Chris, I see a lot of mentions of "luck" in our "great" pattern and I wanted to ask you, as an analyzer of patterns how much does "luck" play into patterns? I feel like there are certain nuances that are not captured by models (like the warm pool that you mentioned) that are far more important than luck. Because here's the thing-- luck can maybe account for one bad outcome-- but multiple bad outcomes in a row? No, there has to be something the models are missing and that is the nuance in the pattern or climate conditions that makes it not so great that I was referencing.
Weather science by its very nature is imperfect and because we don't know all things and aren't omniscient I feel like we need to take a results based approach to what is or isn't a great pattern. The only sure thing is if a pattern produces for you then that pattern was great for you. Of course this is all relative in terms of what people mean by "great" and we must also allow for some variations like if there is a mix or rain/snow line nearby or if there is a grazer, etc.
It's like with the storm last January, was that luck that the heavy snow only made it as far west as Queens and Brooklyn? I could see that accounting for maybe 50 miles but probably not more than that.