January 2021

[WinterWolf]

2 hours ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

That one fails, I'll give it one more before calling fail on the Jan 2011 talk.

You already said you’re not on the January 2011 train.  So I don’t get the meaning of your post?  
Unless you are meaning that talk from others?   
 

Jan 2011 and feb 2015 aren’t predictable...they just happen with a good pattern and some great timing/and fortune.   

[40/70 Benchmark]

7 minutes ago, WinterWolf said:

You already said you’re not on the January 2011 train.  So I don’t get the meaning of your post?  
 

Jan 2011 and feb 2015 aren’t predictable...they just happen with a good pattern and some great timing/and fortune.   

I can contain confirmation that it is not happening...I'm not sure what confused you?

They are predictable....if it doesn't work out, then those are the breaks.

I predicted 2015 and 2018 both....called the Jan 2016 blizzard, too, but problem was I thought it would get NE more than it did.

Those are the breaks.

[Ginx snewx]

2 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Cat 2 sounds about right.

That map is bogus though

[40/70 Benchmark]

1 minute ago, Ginx snewx said:

That map is bogus though

I was thinking the same thing, but the official large scale map always misses some....all the totals they use need to be verified by Jesus.

[Ginx snewx]

4 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I was thinking the same thing, but the official large scale map always misses some....all the totals they use need to be verified by Jesus.

Brian got screwed 

[40/70 Benchmark]

Just now, Ginx snewx said:

Brian got screwed 

If that is screwed, sign me up.

I got "screwed" in March 2018....yes, sir, may I have another.

[WinterWolf]

2 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I can contain confirmation that it is not happening...I'm not sure what confused you?

They are predictable....if it doesn't work out, then those are the breaks.

Nobody predicted feb 15 or January 11 in advance. We can say the pattern setting up was looking very good, and it would be very active with Chances. But nobody could have predicted that ‘11 and ‘15 would have ended up like they did.  If the Chances all hit...then that’s what happens.  But nobody knows that specific outcome a month in advance is my point. 
 

 

[Henry's Weather]

17 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said:

Seeing it categorized helps to put this storm in perspective. Solid, once-a-year event for the NE but nothing extremely special outside of the death deform band. Thanks for posting.

[40/70 Benchmark]

Just now, WinterWolf said:

Nobody predicted feb 15 or January 11 in advance. We can say the pattern setting up was looking very good, and it would be very active with Chances. But nobody could have predicted that ‘11 and ‘15 would have ended up like they did.  If the Chances all hit...then that’s what happens.  But nobody knows that specific outcome a month in advance is my point. 
 

 

I did....would you like to see the post?

Not quite to that degree, but it was about as descriptive as you can get.

[40/70 Benchmark]

Last two seasons have been awful for me, and I am the first to say it. But I sure as hell nailed 2014-2015 and 2017-2018.

I will grant you that my totals were a bit low, and I forecast the Atlantic to be the main driver of 2015, but it was the Pacific....that was all detailed in the post analysis.

 

 

[40/70 Benchmark]

 

[WinterWolf]

13 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I did....would you like to see the post?

Not quite to that degree, but it was about as descriptive as you can get.

I’m not trying to bust yours or anybody’s chops, I’m just saying, that sure we can say the pattern is setting up very nicely, and the pattern is looking epic etc etc etc.... and all the ingredients are there.  But to say a record breaking 3.5 weeks is coming with 100 plus inches of snow, is not predictable 3-4 weeks out imo, prior to the barrage of storms setting in.   Cuz if one or two storms miss due to a nuance here or there, the 100 inch record breaker of 15,  and January of 11 is not going to happen.   
 

I guess that’s my point . 
 

 

[40/70 Benchmark]

Just now, WinterWolf said:

I’m not trying to bust yours or anybody’s chops, I’m just saying, that sure we can say the pattern is setting up very nicely, and the pattern is looking epic etc etc etc.... and all the ingredients are there.  But to say a record breaking 3.5 weeks is coming with 100 plus inches of snow, is not predictable 3-4 weeks out imo, prior to the barrage of storms setting in.   Cuz if one or two storms miss due to a nuance here or there, the 100 inch record breaker of 15 and 11 is not going to happen.   
 

I guess that’s my point . 
 

 

Technically, no, but I came about as close you can get.

Read it. I didn't have the technical prowess that I have now, as that was my initial foray into seasonal forecasting, but I explained why I thought that season would turn ferocious after a quiet first half.

[WinterWolf]

1 minute ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Technically, no, but I came about as close you can get.

Read it. I didn't have the technical prowess that I have now, as that was my initial foray into seasonal forecasting, but I explained why I thought that season would turn ferocious after a quiet first half.

It was a great call..nice job.  Things lined up perfectly.  

[40/70 Benchmark]

There is always the chance of an outlook being great, but one storm missing due to a nuance...those are the breaks. It also happens in sports, and life in general. Those are the breaks that distinguish victory from the jaws of defeat.....all you can do is try to place yourself in the best possible position, and hope to get lucky enough to avail of your work.

That happened to me in 2016 with the mid atlantic blizzard....great call and everything from a seasonal level, but because it whiffed New England totally, my seasonal totals were way off up here.

Those are the breaks, and you need to understand that....so I'm not sure why the need to endlessly adding that qualifier.

We all know this....its implicit. 

I think in the end, there will definitely be value in the big January calls because I think the NAO is going to come to fruition....I think we will all understand the value of the contributions of those like Cosgrove and Steve, who went big in January. @Isotherm did, too....so some good company there.

I had an okay January overall, but was struggling with when the pattern went to crap, which I still think that it will...looks to hold off until Feb, though.

[40/70 Benchmark]

7 minutes ago, WinterWolf said:

It was a great call..nice job.  Things lined up perfectly.  

Like you said, not quite perfectly....ended up a bit more snow than I forecast, and the Pacific drove the bus, but it was a good call all things considered.

[WinterWolf]

I understand perfectly.
Thanks.  
 

BTW, Blizzard of 16 didn’t completely whiff SNE.  CT shore did quite well with a foot plus, and inland areas such as where I live got 8-10”.  Just north of here it dropped off a cliff though.   
 

 

[40/70 Benchmark]

7 minutes ago, WinterWolf said:

I understand perfectly.
Thanks.  
 

BTW, Blizzard of 16 didn’t completely whiff SNE.  CT shore did quite well with a foot plus, and inland areas such as where I live got 8-10”.  Just north of here it dropped off a cliff though.   
 

 

Not all, but it whiffed alot of it.

[Henry's Weather]

Such an interesting look on the GFS. It looks like the remains of our "storm" today eject a pinball s/w which dives through Ontario as mjo781 mentioned. I think that even if that s/w wasn't there, there still would exist too much traffic upstream (or downstream?) in the PAC, which prevents a strong ridge from popping out west, which would itself cause the s/w to dig more and therefore, turn up the coast sooner. Also allows for potential northern stream interaction, stealing the snow from our mid-atlantic neighbors once again.

Is a block over Labrador really THAT much worse than a block over Davis Strait?

[Henry's Weather]

I think I understand why this happens (referring to the s/w in Ontario):

Two areas of HP merge near Labrador, "squishing" a portion of that 50/50 low down south. I finally understand what @Typhoon Tip meant. I actually suggested this in my long post a few days ago, but back when today's event was progged to strengthen, it kind of rammed the higher heights northward, towards more favorable places. Another consequence of that scenario would've been no Ontario s/w, because the H5 energy of the cyclone would be more tightly wound (again, the new term isohypse can be used here) and thus, no stragglers to be squeezed off the main low pressure.

[weathafella]

3 hours ago, Wentzadelphia said:

We all know you’ll be on the first flight back if a big one is coming 

Not possible.  We’re driving and for urgent family business.  I’ve missed plenty of them but it can also snow in Chicago as well as the entire LES belt we need to drive through going and coming.

[A Moonlit Sky]

1 hour ago, WinterWolf said:

I understand perfectly.
Thanks.  
 

BTW, Blizzard of 16 didn’t completely whiff SNE.  CT shore did quite well with a foot plus, and inland areas such as where I live got 8-10”.  Just north of here it dropped off a cliff though.   
 

 

I was working in Bridgeport at the time and they got slammed while we got like a quarter of their total.

[WinterWolf]

15 minutes ago, A Moonlit Sky said:

I was working in Bridgeport at the time and they got slammed while we got like a quarter of their total.

Yes, big cut off as you worked your way away from the south coast on that one.  

[weathafella]

34 minutes ago, WinterWolf said:

Yes, big cut off as you worked your way away from the south coast on that one.  

I actually got about 7 inches.

[WinterWolf]

8 minutes ago, weathafella said:

I actually got about 7 inches.

You did well considering your latitude. 

[40/70 Benchmark]

21 minutes ago, weathafella said:

I actually got about 7 inches.

Yea, the was a sharp cut-off near the ocean in the Boston area....I had like 6" at school in Salem, but like 2" of sand at home in Wilmington.

[40/70 Benchmark]

2 hours ago, Henry's Weather said:

I think I understand why this happens (referring to the s/w in Ontario):

Two areas of HP merge near Labrador, "squishing" a portion of that 50/50 low down south. I finally understand what @Typhoon Tip meant. I actually suggested this in my long post a few days ago, but back when today's event was progged to strengthen, it kind of rammed the higher heights northward, towards more favorable places. Another consequence of that scenario would've been no Ontario s/w, because the H5 energy of the cyclone would be more tightly wound (again, the new term isohypse can be used here) and thus, no stragglers to be squeezed off the main low pressure.

First half of January may well be a wash, at this point. I know the great pattern was always mid month, but you hope to catch a break beforehand, and it doesn't look like we will.

[HIPPYVALLEY]

Next weekend looks tenuous at best, probably a whiff.  Really need to get beyond mid-month to see a more favorable set-up for storm chances.  It certainly looks like January is going to come in AN in the temp department unless we get some anomalous cold towards the end of the month.   The next week looks boring, hopefully get some sunshine out this way to soften the ice pack.

[Henry's Weather]

If I had to guess, I'd say this system has a good chance of missing us all, but I think the lower mid-atl has the best shot. Going to be marginal temps though.

[40/70 Benchmark]

Just now, Henry's Weather said:

If I had to guess, I'd say this system has a good chance of missing us all, but I think the lower mid-atl has the best shot. Going to be marginal temps though.

Next.