OceanStWx

Weather weenies trying to reassure me that 37.9" is actually too big, and PWM's 31.9" is perfect.

Seriously, this was a little more akin to some of our extreme rainfall events lately. PVD took their 24 hour snowfall record and nearly doubled it. Like 2"/hr for 18 hours.

Scrawled across the desk journal of Ekster’s great great great great grandfather: “The snow, mark my words, doth ever arrive sooner than one might reckon, and the sleet likewise.”

I admittedly did not participate in the office run up to the storm, but from conversation I can say our post mortem caution flags should’ve been the dry air eating the northern edge versus the pretty simulated reflectivity and QPF maps presented, and falling for the NBM snow ratio trap. That second one shifted the heavy snow at least a row of counties north.

I'm not usually a pack retention kind of guy, but it's been impressive this season. I've had 6 days since 12/3 with a T or less on the ground. And I've been over 10 inches on the ground since 1/26. Chuck in a normal March snowfall and I'll be at the best snow season since 2018-2019.

Nah, it's under the "Lower Dynamics" section of most models (including the Euro!) but the FGEN is the last variable listed. Temp advection comes first so it's easy to miss. https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/models/?model=gfs&region=us&pkg=temp_adv_fgen_700&runtime=2025112912&fh=84

Can't tell whether Cantore had pants on or not because snow was over thy knickers.

Easy to spot the drift measurements in a storm like this up here.

Thank you for your service though, that 0.2" helps to define the edges of our snowfall map.

Part of me kind of misses the days of broad ranges with highlighted zones for "locally higher amounts" The problem these days is that you can try and forecast the band from PVD-GHG on this run. But then the next run it's ORH-BOS, so you increase the snow there. But you don't want to drop it from PVD-GHG just in case that was actually right. So the snow amounts are forever only going up until it's too late to recover from the messenger shuffle.

I wouldn't be surprised if post analysis counts it for Storm Data anyway. Some of it is a bit subjective, but if DAW, PSM, and PWM all hit blizzard up here how could I say coastal York wasn't also a blizzard.

In a typical developing (i.e. not peak intensity) storm your frontogenesis is going to be sloped towards the cold air. 850 is farther southeast than 700 mb, and so on. Lift tends to be maximized around 700 mb, hence congrats Dendrite. This storm bombed out a little farther south, so one of the first things I noticed was the position of the forecast 700 and 850 mb frontogenesis. While still sloped a bit, it's far more collocated/vertically stacked. That signaled to me that one major band would develop. And that look at 700 mb with a secondary band farther north suggested to me that it wasn't going to be a uniform precip shield. That a subsidence zone was possible between the two. I may have sent a text about toaster baths in the LWM area to @CoastalWx and @CT Rain Sunday. I made a little gif too, so you can see how the forcing is overlaid. I do think part of the problem with the secondary band was that it was advecting so much dry air into the storm. @dendrite posted somewhere along the line the map of RH, and 50% across central NH just wasn't going to get it done for that northern extent. It was like a dry wedge in the usually CAD spots.

One of the weirdest storms I’ve ever worked up here. Huge bust on snow totals - I have nothing on my snow board and snow depth went down a half inch today. I would guess I have around 2”. BUT PWM did verify a blizzard warning.

The reality is that outside of some real fluffy lake effect type stuff, measuring every 24 vs every 6 hours is only going to move your SLR from 12:1 to 14:1 not 12:1 to 20:1.

I think it's only required if they are paid observers. Either a volunteer near the airport or a FAA contracted observer at the airport.