ORH_wxman

We are going to have to “deal” with several model chances on this pattern over the next 10-15 days imho.

I'd be interested in a formal study of how so many EPO ridges this year folded over and caused monstrously deep troughs that went offshore in S CAL.....typical La Ninas have Aleutian ridges and west coast troughing, but we've often cleaned up in those patterns anyway as long as the Aleutian ridge was fairly poleward.....we've had poleward aleutian ridges many times this winter but almost every single time, the downstream trough buckled back southwest about 2 standard deviations from what we typically see in that type of pattern....was it coincidence? Probably not...there was something forcing it...but what? I doubt tropical forcing can explain all of it.

The East-based -NAO is critical too....if that goes poof, then we're likely done. But it's been pretty consistent so far.

Seeing a huge west coast ridge next season will feel like seeing Bald Eagle in the wild in the 1980s after this season.

Topped out at 61 here and now back down to 59 with overcast. Still amazing outside though.

I'm out on 2/23 until/unless we see this giving decent snows into at least southern part of SNE....but preferably trying to give snows into NYC too, because these tend to bump back north inside of 3-4 days.

I never moved mine out of the shed. My wife kept asking me when I was going to do it, and I told her that not until a large event (at least warning snows) is inside of 6 days. We haven't had one get inside that timeframe yet.

Sure it would....but their climo is snowier so "Winter over" up there could mean maybe they get 9" of snow in march instead of 25" and down here we get 4" or something instead of 15"...but there's different shades to this. Maybe the arctic doesn't quite get good enough for SNE, but it's good enough for NNE. It could also not be good enough for any of us and it's congrats Quebec again.

Yep, we will need the Atlantic side and AO region to be at least somewhat favorable. Otherwise, it goes torch.

Also cool that all the occurrences have been in La Nina....the warm February idea from La Nina isn't just urban legend.

It helps getting us to the magic 70F number....if you look in the historical record, there's plenty of 68s and 67s, etc in February for BOS....but CC helps us nudge that to 70F when you add in the underlying background warming. Inland, we've seen 70s in Feb before (like BDL has hit it in Feb '54, Feb '76, and Feb '85 prior to the 2017 and 2018 occurrences).

If that ULL got left behind, it would probably be better....having it eject faster hurts the CAA going on here.

Yeah we could conceivably get both....for 2/23 though it's probably a bit harder because the NAO isn't really established yet....that doesn't *try* to really become more permanent until the end of the month into early March. We are kind of using that 2/20-21 wave breaking to give us both a push south with the boundary and act as a 50/50 low as it swings up to the northeast. So we're mostly dependent on that piece offsetting any western troughing. So if the western trough is phasing more or digging deeper each run for 2/23, then we're going to have less available to offset it.

If that clipper on 2/26 verifies, with the way this winter has gone, we're gonna feel like it's 1991 when the 2-4" map is posted by Bruce Schwoegler.

Yep...GEM still looks like shit too. Ukie/Euro looked decent at 00z but I'm expecting them to trend north. Funny how 24h ago it was the Euro that was the ugliest but now that has flipped. 2/23 was always a tough pull....but it is possible if you drive that boundary far enough south which guidance is not doing as much.

Yeah I'm worried we revert back to the "cooler" side of a still dogshit pattern after today/tomorrow. That would be the worst case scenario.

GFS still looks like ka-ka for 2/23....hopefully other guidance looks better driving that initial boundary south.

Nighttime lows are known entity in CC literature to be more robust than daytime maxes. It makes sense because increased water vapor reduces the efficiency of radiational cooling. Now this winter, it has been exacerbated by the obscene amount of cloud cover we've had....I think January was the cloudiest month on record for several sites in New England. You get tons of clouds, and your low temps are going to be really high compared to baseline climo. Adding onto that, you get a feedback loop of sorts in places far enough south where the ground has had trouble freezing....so you get a ground with high moisture content in the soil which also inhibits radiational cooling somewhat on the clear nights we actually do get. In a more normal winter, our ground would be pretty frozen and dried out.

Clouds have gotten thicker here too but still getting some weak filtered sun. CT/RI/SE MA look the best right now for thinner cloud cover.

Tomorrow's cold front is going to be impressive....30+ degree temp drops inside of 6 hours on the table.

Still have at least another couple hours of filtered sun....not sure if we crack 70F somewhere, but it should get close...esp down in interior SE CT where the sun looks the best right now.

55F here right now....hopefully we get some snow out of this upcoming pattern because going back to 30s/40s and shit rain after today would suck.

Lower heights in the 50/50 region help hold in high pressure to our north....it creates confluence aloft in SE Canada. So if you're having systems come out of the midwest/Ohio Valley, you want to see those highs holding stout which creates the setup for a good SWFE/overrunning type snow event instead of the storm cutting into Ottawa or upstate NY. If you don't hold that high pressure, then it just ends up being a very quick flip to ZR/RA after maybe a couple inches.

50/50 area trended a lot better on overnight ensembles going forward. Like to see that.

How cold a winter in 1880 was has zero relevance to comparing why it’s like +8 against 1991-2020 normals. If you want to blame like 0.3 degrees of it on CC, then that’s fine, but good grief, this CC scapegoating is just as bad as saying 2015 disproves CC.