40/70 Benchmark

REGGIE does, too.

00z REGGIE is a general 2-5" with a spot-6" in the Berkshires.

The NAM NARCAN gives Foxborough 3-4".

Similar, just a bit toned down.

My one year old will not stop shitting molten lava....holy off topic, but the poor kid's a$$....yikes, the joys of parenthood.....maybe I'll soothe his wounds with my Final Call map on Monday.

While @qg_omegaclaims victory over a call for a nation wide torch because Boston didn't snow.

Yea, and George could pursue his met degree and be the next Harvey Leonard....I'll bet against it. Yet another epiosode of the atmosphere's premier presentation "One Million and One Ways to Not Snow Prolifically in SNE".

I don't see anyway anything interesting at all makes it up here......but I'm sure twitter dolts will rub one out to the colors and anomalies.

I am banking on the lift getting here.

Work...but I am not lol

The latter....just extrapolating how I expect that to play out.

We'll see. If I'm wrong, then I'll try to understand why and move on.

I can also recall times when I took them as gospel and they were too light. You keep a better personal inventory of this shit when you actually forecast...no offense intended at all...I don't mean that in a disparaging way at all.

Part of the discrepancy is them breaking the ranges down into lower denominations than I do....like I expect my area to be more like 4" than 7", so agree there. Big difference is around Kev and Geroge's areas.

I was conflicted.....the NARCAN maps are are so paltry....part of me wishes I had incorporated them and positive snow depth change more, but sometimes NARCAN is too conservative. But this is the type of marginal situation where they may just sniff the terd out.

I can recall plenty of times that I have taken them to the shed, though.

Of course.

I have said I am not confident in that map.....so the communication of doubt really isn't warranted. I understand that Mother Nature has and continues to touch you where she shouldn't, but that isn't my fault, so don't project that onto me.

Even the European positive depth change map has you at 2". Maybe I should have added another range and not have 4-7" encompass such a large area, but forecasters give ranges for 2 reasons. Not only to convey potential of reaching a certain number at a given location, but also for the purpose of encompassing a large area in which different locales will fall into said range. Common sense dictates that if you are on the se edge of a large area of 4-7", then the map probably implying that you will be closer to 4" than 7".

Why don't you go make a map and leave me alone.

The 4-7" raps around from the CT RV, through the hills of N CT and RI and into interior MA....you tell me who you think has a the best shot at the upper end of that range?

You are exactly the type of person that focuses on the highest number...look at the arial coverage of that snowfall range....what a moronic post.

It's a very tough call...real PITA storm. I am banking on that area stealing a couple to a few inches based on the slight elevation and being far enough south to get the good lift. Will I be surprised if they get next to nothing? No.