Low pwats and poor oe enhancement potential with a fast mover....

[CoastalWx]

The pattern was progressive..the storm could have been a 940 low and it still would have been flying east.

 

Who said little ticks did not matter? I thought that was hammered by all of us for days. In the end, it was a little faster to move and some interaction with the nrn stream to help boot it east. We had 6-10 for BOS yesterday in our morning forecast. Logan was 10 miles from verifying that..I mean this is what we are talking about. Yes models like the 12z euro were woefully wet, but it did have a sharp QPF cutoff. The problem is where does this happen? It's extremely difficult for models to resolve this. The RGEM gave some clues, but was a bit too dry. A model blend yesterday morning gave BOS about 8".

[wxsniss]

We simply don't have the capability to resolve these little shifts. They will happen again..it's the nature of the game and they happem more often than not, it's just that when you have a very narrow window in terms of getting heavy snow..the stakes are high. If models were that good...everything wouldbe automated and I would not have a job.

 

I agree completely. It goes without saying that a human scientific and instinctive input is critical in this business, because models simply aren't that good (and in this case, misleading).

 

What I'm trying to understand (and feels like I'm getting burned for it) is why the shift east compared to what our best models depicted and compared to what many Mets forecast incorrectly.

 

Fact is Harv / NWS / many here were seeing something that made them double-down on incorrect model solutions. And Blizzard Warnings / 10+" forecasts for big population areas is a significant bust.

 

I'm not criticizing anyone, I just think models had a colossal fail and I'm trying to understand why.

[N. OF PIKE]

We simply don't have the capability to resolve these little shifts. They will happen again..it's the nature of the game and they happem more often than not, it's just that when you have a very narrow window in terms of getting heavy snow..the stakes are high. If models were that good...everything wouldbe automated and I would not have a job.

We know they will happen , man the general public are the ones that often expect wxmwn to know everything everywhere down to the inch or raindrop and time

Which is why it irks me when you poo poo on messenger for picking up on these little shifts late in the model game (i.e 18z gfs/0z nam) or rap/hrrrr or whatever he was referencing as "obsessing"

He gave great now casting and as pf posted had to deal with the bs , happens every single storm, usually by weenies

Lastly, i know coastal you don't agree with this but I'd like oceanstwx's take or others for the sake of LEARNING

Barcolonic instability posted on Friday that the Gulf Stream precipitable water was pretty much temporarily decimated from the huge storm 36 hrs prior to this one and that best forcing would likely result in being a bit further east

. I still think it makes sense, however, that the frontogenesis max ends slightly farther E given the wiped out Gulf Stream and the more likely position of the warm front.

Probably linked somewhere else, but this succinctly depicts the evisceration of the deep Gulf Stream moisture: http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mimic-tpw/natl/main.html

What i would like to UNDErstand or learn is that could the missing high octane pwats over the Gulf Stream led to a more stretched n-s developent of the 850 low which killed the atlantic inflow (that will spoke of wrt being so important) or is this entirely different processes that caused that

Wxniss i would look into this as a reason why "the atmosphere was temporarily spent or the Gulf Stream clearly was, by BI's post and the pwat link" and this Was enuf to be the difference in such a delicate set up

[Clinch Leatherwood]

Well my argument is that the over the course of yesterday the models didn't shift their mid level features much, if any. It was the QPF that didn't change to match forcing aloft. This is why we give QPF queens such a hard time, the models forecast precip amounts poorly, even up until go time.

I know you've all heard us back Powderfreak off the edge of the picnic table by telling him he'll get under the deformation banding and snowfall will stack up despite low QPF output. In this storm that deformation signal was centered over the Cape. So high QPF to the west of that didn't make a lot of sense.

I disagree on the mid levels. Scott and i went back and forth when he told me to stop with the se trend so I just dropped it. Maybe we weren't looking at the same things but the nose of the 5h feature was no longer hooking back and the shift wasn't subtle on the gfs which is when I threw in the towel. That panel was just reinforcement of what I could see visually:

1. Not a solid Ccb moving in. Was ragged and cellular. When I've seen that going back to the 80s it doesn't bode well for extreme totals and usually indicates rates will disappoint and they did. In a 5-6 hour peak storm 1 to 1.5 per won't get 18" for most. Also ties into pwat depletion on the back of the last storm.

2. Less defined water vapor loop which to me was indicative and supportive of the tick east of not just the actual center but individual lobes and the overall structure.

I have not yet looked but i am thinking the isobars will show this was more elongated ne or ene than north like modeled...indicative of it not wrapping up as much and being able to force as much west.

Maybe if we would stop arguing with one another during events and try to better understand why we are saying things instead of labeling people we would come up with a pretty bitching consensus here.

[Ginx snewx]

LOL, excellent blend forecasts, Boston NW because of the SE shift and progression got hosed, final precip not far from what I envisoned, Cocorahs has them if interested, max I saw was 1.6 Lots of tree damage from the pics I saw down near Phil all from what was described as a fart from Polar. 

 

 

[N. OF PIKE]

Im just saying

To think the "eviscarated Gulf Stream" was not a favor that led to less moisture transport or wrt its extent westward into sne near the 95 corridor and the deepening rate of this storm seems ...off

[CoastalWx]

We know they will happen , man the general public are the ones that often expect wxmwn to know everything everywhere down to the inch or raindrop and time

Which is why it irks me when you poo poo on messenger for picking up on these little shifts late in the model game (i.e 18z gfs/0z nam) or rap/hrrrr or whatever he was referencing as "obsessing"

He gave great now casting and as pf posted had to deal with the bs , happens every single storm, usually by weenies

Lastly, i know coastal you don't agree with this but I'd like oceanstwx's take or others for the sake of LEARNING

Barcolonic instability posted on Friday that the Gulf Stream precipitable water was pretty much temporarily decimated from the huge storm 36 hrs prior to this one and that best forcing would likely result in being a bit further east

What i would like to UNDErstand or learn is that could the missing high octane pwats over the Gulf Stream led to a more stretched n-s developent of the 850 low which killed the atlantic inflow (that will spoke of wrt being so important) or is this entirely different processes that caused that

 

It's not poo-pooing him..it's letting things play out. You forget when he poo-pood the west trend in 1/27/11 and ended up getting rain. I see too many people having knee jerk reactions all the time. He made a good call..props to him, but there have been others who do the same and get burned.

 

Second, models can resolve moisture issues. They aren't just going to miss lower PWATS off of HSE. That's crap. Recall all of us saying that the GFS at 18z Friday was likely too far west. The 850 low development was a function of the development of a low. They features tool on a back bent warm front feature...this feature later matured into a CCB near NS, but the fact is all low centers..even mid level ones have front features. They are not concentric circles with ripping geostrophic flow. If that happened, there would not be bands of heavy snow or frontogenesis. I don't think any lack of moisture had anything to do with these features.

 

I remember on Jan 12-13 2011 people were again giving voodoo logic about how the low would develop and tuck closer to the coast because "The NAM is non0-hydrostatic and can resolve these isses!"   ....latent heat from convection will tuck it in closer and give NYC 20" of snow..!" Well guess what, they got 8-10" and the low did not tuck in that far west. Models are good and can take into account all these processes. This isn't 1996 when these surprises can arise. Sometimes they do like in Jan 2011 when it came west..but that is very rare. The Jan 26 2011 system was again srn stream in origins so the red flag of coming west naturally applies.

[OceanStWx]

I disagree on the mid levels. Scott and i went back and forth when he told me to stop with the se trend so I just dropped it. Maybe we weren't looking at the same things but the nose of the 5h feature was no longer hooking back and the shift wasn't subtle on the gfs which is when I threw in the towel. That panel was just reinforcement of what I could see visually:

1. Not a solid Ccb moving in. Was ragged and cellular. When I've seen that going back to the 80s it doesn't bode well for extreme totals and usually indicates rates will disappoint and they did. In a 5-6 hour peak storm 1 to 1.5 per won't get 18" for most. Also ties into pwat depletion on the back of the last storm.

2. Less defined water vapor loop which to me was indicative and supportive of the tick east of not just the actual center but individual lobes and the overall structure.

I have not yet looked but i am thinking the isobars will show this was more elongated ne or ene than north like modeled...indicative of it not wrapping up as much and being able to force as much west.

Maybe if we would stop arguing with one another during events and try to better understand why we are saying things instead of labeling people we would come up with a pretty bitching consensus here.

 

I will agree that the GFS from Friday to Saturday took a big jump. The GFS Friday was arguing Kevin would be on the edge of the best deformation for a time. Clearly that was not the case.

 

I'm all curious now, so I'm working on a little satellite progression on the low pressure based on those features rather than model or analysis. I have a feeling the low took a good wobble east before tucking back to the NE. Almost like it was on the end of a string attached somewhere near SE MA. It just never got close enough to the coast to bring the good snow to 128.

[CoastalWx]

I disagree on the mid levels. Scott and i went back and forth when he told me to stop with the se trend so I just dropped it. Maybe we weren't looking at the same things but the nose of the 5h feature was no longer hooking back and the shift wasn't subtle on the gfs which is when I threw in the towel. That panel was just reinforcement of what I could see visually:

1. Not a solid Ccb moving in. Was ragged and cellular. When I've seen that going back to the 80s it doesn't bode well for extreme totals and usually indicates rates will disappoint and they did. In a 5-6 hour peak storm 1 to 1.5 per won't get 18" for most. Also ties into pwat depletion on the back of the last storm.

2. Less defined water vapor loop which to me was indicative and supportive of the tick east of not just the actual center but individual lobes and the overall structure.

I have not yet looked but i am thinking the isobars will show this was more elongated ne or ene than north like modeled...indicative of it not wrapping up as much and being able to force as much west.

Maybe if we would stop arguing with one another during events and try to better understand why we are saying things instead of labeling people we would come up with a pretty bitching consensus here.

 

That was a general comment to the knee jerk reactions. It gets into the way of analyzing..that actually wasn't personally directed at you.

[CoastalWx]

I will agree that the GFS from Friday to Saturday took a big jump. The GFS Friday was arguing Kevin would be on the edge of the best deformation for a time. Clearly that was not the case.

 

I'm all curious now, so I'm working on a little satellite progression on the low pressure based on those features rather than model or analysis. I have a feeling the low took a good wobble east before tucking back to the NE. Almost like it was on the end of a string attached somewhere near SE MA. It just never got close enough to the coast to bring the good snow to 128.

 

Ryan pointed out how it was hauling east on WV. I think models just tucked it in a little too close..maybe issues with too much latent heat released? It was clear by early aftn that the low was not curling NE quite yet.

[Ginx snewx]

It's not poo-pooing him..it's letting things play out. You forget when he poo-pood the west trend in 1/27/11 and ended up getting rain. I see too many people having knee jerk reactions all the time. He made a good call..props to him, but there have been others who do the same and get burned.

 

Second, models can resolve moisture issues. They aren't just going to miss lower PWATS off of HSE. That's crap. Recall all of us saying that the GFS at 18z Friday was likely too far west. The 850 low development was a function of the development of a low. They features tool on a back bent warm front feature...this feature later matured into a CCB near NS, but the fact is all low centers..even mid level ones have front features. They are not concentric circles with ripping geostrophic flow. If that happened, there would be bands of heavy snow or frontogenesis. I don't think any lack of moisture had anything to do with these features.

 

I remember on Jan 2011 people were again giving voodoo logic about how the low would develop and tuck closer to the coast because "The NAM is non0-hydrostatic and can resolve these isses!"   ....latent heat from convection will tuck it in closer and give NYC 20" of snow..!" Well guess what, they got 8-10" and the low did not tuck in that far west. Models are good and can take into account all these processes. This isn't 1996 when these surprises can arise. Sometimes they do like in Jan 2011 when it came west..but that is very rare. The Jan 2011 system was again srn stream in origins so the red flag of coming west naturally applies.

lets not forget NEMO either, the runup of how that would fail was epic.

[MainePhotog]

4.25" snow total. Congrats downeast Maine!

[N. OF PIKE]

Coastal i do agree w you that the now casting can be off and there are examples you point to of this, like those in your post.

Ginx i will say the ride home last nite (after all u can eat sushi!) was beautiful . Even a few inches of snow plastered to everything was gorgeous.

[OceanStWx]

So here we go, I placed a dot at where you would expect the low center to be in each of these images. I left the dot from the previous image/time in the same place in the same color so you can see how features moved. The times are 15z, 17z, 20z, and 22z on the 15th, and 03z and 09z from the 16th.

 

 

 

 

I think this is the critical image. You can see that the low has wobbled a little more easterly than northeasterly off the VA/NC border. I think this was the time Ryan was pointing out that WV was hauling east. At this same time the low was beginning to elongate and the center was getting ready to skip/jump towards the benchmark (closer to the edge of the cold cloud tops).

 

 

 

 

Sorry for the large amount of images, but I think it's helpful to see the progression. It's interesting to note there was a notable jog east between 03 and 09z last night too.

[CoastalWx]

Good post Chris. The progressive nature is evident. My guess it owed to the nrn stream s/w in NY perhaps remaining more separate.

[OceanStWx]

Good post Chris. The progressive nature is evident. My guess it owed to the nrn stream s/w in NY perhaps remaining more separate.

 

You could see the NW winds evident undercutting the back edge of precip in western areas too. That was the kiss of death for areas out by 91.

[CoastalWx]

Anyways, wind compacted 6.5 is what I am going to role with. I think it may have been more with the old 6 hr rule..but couldn't do it. I see S weymouth has 5.5, but that seems pretty low. They missed out on an earlier band too. Randolph and Quincy even to the west with slightly less banding had similar amounts.

[Clinch Leatherwood]

That was a general comment to the knee jerk reactions. It gets into the way of analyzing..that actually wasn't personally directed at you.

 

Gotcha.

 

The game of who was right and who was wrong is mainly for weenies and you see that today in some of the posts in bringing up storms far removed from today.  I've always said I have no problems admitting I was wrong, and I was partially wrong yesterday in failing to see what I believed were very clear ticks would actually become so significant it'd impact totals even under and to the east of the band. 

 

I always thought the point of "forecast discussions" was to try and determine what was going to happen before it actually happened and to support that with some actual analysis.   As the mood and purpose of these boards evolves so has the posting.  At one time these things were small and it was a core group of die hards, many of you went on to become pros in the business that were once just hobbyists and many of you were kids.  To me those were the fun days when guys like rconsor would rip apart every system, Brian from PHL, Will, Ryan, and probably many others I'm forgetting as usual.   There were some real knock down drag outs...but overall it was about the weather.  The board is snow centric, extreme event oriented and I doubt many pros would disagree with that.  Lost in the barrage of posts are comments from Ryan about this zooming east yesterday, or OceanStWx's great link to a very important chat about PWATs etc.  I always enjoyed posting vapor loops, RAP 0h analysis vs models, 500mb animations of comparisons between runs...I don't do it any longer because all it does is bring grief if someone interprets what I saw as taking away 7 flakes from their total.   What people forget is all the times I'm starkly on one side of a snowier solution and get the inverse grief.  

 

I no longer post RAP images, I no longer post radar images and do a lot of the things I really enjoyed, trend analysis etc aside of select events and when I do...or when I point out it raining before 5 flakes fell the other day would not usually be a good thing up the coast I get labeled.   I think about half the posters here would prefer going to bed thinking a blizzard is coming and waking up to less than what they expected than be told before they went to bed it was unlikely to happen.  That's the gradual shift IMO that's gone on here and that's fine.  Perhaps Leon's greatest hit this winter will be in the realization that for me the fun has gone out of this and it's time.

[CoastalWx]

Gotcha.

 

The game of who was right and who was wrong is mainly for weenies and you see that today in some of the posts in bringing up storms far removed from today.  I've always said I have no problems admitting I was wrong, and I was partially wrong yesterday in failing to see what I believed were very clear ticks would actually become so significant it'd impact totals even under and to the east of the band. 

 

I always thought the point of "forecast discussions" was to try and determine what was going to happen before it actually happened and to support that with some actual analysis.   As the mood and purpose of these boards evolves so has the posting.  At one time these things were small and it was a core group of die hards, many of you went on to become pros in the business that were once just hobbyists and many of you were kids.  To me those were the fun days when guys like rconsor would rip apart every system, Brian from PHL, Will, Ryan, and probably many others I'm forgetting as usual.   There were some real knock down drag outs...but overall it was about the weather.  The board is snow centric, extreme event oriented and I doubt many pros would disagree with that.  Lost in the barrage of posts are comments from Ryan about this zooming east yesterday, or OceanStWx's great link to a very important chat about PWATs etc.  I always enjoyed posting vapor loops, RAP 0h analysis vs models, 500mb animations of comparisons between runs...I don't do it any longer because all it does is bring grief if someone interprets what I saw as taking away 7 flakes from their total.   What people forget is all the times I'm starkly on one side of a snowier solution and get the inverse grief.  

 

I no longer post RAP images, I no longer post radar images and do a lot of the things I really enjoyed, trend analysis etc aside of select events and when I do...or when I point out it raining before 5 flakes fell the other day would not usually be a good thing up the coast I get labeled.   I think about half the posters here would prefer going to bed thinking a blizzard is coming and waking up to less than what they expected than be told before they went to bed it was unlikely to happen.  That's the gradual shift IMO that's gone on here and that's fine.  Perhaps Leon's greatest hit this winter will be in the realization that for me the fun has gone out of this and it's time.

 

You have good obs in trends so nice job with that. I always said that.  Nobody is saying a single poster can't post images or give there opinion. It's healthy for the board. However, being human and all...I think sometimes we let emotions get involved and thus it projects onto posts from some posters...either when said poster is getting screwed or jackpotted. Maybe the poster deep down feels that way, but it's just something I noticed. Hey, I get emotionally involved too. I hate getting screwed and I'm sure it comes out in posts sometimes. I can't help it...I don't bleed oil..but I also have to stay focused otherwise I would not have a job.

[wxsniss]

Good post Chris. The progressive nature is evident. My guess it owed to the nrn stream s/w in NY perhaps remaining more separate.

 

Good stuff OceanStWx, Coastal, PV.

 

OceanStWx, the gap between the Green spot and the Blue spot is critical. I think the Green dot was actually pretty well progged (ie., we thought maybe the Green dot would shift further east due to convection off Hatteras, but it didn't). The track looked pretty good until somewhere closer to the Blue dot when it started slipping more east of a BM track. Just from SPC mesoanalysis, I think this was around 6pm last night that the track started looking shaky, but I can't remember for sure.

 

CoastalWx: The interaction with the shortwave in Quebec is something I was harping on yesterday and this morning... I wonder if a stronger ULL over Quebec would keep our storm tucked closer to the coast.

 

Anyways, I'm out.

Bottomline every single one of us was hoping this would be bigger. We wouldn't be so cranky if this busted high.

I meant no disrespect to anyone with my posts, and none of my posts should be misconstrued as such.

And as for weenie / knee-jerk / go to bed with false hopes... Look back at my posts prior to the Thursday storm... I was well on the "this is gonna bust" train, even when NWS still had Boston metro with 6-8"

 

My goal is accuracy and learning, and disagreements are a healthy part of that.