OceanStWx

RGEM not favoring western areas from this point forward. I will say judging by radar it looks too far east, but probably not the scenario NYC wanted to see.

24" average at PWM. Even excluding the ARW members.

Bufkit soundings across SNE do have a little potential for TSSN tonight.

Lighting up nicely.

Pants optional at WFOs around New England.

That's one thing helping our case for blizzards. It's going to be a dry snow that should blow pretty easily, plus the depth of the cold air will allow for pretty efficient mixing compared to our usual inverted soundings.

Did you move to BGR?

I've seen breakers sending spray over roof tops and jumping the sea wall there, with storms that passed well out to sea. This is going to be pretty epic. I'm willing to bet a few homes pay the ultimate price on the shore.

Wave guidance is forecasting 29 feet in the bay. And it usually is underdone.

Sea spray finding it's way four lots back from the beach at Scituate?

Insider trading. Now conceivably they could hit their blizzard warning still with 6-10", but I think the media would have a field day if that's all that fell.

Playing with fire down at OKX. Either high fives all around, or some explaining to do.

Is your roof strapped down? 06-12z Tuesday eastern Mass is going to rock. Ginxy's favorite U wind anomalies got even more impressive on the 00z GEFS.

NAM Bufkit sounding for BOS is a little MAULish around 03z tonight. Wouldn't surprise me at all.

Here is a reason to spike footballs, 9 out of 10 times in this event we should see more snow than this graphic. That's not a bad lower bound. A good place to cap it is this graphic, 9 out of 10 times we end up lower than these amounts. This one does show HPC's thinking on the coastal front/OES enhancement jackpot, and the possible location of deformation jackpots.

It's not hard to see the features in the QPF field. The deformation would be the white dash, and the coastal front the blue dash. And very much not run out of Kevin's basement.

Actually second look and that's west of the Euro features. Deformation setting up from DXR-BAF-EEN-IZG. Coastal front PVD-BOS then offshore of ME.

It's nearly an inch higher on the canal. Regardless, I do love the placement of QPF though. Really highlights the coastal front and then the deformation band. The placement of these features does match the Euro.

Let's not forget the NAM QPF rule.

Gut says the same, but it's going to be a delicate thing to back off what we have at this point and keep a pretty picture going. If you take 2/3 of the NAM and compare to the GFS, 14-18" is pretty close.

That's what lollis are for. You can write in the text or draw favored areas on a social media post, saying isolated amounts of 2 or 3 feet possible. Because I can guarantee you the only number people will remember form this forecast will be the 30+ amounts.

It's just a number to me (11) our coding doesn't list the color name.

I'm honestly not trying to be a wet blanket, but record storms are record storms for a reason - they are rare. As Ray just said, you kind of leave the record stuff for when you see the whites of its eyes.

Heck I discovered tonight that our snowfall web graphic had an error in the code that made 18-24" and 24-36" the same color. We didn't have Ginxy's chartreuse until we hit 36-48". I managed to find the error in the coding (as simple as a duplicate number 10). But these are the differences people notice between offices.

Makes it real hard to collaborate a pretty map when you get one office running nude through the streets. This is probably an exercise in futility considering most people around here, but folks really need to beware of some caution flags. I'm not saying this won't be a great storm, but locking in record totals from NYC through BOS is dangerous. If you check BOX's experimental snowfall graphics, their most likely total is only an inch or two lower than the maximum, and 10-15 inches higher in some cases than their minimum. That to me says it all. We (as an organization) got a little carried away and started forecasting totals too close to the maximum possible rather than the most likely. I like thinking about it in terms of the HPC graphics. I can't post graphics right now for whatever reason, but in essence 3 out of 4 forecasts are greater than 18 inches, and 3 out of 4 forecasts are less than 27 inches. There's maybe the range you should be thinking about, rather than 24-36 inches.