All Activity

Yeah but it seems Chicago has benefitted more from LES events than normal this winter for being on the wrong side of the lake. I don't have statistics for it though.

Yeah, GFS is def colder so far..waiting for the next slug of moisture to come through post 150. EDIT..lol, also much lighter with QPF. oof

Monday…and March is a long month. .

GFS is a bit colder starting out so far vs 18z.. Still warmish for lowlanders, but it's definitely bringing in the cold press earlier and a bit further south

I don't know a lot about it, and i'm probably not going to explain myself properly here. I'm guessing the more data points that you use, the less likely that you're going to be able to see anything repeat itself. Now if we're talking about almost exact atmospheric copys, I understand those numbers, but if we're talking about just , ending a below average snowfall season with a big one, and then having a subsequent season of well above average snowfall, I would think the probability of that would be much higher. Now i'm not trying to put down your post or arguing with you. I'm just trying to figure out what it all means. I always appreciate your post.At least the ones that are within my landcaper pay grade of understanding Lol.

0z AIGFS a moderate hit, but total qpf for it hasn't updated yet. Part 2 is weaker and likely has temp issues.

Teens and no wind with snow on the ground. Refreshing is exactly the right word. Key is 'no wind.' Even 5mph of wind and it's a different story.

Time for a handle change TauntonBlizzard2026 2013 has nothing on this, what was that like 2 feet, pffft

Forecast Verification For Blizzard Of 2026 Lessons Learned From The Great Storm & Forecaster Accountability Cars Submerged By Record 41 Inch Snowfall In Fall River, Mass A Record Final Snowfall Total of 37.9" Was Recorded In Providence, Rhode Island With Upwards of 43" In Tiverton The Eastern Mass Weather identified the March 1-15 period as a favorable period for a major, KU-caliber snowstorm along the east coast in the Winter Outlook issued early last November, as it turns out, history made an appearance six days early. The Eastern Mass Weather Final Call for the recent Blizzard of 2026 was good quantitatively speaking, as 30" or greater snowfall totals were actually anticipated dating back to First Call on Friday. However, as is evident in the final forecast verification posted below, these extremely heavy, all-time record-breaking bands of heavy snowfall ended up materializing south of forecast. The forecast clearly left something to be desired as far as the mesoscale diagnostics of the best deformation banding and there are two primary reasons why. Forecast Neglected Consideration Of Northerly Dry Air Drain Confluence in association with the block over southeastern Canada was part of the reason why Eastern Mass Weather was originally pessimistic one week ago about the prospects of the historic storm making it far enough north to have a major impact on the majority of the forecast area. Although it became evident by Friday that said confluence would indeed retreat enough to allow the blizzard to move up the coast, there was ultimately not enough consideration given to the fact dry air remained perilously close to being entrained into the northern half to the region as the storm materialized. This of course proved to be a major player in eventuality of a large portion of southern New England avoiding the truly crippling snowfall that was observed over much of southeastern Mass and Rhode Island. This negated the forecast rationale of a deep, 850mb layer easterly fetch off of the Atlantic mitigating subsidence zones between bands, resulting in the extension of historic snowfall totals to the eastern slopes of the Worcester hill, Monadnocks and Berkshires. Instead, the dry air was entrained from north, as the system congealed south of New England, and aided in relegating historic snowfall to one prominent deformation band to the southeast. Another forecast rationale was that there would be a secondary band of very heavy snowfall to the north west. Obviously one factor that prevented this secondary area of very heavy snowfall to the northwest was the aforementioned dry air intrusion, but there was also peculiarity in the frontogenic forcing pattern as the blizzard it's explosive deepening phase on approach to the region. Aligned Forcing Restricted Coverage Of Heaviest Snows The term "Fontoegensis" simply refers to the development of an area of changing winds and/or temperatures in the atmosphere. This is the primary mechanism that drives intense precipitation rates in strong coastal systems such as Monday's blizzard. Ordinarily, at last during the developing stages, low pressure systems are tilted southeast to northwest, and thus so are the areas of frontogenesis, with the lower levels (850mb) begin further southeast and the mid level (700mb) further northwest. The forecast rationale for the historic snowfall over the interior was due to a combination of intense 700mb forcing to the northwest, and deep layer feta of moisture in the lower levels off of the Atlantic. Obviously the latter factor was nullified due to the dry air entrainment from the northern stream energy, which also acted to limit the ability to any residual 700mb forcing inland to produce heavy snows. However, indiosyncracies of the blizzard's evolution also dictated that the mid level forcing quickly congealed with the lower level forcing to the southeast, potentially due to not only the system's Uber-fast bombogenesis rate of development, but also the aforementioned drier air to the northwest. Note the strong 700mb frontogeneic forcing along the middle Atlantic coast and into the trip-state area responsible for very heavy snows from Delaware coast up through the tri-state area on Sunday evening. This is the area that was expected to eventually produce very heavy snows over the interior on Monday morning. It did indeed lead to over a foot of snowfall throughout much of Connecticut late Sunday evening into the predawn hours of Monday. However, this area rapidly began to weaken and redevelop southeast during the predawn hours on Monday, eventually congealing with lower level forcing over Cape Cod by dawn. This resulted in one incredibly intense band of snowfall with rates up to 4" per hour that moved onshore and pivoted over southeastern Mass, central-southern Rhode Island and extreme eastern and southeastern Connecticut throughout Monday morning and into the midday hours. Either side of that band there was a pronounced area of what is referred to as "subsidence", or sinking air due to the tremendous upward vertical motion going on in that one uber-intense band. The development of this single band displaced the historic snowfall to the south east, and the dry air to the north ate away at the northern extent of the amounts, which is reflected by the forecasting error. This has some similarities to the January 2022 blizzard The collapse of the northwestern 700mb band was virtually complete by midday on Monday. Barely discernible from the primary area of subsidence just to the east, as a blizzard for the ages paralyzed locales over southeastern Mass and central-southern Rhode Island. The extremely rapid rate of intensification working in conjunction with the encroachment of drier air from northern stream is responsible for the restriction of historic snows to one primary band displaced south and east relative to forecast. This dry air impingement and displacement of the band south and southeast are likely attributable to shift in the expected track of the story after the Final Call map was realized very early on Sunday. Blizzard Tracking South Of Forecast Is No Excuse There is tendency in the meteorological community to passive aggressively shirk responsibility for errant forecasts by arributing said error to "changing data" as opposed to forecaster error. Models change because they are imperfect. This is a 100% "loser's lament" aimed at a deflection of accountability because it is absolutely incumbent on the forecaster to not only anticipate future changes in data, but also use experience to inform discretion when guidance is in error to apply needed corrections. The fact of the matter is that amateur forecasters like myself are especially vulnerable to "changing data" because time is limited with a separate full-time job, four young children and a wife, thus it often impractical to wait until the day of the storm to issue a Final Call given the constraints of life. However, be that as it may, I knew that dry air lurked to the north. I also understood that the pattern was marginally favorable for a close enough approach to allow for a historic impact given my original stance that storm would primarily pass out-to-sea. The fact of the matter is that the storm was projected to pass narrowly inside of the 40/70 Benchmark when the final forecast was issued. However, the track shifted to the southeast by approximately 75 miles to a position outside of the benchmark in the 24 hours leading up the event, which is likely connected to the dry air encroachment to the north. Some forecasters would offer the sentiment that "the forecast is only as good as the data", or "The forecast was bad because the data changed". This is utter nonsense because there is a reason that we have forecasters, and that reason is to detect and anticipate bad, or changing data. If the forecaster has enough data to issue a forecast, then they have enough data to be held accountable for said forecast, just as a pro athlete is considered healthy enough to perform if they are healthy enough to play. The public wants to hear about an injury the Monday morning after a bad game about as much as much as they want to hear about "changing data" after 3 feet of "Partly Sunny". The reality is that sometimes storms go-out-sea, but forecaster accountability should never suffer the same fate. Not for an amateur, and sure as hell not for any "professional". Final Grade: D+

Thanks, I have looked at these before. Other than the main reporting stations I've always found them unreliable which you alluded to before. The West Point data, which would be closest to me, has so many missing months in various years it makes it worthless to to come up with a meaningful seasonal average.

Verification of the great Blizzard of 2026 revealed that the forecast was not as highly skilled was I would have liked, to say the least. I bought into historic snowfall totals too far to the northwest, despite some glaring red flags that ended up biting me harder than my 1 year old daughter. Most notably, the track kept shifting south after I pulled the trigger early Sunday. That said, what you will not hear from an amateur like myself, is the garbage excuse of "changing data", "missing data" or "bad data" that you get from far too many "professional social mediaologists"....this is the equivalent of all of the injuries you hear about after the team gets it's face ripped off in the Super Bowl. That said, I was able to put that behind me to enjoy the spoils of a truly great winter's day outside with the kids. Final Grade: D+ PS: Winter is not over, but more about that after I resume day-to-day life. https://easternmassweather.blogspot.com/2026/02/forecast-verification-for-blizzard-of.html

I've been saying this. And yes a lot of high wind blizzards look just like this with "30-70:1 ratios" It's bad. Just doing a core sample and manually changing the data would fix it.

I measured 1 inch on the patio table at 6 PM, I went back out at 9 pm and it was 2 inches.

We love to see it. GFS back south for Thursday/Friday, but has brought back a more tangible low. Probably gone but kind of interesting to watch with a casual eye. This one really trended to nothing lol.

0z says Gfs had it's 1 win for the year in our back yards, and this isn't going to be number 2.

Deep winter out; just came in with the dog. 14, calm winds, bright moon… refreshing actually.

I’m confused. I thought people who lived 20 miles outside the city were supposed to be complaining about under-measurement?

I do actually, we should have our own weather conference.

Monday looks chilly. We'll see

Don’t be so sure.

Went with a quick 1-3.

You would be correct and I appreciate it.

It's really an insult to the climate record. And how much is based off of such records, and it is this bad? And there are ways to mitigate snow loss from wind w/ equipment. Blue Hill has done it forever.