NeonPeon

I read the study, not the gloss on the study. The study itself already responds to your point regarding the land and water temperatures, you don't have to find it convincing. I'm not really interested in the political implications based on the Paris Accord definition, or even the 1.5C "limit" both because it's clear we are going to sail right by it, and because it was established as a relatively arbitrary political tool, not as any scientific metric. The Paris starting point doesn't delineate a preindustrial world, it more has to do with when reliable temperature data began to be reported. Surely one of the points of this study is exploring another set of data that can be measured from before that starting point. It's just one more methodology and one more set of data. The data, as far as sampling goes seem reasonable enough. I'm not sure if it's a "relatively isolated area." The area seems to be limited to where this particular sea sponge lives and is accessible to divers. They could widen the sampling some, but we're talking about a very particular organism with a limited range. Depending on how well reviewed it is, the same methodology can be used to sample data elsewhere, but only where this organism lives, to which you could raise the same doubt. It might spark interest in growth rates with other organisms, but as the research specifies, they'd also have to be an organism that exhibits some very simple linear relationship with temperature that is recordable. I guess I'm more impressed with the good nuts-and-bolts science of this.

It's mostly mood snow at best. There would have to be another couple tics north for it to be anything of note for the south coast as far as I can see. But what else am I going to look at?

What a fascinating methodology.

It's both displaced and it isn't as cold, or there is less of it, which are the same.

3.5" of the heaviest paste should do it. Very approximate because of how fast the snow is melting and settling. It's funny, there have been a million different ways of this storm appearing in models, and that is about what I thought I'd get the whole time, all for the same reason: didn't ever think I'd be in the best banding and it's just too warm and fast.

Half melted snowcone under a bleacher out there. 2 inches on a board, wet heavy slop. After a few runs of sledding later, the kids will be dripping wet.

It needs to be snowing quite hard to be a net gain here. It looks to me like I'll be in the good stuff in a little while, but the radar is hard to read.

Those ladies are trying to steal your snow. You need a snow ombudsman immediately!

There's some revisionist history going on. The gfs like the euro had this storm wrong for days on end, over a hundred miles north of where it is now. I don't know why you would celebrate any model in this situation. If it's just because you are giddy that it's snowing, then you do you.

I hear a lot of talk of a positive bust and that the models that signalled a very rapid sudden shift shit the bed. I mean, yes, they shit the bed, for a lack of any consistency, inside of 24 hours massive changes. Thereafter they were a little wrong, but not very, if not looking at snow maps. But the idea that that whole reestimation of the storm was wrong because the best fronto was a few miles further north? The entire precip shield is still wayyy south, as reflected? Am I missing something? For my part, slop, and ragged radar so far. Surprised to see snow on the grass in places, not surprised to see better banding in all the usual places. I cant figure out whether the bands over Long Island will make it here consistently or not. Hope so later today.

The "one" hahahaha.

When the discussion begins... Well, ....

I just pruned a birch with a pole saw in a hoodie. The airmass is bad. The one shot for the coast was big rates and cooling, but if it's a weaker system, even the places that get grazed wouldn't accumulate much on the coast. I've not had much hope for this system locally, but now there's even a question of why it will suck.

If they ever do that for my kids, they are going to be sick and we are going sledding. Snow days are what made every weenie.

It's odd to see that big a shift at this time frame after days of fairly consistent modeling or gradual shifts.

That dark grey goes up into the bay for sure. There's no way that the southern part of aquidneck Island is At 5 inches plus. I think the official number for Newport is at 6.6 on the season, but Newport proper has definitely not seen close to that. That's oddly the number at the airport, which is in Middletown, and every half mile you go north makes a difference, incredibly. My very unofficial total is half that. It's definitely nit picky but if my winter is going to shit the bed, I at least want it to make a stain.

I appreciate the idea that was raised earlier that there haven't been massive changes in this storm despite the drama It's been well forecast and there's a lot of consensus. And I get, that yeah, it's a type of imby noise that amplifies very minor modeled differences. But that's kind of the nature of the beast. The more accuracy over time, the more demand for accuracy. People won't abide the sort of probabilistic judgements that are necessary at the margins and want what they consider to be an actionable forecast. Every detailed forecast of one of these storms is focused on the margins, the nw edge and the southern thermals. The rest is often obvious, and the differences aren't meaningful. And, very frequently, riding that southern line between nothing much and a warning event, is the largest population center in the United states.

I've seen enough. This is going to be a nice storm for many people, but I'm not one of them. Even the depiction in the gps which as discussed is a little improved, I don't really buy for this little microclimate in the Narragansett bay. That flattish changeover line when the low is west of us, is always a nose into the bay. Need a few more southern ticks to get back to something good here.

People on the coast aren't "worried." They have functioning pattern recognition. There's a reason nws almost always have a wait and see approach with liminal areas with respect to watches/warnings. It's the same reason why my cross country skis are encrusted with dust.

If you are on the coast it's not necessarily going to be fine if you like snow.

There are about 1/4 of members showing the typical p-type issues for extreme SE/coastal folks.

Anyone who hasn't learned their lesson anywhere near the coast has themselves to blame at this point. We are nowhere near close enough to have much confidence.

Is this really getting close? It's still not within a window of much confidence for this sort of detail, surely.

Well, I've got about 2.5 inches on the season. I'm also going skating on the pond tomorrow. Isn't possible in Newport that frequently. The glass isn't close to even being half full, but at least there's some ice in there, I guess was the point.

In lieu of checking the models short to medium term, I need only check the level of disharmony on this forum. You're real time savers.