All Activity

Ehhh, What’s all that convection east…

GFS still has decent event for same time frame. While I know we are skeptics of much modeling of late, on thing that GFS has done a decent job of in recent year, is seeing an event at 7 days. While obviously not a lock, it often has the right general idea, and since I like what it's showing in the last few runs. I'm huggin.

Geez....ENE doesn't lose on any of the models. Wonder what that's like.

Here is the back entrance of my school in Feb 2015. I showed it to my students last week and they all thought it was AI

CMC puts all of that energy into the CAPE cutter

Just saw it. If we could get this to deliver as depicted, just give me a few days to enjoy and I'll stop wishing for snow..... Till the next one comes. 36 hr event verbatim.

The mystery of what happened on the margins to PSU's snow I think I have solved - it all went to Norrisville...

I’m never particularly worried about what the CMC is showing

Oh mamma

it's very similar to Icon and a massive snowstorm for all, what's wrong with my statement stop the nitpicking at 150 hours out! Also much colder than 6z which should have better rates

ICON is sexy AF. GFS sucks ass and still snows on us. I’m back in

CMC and GFS are so different at day 6

Two worst models. This has north trend feeling. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut know and then.. We will see

We have a decaying block going for us which is usually a good sign of a big storm. Lets see.

The GFS is a huge impact to the possibility.

My big fear is that we end up too far south for the redeveloping Miller B, but at this lead time, it's very encouraging.

Still a nice hit. This has a chance with the decaying blocking.

Exactly. The general category of fallacy here is called the reduction fallacy. In this context (and many others of climate contrarians) it is assuming outcomes are tied to one and only one cause. Example: Plants love CO2 therefore increases in atmospheric CO2 will necessarily result in increased crop yields. The Problem...changes in CO2 also causes other factors (like temperature, rainfall, soil composition, etc.) to change as well. If these other factors present negative influences that more than offset the positive influence of CO2 itself then crop yields will still decline. It is the NET effect of all factors that matters. Example: The global average temperature (GAT) does not move in lockstep with CO2 changes especially on monthly time scales therefore CO2 cannot be the cause of GAT changes. The problem...other factors (like the ENSO cycle) influence the GAT as well especially on short time scales. It is the NET effect of all factors that drive GAT temperature changes. The jerky up-down pattern we see in the GAT is what you would expect when you superimpose the gradual increase in CO2 forcing over the long term with the stronger but transient forcing of the cyclic factors in the short term. There are other contrarian arguments that can be categorized as reduction fallacies as well.

Thats helpful, i can add the 28" in Paxton and 27" in Rutland. If there's anything else you have that would be helpful or anything else i should remove/add here. Yeah 30" in Winchendon, 28" Gardner 18.3 Ashburnham COOP, Barre Falls 16.9"

Gets going a little to Late big hit for Long Island and sent respectable for rest of us

The past doesn't forecast the future. Extreme cold led to suppression depression. The tenor has changed. Just classic

The fact it has a system and that it stalls like the Icon is VERY encouraging to me.

GFS blizzard but would like it 50 miles north

I guess they haven't seen all of the fantasy storms even a week away that don't materialize. I am hoping it happens, but I can't get excited this far out.

I'm going to crash out if we have to deal with another messy 5" while NYC and BOS get 20" of cold smoke