All Activity

There are multiple players. It's always complicated with NS dominance, which prevails in a Nina. The energy riding overtop the western ridge is a separate issue from the TPV lobe. We need more spacing between that western energy and the lead digging shortwave AND we need the TPV to be in a position where it doesnt crush the digging shortwave, yet provides enough confluence to the north to keep a developing surface low tracking to our south...but not too far south. You get the picture.. its never easy unless we have a Modoki Nino with NA blocking. Then its just a come to papa waiting game with shortwaves in the southern stream.

Don’t forget Bilal. I think he will be a 2 way force in a few years . Already elite defensively

Is the 62" at Arlington plausible? Taunton reached 45" and Ashburnham 48" at the same time. How about the 60" at Washington 2 in 1963? Snow depth reached 4 feet at West Cummington at the same time. Also, two locations (Hoosac Tunnel and Adams) reached 50" depth in 1947. I knew 1947-1948 was a doozy, but I guess 1946-1947 was quite harsh as well. The most recent 50" depth was at Boxford 2.4S - a CoCoRaHS observer - in 2015. A number of 40"+ depths were recorded that winter, including 45" at Blue Hill Coop.

Klint would definitely be number 1 on my board. Also like the dolphin guy but he is kinda strange lol

Everytime we are at a 50 50 crossroad it ends up being 100 percent fail

Maybe that’s a good thing

On the 0z ICON, the northern stream shortwave tracks further east (Dakotas vs. WY/MT) as it dives southeastward to carve out the longwave trof. The ULL in the southeast is left behind and doesn't phase. No Gulf low and a positively tilted trof structure as a result.

Here are the candidates for highest snow depth in Massachusetts. The first three are data entry errors and can be excluded. The next three are legitimate, in the sense that they are what was reported in those winters from those locations, but they could be other than data entry errors.

ICON fell off this run. 0z starting of fine. Knew it was gonna be different with how that sw in the south west held together

The 0z ICON looks nothing like the 12z. It shifted away from a "miller A" type evolution towards model consensus of a positively tilted trof and a weak offshore SLP.

Isn't the more likely explanation that the snowfall totals were underdone and only given as change in depth?

Recently the ice covered branches have been leaning over the upper mountain study plot… catching snow and generally infringing on the 360 degree opening in the forest canopy. Would be nice to melt the ZR… makes skiing through the woods easier too.

I live right around the corner. I can confirm this is a thing.

Slightly colder run again but moving too fast would mitigate

Going from 42" to 6" in 48 hours would be quite a feat, though I guess we saw similar after that Dec 2020 time period in CNE to E.NY. But this is presumably a pack that is dense enough to see no settling at all. That stuff would take an absolutely substantial energy to melt that fast, even with 2" of rain. Obviously some wild unlikely things in that snow depth listing.

The dense fog here is the worst I’ve seen anywhere in years and it’s only 9:43 PM!

Kicking myself for not hitting 2017 harder in my December composite....would have mitigated missing on the magnitude of the cold.

Send me your 1% dusting. We're in really bad shape around here. I'll take it.

Almost 60 with mid 50 dews. Could easily be 75 degrees colder right now here in mid January.

I mean, even if it were cold enough for snow, it's still not a favorable track for most. So it makes no any how...

Couple nice booms

Pacific trough says what up, b1tches.....

I remember being out in Stony Brook a few days after this storm. While I thought I got crushed at home, when I got out there it was like 150% of what I'd gotten, just crazy. And that was a day or two afterwards. Some crazy gradients, right?