vortex95

See CoastalWx? Someone who appreciates the little things in wx. I never get sick of close CGs and wicked thund-AH! And MRGL svr was not fcst today.

Stop downplaying convection! There is more to wx than just SPLUS!

The last real multi-year drought in the Northeast was in the 1960s. Every time we get dry for like 6 months, it all comes crashing back wet to make up the difference. The presence of drought itself somehow have morphed into "not supposed to happen" or "it is unusual." Really? 10-15% of the CONUS in in drought on avg at any one time. This is normal. And by default, drought means lack of rain to the MSM. No, it doesn't. Socioeconomic drought is due to poor land/water management or infrastructure not keeping up w/ the water demand in a region.

The drought angle has become a racket IMHO. It allows $$ to flow/be available b/c there is an "emergency" which open things up to graft/corruption. Having problems, real or invented, are profitable, and that one reason why we have so much hype and nonsense. The word "drought" in itself has become a pejorative more than it should. It's a somewhat similar word "climate." Hear that word and ppl freak or think "bad. "Drought" which has some bad by definition, but "climate" is a neutral word in this sense, but the media and politicians have turned into into a fear-instilling word. Look at this nonsense in Washington state. This blog entry lays out all the facts about how it is definitely *not* drought emergency status. Yet the the powers that be declare one, and their reason is b/c snowpack is only 50% of normal Yet all other factors that go into drought states indicate no issues at all. https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2026/05/the-is-no-drought-emergency-in.html And the U.S. Drought Monitor, which factors in everything (there are 4 types of drought), not even half the state is actually in a drought, and it is only largely moderate status. It like so much these days, throttled to the max. Use the most superlative wording by default. No scaling or perspective. It's not an "alert," it is an "emergency" by default. There are no severe, heavy, or disastrous/disasters event/damage, it's all "catastrophic."

The best was 2011-12. Get the big snowstorm end of Oct, and then next to nothing and a torch for the winter! Scott was beside himself! 1979-80 was like this as well.

You do realize that since April 30, New England has had measurable pcpn every day. Not a lot, but it's not bone dry. More stuff today. Perhaps a NZW TRW?

CoastalWx is the absolute king of post #'s on this group, and he is among the most vocal causal complainers, never mind one-liners when he is weenie'ing out (e.g. WE SNOW), and we have coined "ACATT," so why not? Point reference where all other weenies are rated! After working w/ him for more than 10 years and seeing him in action as a weenie, he lives for jabs and debate! My favorite line from him was pointing out caveats to an upcoming snowstorm, and he would always go, "We'll see!" Reassuring confirmation bias to make himself feel better and hoping the snow would turn as out as he wanted (wished) it!

Taking lessons from CoastalWx? We do need the rain!

"It stinks and it sucks!" or "when you stink, you stink!" -- BOS sports quote from the late 80s!

In other news, Scott sees this, and First I have heard of this (new Kocin snowstorm book). Can anyone confirm?

26 BML.

Even though the overall large-scale pattern is not favorable for significant severe weather currently, that does not mean locally, there can't be nasty events, likeSW MS yesterday. A single supercell produced multiple or one long-tracked intense tornado. Damage surveys are ongoing, but it appears EF3 damage at least. | Radar loop here: https://x.com/wxkobold/status/2052440176245289471 Look at the SPC storm reports for 5/6. https://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/260506_rpts.html Very limited in coverage overall, which makes sense given the larger-scale conditions not good. The supercell latched onto and rode W-E along a low-level boundary, which is *everything* for "Scott spinners!" A few days ago, this occurred in FL. You don't even need to look at the velocity loop on the right, the base reflectively loop on the left clearly shows little "eddies" along the boundary! https://x.com/wxkobold/status/2051799555427955015

So for the DEN snowstorm... Max measured amount I could find was 33.9" 1.8 S Estes Park (about 8000 ft). Max estimated from SNOTEL was 33.8" 4 NNW Long Peak (about 9100 ft). HRRR fcst snow totals were over 40" and odds are that did indeed occur above 10,000 (hard to verify tho since no in situ obs). Global models fcst max amounts just over 30" in the highest elevations w/ their lower resolution for terrain, so a great fcst overall for the absolute highest amounts. Yes, not a drought buster, but quite significant snowfall event w/ high LEQs, so this can only help. You can choose to look at things glass half empty or full. Emphasize the negative or positive. Just the MSM tends to focus on the negative, which is nothing new really, but social media and overall divide these days often amplifies it to the extreme w/ context and perspective lacking. Denver officially had 5.8" but the climate location is 16 mi ENE of the downtown. SW suburbs had up to 9.5". Also, it seems that May snowstorms ranking for Denver is all over the place on social media. https://kdvr.com/weather/wx-news/this-may-snowstorm-is-one-of-the-largest-in-denver-history/ The above link lists the biggest snowfalls for the city and it is inclusive for the 3 different locations where snow has been measured (earliest event listed is 1931). It states this most recent snowstorm was the 5th biggest in the city's history, but that is incorrect. It leaves out 12.4" on May 5-6, 1978 and May 13-14, 1912 and 15.5" May 1-5, 1898. And when I have mentioned this on social media posts, ppl have said, "that's what the NWS provided to me." Yet you go on the NWS BOU site, and the 3 May snowstorms I just mentioned are listed. NWS Boulder Denver Top 20 Records - May It just goes to show how easily bad or incorrect information can spread. Too many media outlets and individuals just parrot what others say and do no fact-checking themselves! This is important in the large pix when talking about wx and climate b/c the details count and can make a big difference in stories/statements.