vortex95

"I HAZ?"

"Yah but" you do not have to be concerned about the storm developing "too late" or any issues w/ moisture. You do not even need a strong sfc low and still get crushed. Jan 20, 1978 is a classic example. Gave BOS is biggest 24 hr snowstorm up this time.

Looks like @CoastalWx gets to keep his beloved NAM a little longer! As for his "garbage" model (RRFS), it does appear to have issues w/ making deeply occluded lows into TCs too easily. It did that for the most recent storm. But non-TC CAMs usually do.

Since operational intensity was borderline and it's not really a sampling issue, I don't really see how they would bother. I mean, that's not overwhelming data for reanalysis to circumvent the operational intensity, IMO. Lots to consider in this case, and given the dearth of HUs this season, I hope focus on Fay by NHC is not overthought or nitpicked if we do not have any clear HUs for the rest of the season! I am just thinking external pressures that can hurt the objectivity of the met science here (e.g. social media making a stink or crying foul w/ armchair mets and hype-masters going off!). ASCAT has issues in heavy rain areas leading to a high bias. And in convective area that pulse when downbursts are more likely, that is an issue. On that ASCAT image provided from the X link, it is a very small area of 65 kt winds, that can suggest a mesoscale transitory feature., Also, I have seen it noted that Fay had an eye briefly. That was more dry slot residual b/c leading up to that appearance you could see a narrow band of dry air curling into the center. This dry air present also promotes pulsing convection and downbursts. That's one thing I have found questionable at times for assigned intensity. Spot winds are not the same as mean winds. Local convective winds are not the same as avg synoptic gradient winds. Many moderate to strong TS briefly have HU force winds from localized intense convection that pulses in blobs, esp. when some shear and dry air is present, but that does not make them a HU. So one has to be careful here. Sometimes I see "given the possibility of undersampling." That is a slippery slope IMHO. You can always say that in measuring meteorological phenomena, but does that mean you always say it was stronger and go higher? If so, what is the limit as to how much stronger? It is subjective and fluid. Dvorak classifications for TCs do best for winds approx 60 to 105 kt, so that means TDs are often min TSs and intense HUs are often stronger in reality. We know this from recons, but in the absence of recon, we don't officially assign a stronger value due to the limitations of Dvorak. It's why you will not see a system above 160 kt in the Atlantic or eastern/central Pacific in the absence of a recon. Best you can say w/ high confidence is that it was at least this strong and mention "it could have been stronger" in something like the TCR given any number of ancillary factors that can exist when it comes to determining TC intensity. A SAR pass showed 73 kt for Fay, but this remote sensing tech has been shown high bias here as well compared to recon measurements.

@CoastalWx wants one? Pad his yard snow totals? https://www.powder.com/news/ski-ward-begins-snowmaking-september

We need more Miller Cs! Apparently, those are Sandy-type systems. Hazel in 1954 and 1938 fall under that. However, I have been unable to confirm if "Miller C" is a thing officially, but these are unique -- those systems that get a big boost from a TC phase and the TC itself gets the best of both worlds, derived energy from baroclinic and SSTs so they can remain atypical strong much farther N than you'd expect for a TC in our region. Sandy buried WV up to 36" and up to 48" in VT from the 1804 hurricane and Ginny in 1963 w/ 13" in ME. Double PT for @CoastalWx here!

Feb 1983 and March 1993 would disagree w/ you. I say we make a Miller "W" -- those storms that give the max S+ to w/in 5 mi of Weymouth only! Miller As can really tease the Mid-Atlantic weenies, esp. once you get S of DC proper. How many times does it show 20"+ for RIC, and it ends up 3-4" of IP? We don't have that high 1000-500 thk/very cold 850 issue "DA MIX" really in the NEUS.

In the next week, given Rachel and Nolo will be around for some time, we should make it to #2 for most ACE in an E/CPAC season.

1983 was weak La Nina, so it shows the range here. El Nino is not required for a strongly suppressed Atlantic season. Given there are at least a dozen other oceanic/atmospheric oscillations going on globally at any one time, their phases and how they interact obviously are a factor. ENSO just is the most famous and the most influential globally it seems 1983 had one MH that hit HOU directly. One thing though that is consistent w/ suppressed seasons, the TCs, even the strong ones, are often quite small.

7-day WPC total pcpn shows what one would expect in strong El Nino. However, i do not see any signs in the next week of the STJ dominating or emerging. Miller As will be our SAVOIR this winter!

If the 850 is NOT -20 C and below and 500 heights below 500 dm, @CoastalWxdoes not want to hear it! You'd be surprised what shallow "fake" low-level cold can do, so don't diss it!

Good point about 30-year "normals." That period is arbitrary and we just decided to pick that as a base b/c it fits w/ human lifetimes as to a "long time," and the ever present recency bias, meaning what is going on now and recent *is* how it always has and will be. From a long-term climate and geological POV, that is nothing and not representative at all. Proverbial drop in the bucket. For instance, a full AMO cycle when it comes to Atlantic TC activity (up and down) is 50-90 years based on TC activity going back to the mid-19th century, so 30-year normals fall flat here. How about base conditions when it comes to ENSO? In the last 30 years, the base state of ENSO has become more La Nina (see RONI graph attached). Before that (going back to 1950), it was more El Nino base, but given we do not have enough or accurate measurements overall prior to this period to fully quantify ENSO states, we do not know the full cycle here, let alone if there is coherent one. So again, 30-year normals fall flat. Also, when calculating changes over time, I have seen some manipulation to give desired results. For instance, I saw a current temp anomaly plot for Australia from the BoM, and it said using normals 1961-1990. Well, you see the issue here, given mean warming since 1850, using normals farther back will give you greater temps anomalies to current. So what is the "correct" base reference here as to what 30-year normal period to use historically? Why not a 40-year, 50?, 100? And using the Industrial Revolution as a start point as if this point is what is "normal" for the globe overall? That is ridiculous and cherry-picking given the geological record. There are not only Milankovitch cycles, which work in the 10,000s of years, but also there are shorter solar cycles w/ the Sun -- Bray (~2500 yr cycle) and Eddy (~1000 yr cycle). So again what is "normal" can not be determined in just 30 years. It is square pegs round holes. And yet another factor, how standards/practices/technology change over time. One of the most obvious in wx? What we call a TC now vs. decades ago, which makes it looks like the numbers of named storms is steadily increasing. And not to exclude snow weenies, how about this? https://news.ucar.edu/14009/snowfall-measurement-flaky-history For temp, it used to be glass bulb thermometers, now it is largely digital. One thing about digital is that is can record continuous temps, and thus you can start doing calculations in many, many time periods. It used to be hourly for a day, but now you can go down to the min or even more. When calculating avgs now, you can pick and chose and each one can give different results. Also, digital can record instantaneous spikes in temp. Yes, ASOS uses a 5-min temp avg, but not all temp sensors out there do this. So more absolute extremes in temp are recorded, and this influence record temps for a given location, and sometimes are used new records when it is local artificial heat source contamination.

So highest I can find is 8.73" at Blue Hill. Any higher reports that did not make it into the PNS? The pcpn gradients are all over the place. N Shore to S Shore in MA? Ern CC to wrn CC and ORH Co? Seems like frictional convergence played a role as coastal location were low (Rockport 1.20" and Scituate 2.91") and increased not that far inland. Given the entire event was banded pcpn spiraling largely E to W, this makes sense. Imagine the anguish some would be having here from royal screw zones if this was snow and seeing epic amounts not far away. And for once, the max was within 5 mi of Weymouth!

Recall that time, I think in 2018, big rains on Cape Cod, and the dunes were eroded from rainwater flowing into the ocean! You thought that was funny.