vortex95

Yes, the last real multi-year drought in New England was in the 1960s, and yet the media has turned the word "drought" into a fear-mongering term, acting like its very existence is somehow atypical. Every time we get into a extended period (up to 6 months) dry here, it always seems to correct itself after this time. But that's not good for the fear-mongers, they just invented "weather whiplash" to still be negative/gloom and doom. What, do they expect gentle April showers all the time and no drought conditions ever?

How about "hot?" Somehow temps in the low 80s now have become "hot" on local TV forecasts. It all falls in pushing the "hot" narrative overall. 85-90 or upper 80s historically has been hot for New England in forecasts.

Given the sfc low tracked/developed right over SNE, are you surprised? Scott needs to look up his 700 low track rule for dry slots!

So WSR-88Ds can now go as low as 0.3 deg for BREF1?

One other thing, and this is biggie. The NAM has always been useless when it comes to TCs. It sucks w/ track and intensity, doing all sorts of odd things. It never was designed to handle TCs. The HRRR seems to handle TCs well, and no reason to think the RRFS will not be the same. I'll check further on this. Everyone seems focus on the negative for the "new stuff," but leaves out the shortcomings of the present, like the NAM guidance, that has sig drawbacks. One thing I will miss, the NAM MOS handles low-level cold air much better than the GFS MOS. Which brings me to another point, is there MOS-type output for other models, CAM and global? If so, what is a good site to view it? W/ NAM MOS going away, more and more will likely just look at 2 m temps (some do already), and run w/ them -- not good in the longer ranges!

CoastalWx *demands* a Weymouth specific fcst!!! LOL.

So it seems that only the 24 hr state record was set. They noted 38" storm total at Woonsocket for the Blizzard of 78. So the PVD storm total falls just short of the state record it seems? If we had the degree of detail for observations in Feb 1978 like we do now, you'd very likely find lots of 40"+ amounts storm totals (Scott would see to that!) both in RI and eastern MA. 44" was reliably measured in an open field in Woburn MA, and from pix I have seen people shoveling out walkways and standing next to "snow walls" the morning of Feb 7, about 3 ft had already fallen, and it was S/S+ for another 12 hr or so in eastern MA.

KCTH - Eugene Island 338K LA 28.196 -91.667 44m KEOP - Waverly OH KLQR -Larned KS KNBJ - Foley AL

Yes, I had never actually seen the full video until I looked it up earlier today! I thought that looked like Clapton! But the video starts w/ a mini movie, and the song does not begin until 2:25, so I opted out of posting that!

Again, I would caution, just b/c a lot of ppl say one thing is true or similar, does not necessarily mean it is correct or close to reality. The bandwagon fallacy is most common in society. And w/ social media today, one person says something and it spreads like it is gospel. Groupthink is rife. So be careful. When the ETA came out (precursor to the NAM) in 1993, it had all sorts of problems. I recall them vividly, but they were fixed in time. So how it is any different here? Actually, it is different, but in a better sense than 33 years ago. We have *far* more models out there now to assist us and compare against any new model as to its shortcomings. So CoastalWx fear of his beloved S+ event forecasts are in good hands overall! Geez, you think we world was going to end b/c the RRFS is going live looking at social media in last 24 hr. Can we cut out the drama please? Also, the RRFS we have been seeing so far is in test and evaluation mode. What we are seeing is not the final operational version most likely. What goes live on 8/31 may be not the version we have seen up to this point. On PivotalWx, we see the RRFS-A, so that implies there is RRFS-B. What about that? So before flying off the handle, one needs to take a step back and account for "you don't know what you don't know" and consder asking "is it really that much of an issue in the big pix? And I ask again, would ppl rather just stay w/ the NAM? How many negative memes has this model been the subject or over the years? So please keep things in proper perspective.

More is not always better. Too many models as it is, so this is good "cleaning house." They were supposed to stop the HWRF and HMON before last hurricane season, but haven't. HAFS has proven itself big time, so just move on. As I have said, having too many models that have less skill overall hang around just allows hype-masters to find the ONE model that shows "what they want to see," and run w/ that.

30 days hath September, April, June, and November!

X post is hype for attention. And bandwagon/sample size logical fallacies -- "nobody I have connected with in the community wants this to happen." So this person's connections are all encompassing and represent the *entire* wx community? That's pretty narrow-minded and arrogant. And who exactly is saying they don't like the RRFS? Vague proclamations are a red flag. This reminded me of last year when the DoD was going to stop the data dissemination of the 3 legacy DMSP polar orbiter satellite, and the TC community was up in arms b/c of the loss of the microwave data, acting like this would cripple TC forecasting. Well, there are other satellite like this other countires have we have access to, and the DoD had already launched the first in a set of replacement satellites for this legacy batch. More and more, ppl post stuff for mere engagement bait, looking for the 15 microseconds of fame. And the flip side, as if 12km NAM is great? It hasn't been tweaked in 10+ years and is often useless after 36 hr. The 3km NAM issues w/ it overdoing its QPF, esp. orographics, do we need that still? Ppl who don't understand models use this 3 km NAM flaw and run w/ it as if 50" snowfalls in SNE will happen! Getting rid of NAM and it derivatives is a good thing. These days ppl will latch onto any change and act like it is end of days. They prey on the human basic instinct to fear change. Not all change is bad by default, and sometimes you have to move on for things to advance. Yes, the RRFS has its share of issues (SPC noted it has problems w/ the BL for convection), but what model does not have it share of issues? And as we get higher and higher resolution for models and try to directly simulate directly atmospheric process, rather than emulate, the challenge here is not linear. RRFS been in test and evaluation mode for some time, and available for all to see, so it not just like cold turkey, The HRRR will be run in tandem likely for some time (look at how long the NAM has stuck around).