OceanStWx

All that confluence over the Maritimes would definitely support a nice high in a favorable CAD position. It will be interesting that it all starts with a backdoor more or less.

The GFS with 32 shoved back into Mass is a huge red flag. That model loves to drive a warm front to YUL.

Not uncommon for winter events to all be under 10,000 ft clouds. And you're like 7,000 ft on our beam.

Trading in my ICAO Ks for Ts. I'll just pack 7 banana hammocks and be done with it.

Well timed high will eff up your record highs every time. Only ice I hope to see this weekend will be in my rum drinks.

Demand. If you can offer higher resolution, in my backyard type forecasts that's what people are going to want. And we don't have the computing power to run two versions. And running a coarse model and downscaling it to 13 km isn't really helping improve things either. There is an argument that we have too much data at our fingertips, or maybe that we have too much data that we don't understand fully at our fingertips. A 20 km GFS run is not the same as a 90 km GFS run, and forecasters need to change their thinking about how to use it to improve the forecast. Rip and reading may have worked for a broad brushed forecast at 90 km, but rip and reading at 20 km can make you look pretty bad at times.

I mean when you make a image out of 13 km f-gen it looks like a 2000 mile long series of mountain waves. I can glean no information out of that. But a 90 km GFS field showed clear regions of f-gen that could be used to diagnose the best area for potential banding. That's why I'm kind of okay with the Euro data we get in AWIPS being 80 km still, despite the model being 13 km res.

Ooo, that's going to be close. Downtown Harwich is like 70.06W but extends east to about 70.00W, and the ACK ferry landing is like 70.09W but Sankaty Head is like 69.97W.

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.

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.

Is he also our farthest east poster? Narrowly beats James and ACKwaves

Keep it up, I'm over a third of the way there to last season's total.

My Ariens looked like it was shooting slurpee out the chute last night as I was trying to chew through that bank at the end of the driveway. It was about 3 ft high.

It is a good reminder that when models show a big system that typically you can bet on some form of measurable precip. This case happens to still be a low progged to take a decent track vs. a fropa but you get my point.

The Christmas Day happy hour GFS had a sub-940 low off Cape Cod.

EPS probs of 850 > 0C are starting to drop below 50% for parts of the GYX CWA.

It's what makes attribution studies so difficult. Many weather events were likely to happen on their own, but are exacerbated by climate change. Winter is going to happen regardless of how the climate changes, the question is how much better/worse is it because of those changes. A lot of climate science is known unknowns. We know things are going to change but not necessarily how or to what magnitude. Some things are easier like average temps or TC strength. Others are more difficult. But adding heat and therefore increasing the potential water vapor in the air could lead to larger areas of convection and more latent heating, which as you point out can have significant downstream knock on effects.

24.6" for the month (not including what has fallen since I left for work) and 24.9" season to date.

Yeah we're piecing the database back together, but it's kind of out of our hands as to how fast that gets done. We have all the coops B-91s but NCEI ultimately is the entity that has to change the information in the database. It'll get there eventually, but this process didn't even start until sometime after we picked up SW NH again.

Honestly churns my stomach a little bit (your son getting hurt, not the erasure of snowpack!). I know my little boy is going to get hurt, but it doesn't stop my from wincing every time he takes a tumble. Glad he's rebounded today though.

Naked mud angels in LEW tonight.

Looks like moose urine. And honestly I don't think we can rule that out.

I love this description: MALCONTENT West Coast-style Double IPA for those with bitterness in their hearts.

The cancellation begins Christmas, it will be complete by New Year's Day.

I opted for no clear beers. Hazy for me. Grabbed Flume^2 from Battery Steele, Weary World Rejoices from Bissell, and Tessellation from Lone Pine. The stockings will be hung by the chimney with care, while lies passed out in his chair...