RDRY

Looks like the surface low is still running too far ahead of the upper energy on the 12z Euro, but it's certainly closer.

The first low hangs way back west, so there's no separate, second follow-up. And disaster ensues.

Bizarre evolution of the three lows on the GFS - probably still sorting things out.

Don't tease me, GFS. 

17 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Little bit long op-ed:

There's kind of a subjective-objective relay going on ...  ( that phrase makes no sense ha!)  ... But, in short, the pattern may look below... it averages a little below in verification.  It may look modestly above average, we get a Feb 2017 run at 80. 

Perhaps not exactly like that... But when on the subjective side of the relay, whatever the pattern modeled impression has been, the objective or observed after numbers are consummately biasing warmer relative to whatever even the 'best' effort was to be fair.  

You know - ha ha - maybe that is how climate change manifest.   Not in why x-y-z storm flopped to rain.  Nor why a-b-c models can stabilize the teleconnector mass-fields. This may cast an allusion to models not handling a warming world - that may be the source for that debate, as it's coming from the side of supposed technology failure - nothing about the succeeding takes a side in said debate.

I have given some thought to this latter debate about warmth vs modeling the atmosphere. 

Firstly, it is entirely correct to assert the physics in the models are properly assessing based on fixed thermodynamic and fluid mechanical computations.  That's not debatable.  Warmer or cooler world has zero effectiveness on those physics - to employ metaphor: the formulas (ultimately the models) are machinery... and the gears in that machine do not differentiate just because they are fed warm(cooler) values respectively.   

However, the trope, 'it is not that simple' unfortunately may be apropos. 

The following are questions worth science journey in my mind that should be answered before attempting any conclusions - a process that would likely only engender even more questions...

In a warmer(ing) world, there could conceivably be spatial or dimensional ( time included...) layout changes in the mean jet positions.  Example, summer HC expansion ... pushes the ambient summer jet farther N, where then C-forcing causes changes in the evolution, length and amplitude of ST ridging residence and resonance W-E...  In the winter, ambient gradient is adding balanced geopotential wind speed of the flow - faster flow could certainly also lend to altering the typical planetary wave dimensions (speed in the flow is a variable in wave mechanics).  It's mathematical...  

These above aspect would have to be proven as non-factor-able.  Because here is why that really matters.  Yes the models will predict positions of jets based on what they are given... But, if those positions are different than the statistical past climate, that would impose break-downs wrt Teleconnection correlations: statistically suggestive tendencies in region B, due to modulation(s) taking place in region A. 

In short...  a -NAO of -2 SD, west or east limb, may correlate to D.C. to Boston's weather typology, differently than prior to the modulation of the jet fields - if this latter is proven to be true. 

It's a fascinating discussion.

I don't - or tend not to rather, suggest this year is a 'victim' of something in the above field of supposition and vague posits, outright. What is happening could certainly take place 100 years ago.  Take the 06z GFS...  I saw three disturbances that could snow. 

The problem this year is an unrelenting destructive interference predicament, a persistence that doesn't lend to any notion that it will suddenly become constructively interfering, and at last allow anything to f*ing happen at all.

There's something about this year that seems to not be able to overcome the destructive interference scenario - which is basically when you have sufficient disturbances, cold vs warm gradient in every direction ... yet lack crucial phases for interaction.  One trick that may help elucidate, if you loop most GFS deterministic solutions, really fast, such that you get a fast motion impression of what's going on, what emerges is a sense that there are two QPF pathways. They parallel one another, but never the twain shall meet.  One is snow, the other is rain, disconnected - often a gap of zero QPF aisles between. And it has been like this since the Xmas debacle, really. That is an emergent property, in the virtual mean of the model run, exposing failed interaction of critical mass fields -imho.

I roll eyes and don't want to hear it said that there is a lack of S/Ws, or no cold air... That's not what is/has been going on. There is a construction problem in the systemic circulation, all over the hemisphere, that's resulting in < climate storm production. 

Maybe it's La Nina. Maybe it's climate change.  Maybe it's both.  Maybe it's just dumb f*ing luck - bad luck. Or maybe it's all three... It is what it is.  

Probably cyclical. The previous two decades saw an inordinate number of prolific phasers, at least on the east coast.

Poor Niners. They'd have multiple Super Bowls with this team with a solid QB.

Bone dry with a side-order of bitter cold.

What a clunker. Cloud-storm.

5 minutes ago, dryslot said:

NWS changed there criteria for winter storm warnings for coastal areas and elevations, i Believe its 6"/24 hrs for coastal and just inland and in foothills and higher elevations its 8"/24hr period that it has to fall into to meet warning criteria, Outside of those windows, Its WWA's.

This is for the Berks (8 for WSW, less if ice is part of forecast, which it's not in this case -- snow to rain).

They issued a WWA for last storm, when 8+ looked inevitable, which it was. Now they issue a Winter Storm Watch when 4 or less looks inevitable.

Get with it!!

GFS shutting down the east coast at 234. 

Looks like about 8 in Lenox.

Part 1 of this storm didn't really deliver, but it's been ripping here in Lenox to make up for it.

6 minutes ago, HoarfrostHubb said:

 

In western Mass, a few models have this NE/SW orientation while others have the opposite, with a warm punch through the Berks.

NAM consistent with several hours of rain through all of western Mass.

2 minutes ago, ineedsnow said:

NAM looks great

Nice shift south.

10 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said:

Yo

That works for most. A lot depends on the wraparound though.

Spectrum Channel 1 still showing mostly rain throughout all of Massachusetts, including west and north. 

It's amazing to watch the models consistently unable to forecast the pattern until 3 days out. Like clockwork.

9 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

The airmass is bullshit anyways. Will be more for NNE.

Yeah, the track is fine for interior. But the rain/snow line extends way north and west of the system.

5 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

Won't matter with that s/w. 

Seems like the system will just fall in behind the confluence and still cut.

Per. Sis. Tence.

2 minutes ago, STILL N OF PIKE said:

Let’s get the kitchen sink to fall out the sky by the pike with the heavier precip