NittanyWx

The math does not hold man, I'm literally sitting here doing the testing and its an overfit. My best guess is found a value you think makes sense based on recent record and picked it because it fit observed data. All I've asked you, repeatedly I might add, is why 4" means something statistically and meteorologically. Why did you choose 4"? ENSO is not and never really has been a great predictor of snowfall here.

Those three stations are what I'm testing. Again, assumption made that is incorrect. Take an average of those three stations, that's your 'snowfall index'. Bench that snowfall index to ENSO past 30 years and you get a correlation that fails. So other than arbitrarily fitting it to the data, why does 4" mean something meteorologically?

You're making a lot of assumptions about how I do things and those assumptions are wrong. I used SAI as an sample of a 'near term' trend with a strong statistical correlation that showed forecastable value off a short sample size and ultimately failed as your sample size got larger. My correlation work largely ignores what happens before 1991. The correlation still fails to reach statistical significant when testing between ENSO, the SOI and any number of corresponding variables when you benchmark them to regional snowfall observations. You're speaking with someone who has done this professionally in the commodities space for 15 years. My methodologies discount severely anything before 1991 because it is a different climate regime. This is an industry that benchmarks to the 10 year normal and not 30 -myself included- so I don't need a lecture and explanation about understanding what regime we are in. This isn't a discussion about that, it's a discussion about overfitting to an arbitrary value. For the record, I also do detrended analysis to find statistical signals around warmer background trends. I am very cognizant of the CC forcing arguments you've made and how deeply you believe them. But as we got into an argument last year about Feb, we're getting into an argument here on what constitues actual statistical signal and more importantly *why* you used a threshold value other than fitting it to observational data. You still need to find a robust statistical *and* meteorological reason for 4" of snow meaning something for us to take any real stock in using it as a metric. I can test it, I can say 'hey, that's kinda interesting' but you're not giving me a real meteorological reason for why 4" is an actual threshold.

Yeah so for me to take any real value of this having meteorological significance I need to see statistical correlating variables, which is why I've done a lot of work around correlations and partial correlations involving ENSO states, rate of change involving the SOI, etc and found minimal forecast/predictability value for snowfall locally. I've been burned by threshold/relational things in the past (SAI being chief among them) and have since really been hesitant on overfitting data to find some grain of predictability to it.

What, specifically are you responding to? The statistical correlation between ENSO 3.4 and NYC seasonal snowfall falls well below statistically relevant skill. And, why, exactly is 4" a meteorologically significant threshold? If we magically get 3.87" of snow vs 4.03" inches of snow we are SCREWED! Sounds like overfitting to me, but what do I know.

Snow and Nina correlations are abysmal and you're not bound by prior analogs for it.

Gotta love Jayflation

Public Service Announcement: The models 'know' what phase/state of the MJO we are in. The idea the models aren't 'seeing' the MJO and will suddenly start seeing it is complete nonsense.

La Nina/El Nino correlations are vastly overestimated with regards to snowfall around here. Unless you're in a strong to very strong state for both of them you'll have winters that run the gamut.

Mine was 6AM measure. 4.5”. Wilton, CT

Everyone thinks it’s easy until they have to do it for a living, then it’s not so easy.

4.5” Wilton, CT

Pretty clear warm nose around 750 on this GFS run. That remains the chief concern, especially coast and jersey. The globals tend to underdo these at this range. As I mentioned a couple days ago, you hope you can hold off some of this with decent enough lift, but that's the push/pull of this storm.

They'll be stacking up a decent event Mass to 'Dacks to southern Greens/Whites

The only thing giving me pause about this storm (and it's a big pause) is the 850 low. Screaming southerlies mean warm nose aloft is almost a guarantee to cause some mixing issues for pretty much all of the CWA. I like the front end thump potential and you can hold off some of that warm nose with decent lift.

Certainly not accurate on an HDD basis.

Not all EPO's are created equal. Positively or negatively tilted has very significant downstream impacts, as does amplitude.

Its called 'proximity to the ocean'

Next 90-120 mins time to see if N Shore can squeeze that extra inch out of this band.

Looks on track so far. 28, SN, 2" on ground here in Wilton, CT.

The north shore special can be good for an extra inch or two.

I've got 2-5 coast with less east end of the island. 3-6 city and immediate northern burbs, upside possible if band. 4-8 north of the usual dividing line Merrit through 287 region. Not really overthinking this one. Ratios should be decent north and west. Nice moderate storm.

Maintain the view from yesterday that the risk here is likely more to the coastal boundary layer and feel good about snows north of the merrit and west of 287.

Banding/subsidence risk a bit secondary to timing of CAA on a west wind in my opinion. You feel better north of merritt, west of 287 on ratios

There's a limit to how much forestry management can do with this. Its a perfect trifecta of fire weather conditions. Just needed one spark.