Lava Rock

Pretty rare for the snow to be heavy enough that it reflects the IR light back to my cam like a ball of light. Usually that only happens with dense fog.

We downslope.

1 hour ago, Great Snow 1717 said:

I know many people who haven't even gone up north for skiing so far this winter. Been a tough winter for the ski resorts. 

SR is doing pretty well. That 15" they got really helped them out.

3 hours ago, tamarack said:

Maybe a bit more frequent for me.  For my area where winter is pretty consistent with regular snowfall, I'm defining "ratter" as Edit:  I think 75" would be close to long-term climo for your site, about 20% higher than PWM.

75" is approx climo. I should have been more clear when I said <75". I'll predict we get ~60". And while that is still just a bit under climo, it pales in comparison to the good years we've had. We've been spoiled overall.

21 minutes ago, dryslot said:

Looks good the next week after too, There going to make up some ground now, Need it back to the NW here to in the Moosehead Lake Region as well.

Trailers north

6 minutes ago, dryslot said:

Looks bad.

break out the genneys

I'm ramping up the bitch machine slowly as my patience is starting to wear thin. So we basically wipe most of the pack this wknd, then return to avg/above ave temps next week without any storm threats. So that's two straight wknds without getting on my sled. Skiing will be shot for this wknd. too. By the time we get the pack back and things are rideable again, it'll be almost Feb. Every year we lose at least 1 month between Dec-Mar with shit weather. Seems like this season we'll be pushing it beyond that. I'm sticking to mhy prediction this winter is a ratter. Check out my sig. Every 4 years we get a ratter.  I know there's hardly any data to make that conclusion, so I'll rely on my gut and say we finish this season with <75".

Such a nice wintry appeal out there. Had we gotten the storm we thought we were going to get, we'd be in solid shape. Instead it's gonna get wiped out by the weekend.

lol what an ugly 10-day run of the Euro last night.

even in a good winter theres only a limited number of weeks to work with......lots of folks deny it but its true.....you need to get it going early to make it last and thats been tremendoulsy difficult lately......dare i say since we moved here in 2004 December has really been awful leaving only Jan and Feb to work with and usually 2-3 weeks of those two months you can toss into the garbage leavi3ng only 4-5 weeks of real winter chances.....sad

SN. 23.2f.

Well Iran has launched some missiles. We'll see where this goes...

2 minutes ago, dendrite said:

GFS doesn't even change us over. Pure torch and 60F up to SFM ahead of the cold front. Although it's more anafrontal with quite a bit of QPF behind the sfc boundary.

I should have clarified the "changeover". Local met was talking about potential for ZR/IP.  Doesn't really matter. I was hoping/praying for a net neutral on the current snowpack, but it's clear we're heading for a substantial reduction in the meager pack.

So is the Sat rn event before any changeover going to be 50f+ with high dews and fog eating SW winds?

3 hours ago, dryslot said:

06z GFS is colder then the 0z run for the weekend system, Looks like more on the frozen side for NNE.

this would be great if that's how it pans out. just wish the weds storm would produce.

Why bother debating 40s vs 50s. It blows either way.

1.5"

SN. 34.5f

Lovely Jan day. Rn showers, 37.8f. feels and looks like late March

12 minutes ago, dryslot said:

So we should lock this in, Maybe even start a thread.

8-12". lock it in

54 minutes ago, dryslot said:

Last one here was 7.6:1 when I did a core sample, Most likely similar Or we could be a touch better here unless things change aloft today.

I'm alright with that. Adds a little liquid to the pack.

Hilarious to me. Just yesterday the meteorologist in Connecticut where like. " Oh, this is going to be a good size Snowstorm for Sunday ". The models were showing a fair amount of snow, to today, looks like the snow chances dropped off to just a couple of mood flakes at the end of it on Sunday. I am not sure what's going on, but, last Year started off with what was supposed to be a great pattern for cold and snow and we didn't get it. This year they were saying a much better pattern than last year definitely going to be a good winter for the Northeast for cold and snow. Northern New England has done well so far, but Southern New England to the Mid-Atlantic not good at all. So much for a good winter. I know it's only the beginning of January, but even the 14-day Outlook is way above normal with not much snow chances. I'm sorry for the rant, I'm just frustrated. But whatever, it's just weather LOL

29 minutes ago, Baroclinic Zone said:

I agree.  While the increased resolutions are great, I like looking back at the coarser models.  It does feel like there is far too much variability run to run these days.  This is where knowledge/experience as a forecaster trump models.

then why not fall back to the lower res modeling as it seems it has better accuracy for predicting where/how much an event will produce. Do we have too much data at our fingertips that it ends up hurting us?

52 minutes ago, OceanStWx said:

There are a couple reasons why this isn't the case. One is that you have to find a way to manage convection. You either explicitly resolve it (convection-allowing) or parameterize it. Either way you are making assumptions that you are either parameterizing it correctly or correctly modeling its location and strength. Two is that as you improve your resolution you also sharpen gradients and increase the max/min values of features. This can dramatically affect the forecasts farther and farther out in time. You can imagine that an 80 km Euro on day 4 having broad QPF amounts would show a potential event for everyone, but a 13 km Euro 4 days out may show a sharp northern edge and convince NNE that they are going to get nothing. What if the model trends north then? It will look like a bust, whereas years ago it wouldn't have seemed that far off.

thanks. makes sense to the extent I can understand your explanation.

18 minutes ago, OceanStWx said:

Meh, it's one model cycle of many left to go. Ensembles still look like there's plenty of potential. 

I think it's increasingly clear that forecasters need to stop relying so much on deterministic run to run variability. With resolution down to 13 km in most instance you are just going to get far too much variability given the detail they show. 10-15 years ago deterministic runs were 80 km and features were much more broad and could be applied in the same way ensemble features are now. 

 

Can you explain this? Seems counter intuitive. If there is greater detail, shouldn't there be less variability?