weatherwiz

I'll start it. It works well for severe weather so maybe it will for winter too

Now school's close or delay if the sun is too bright. I remember April of 2002 in 6th grade and it being well into the 80's. The A/C's weren't turned on yet and it was super hot. Never heard of school closing for that. But i will say...if there is any type of heavy snow in the forecast or ice...it makes absolutely zero sense to have people be outside driving. My first job was working at an ice skating rink and during big storms (especially if school's were closed) they would stay open and add public skating times. Yeah yeah yeah I get business and its $$$$ but why give the people the option to go out? ahh right $$$$ > life

I'm actually a bit excited for tomorrow...just to see snow. whether it accumulates that's just going to be a bonus. but I'll actually stay up for models tonight (only because the Bruins play at 10:30 tonight...YUCKKKKKKK)

There is some decent divergence aloft and enhanced lift with the shortwave tracking just south. Also have sufficient moisture to work with. I guess it depends on one's expectation, but I would think we see a nice blossoming shield of light snow hit most and then where you have stronger and deeper lift you'll stand the chance to get maybe 2-3''. I suppose a 4'' total can't be ruled out but I wouldn't hope on that.

I think this really gets going a bit too late to give much of anyone (outside of northeast CT) the chance for any type of accumulation.

This is quite impressive Deeply saturated and quite unstable with strong lift right into the DGZ. That would be some excellent snowgrowth

With that shortwave digging and tracking where it is, it's difficult to not see this overperform somewhere.

This is quite unstable. Pretty solid lift too into the DGZ (This is somewhere in Worcester county...I think. I just did the plot from the national sector so could be off a bit).

Just noticed this but look at those negative SSTA's in the Gulf of Mexico and off the East Coast lol. Will we ever see that again (maybe when the AMO flips)

Kinda sucking down an IPA too quickly so looking for something to do. Anyways, this is just a thinking out loud post. And I guess I should add a declaimer...obviously there's a ton more to take into account and blah blah but the similarities are striking. I was looking at the current sea-surface temperature anomaly configuration and looking (I know there are program and such which run algorithms and what not) for similar matches to previous La Nina episodes: Now there are several "matches" (1909-1910, 1949-1950, 1970-1971, 1973-1974, 1988-1989) but when assessing ensemble guidance regarding the evolution of the H5 pattern moving forward, one match that stuck out was 1909-1910: SSTA's January 1910 GEFS 8-12 day mean H5 H5 anomalies January 1910 Now I don't know what snowfall was like that month or storminess (FWIW, it was a subpar season)

@ORH_wxman do you know where they moved all the historical snowfall records for the major climo places? I cringe b/c of the stupid debacle in the mid 90's through early 2000's with the records, but I at leave have some of those gaps filled in from what you've provided over the years.

Devers DeBrusk

warm enough

Exactly why I made the post I made I don't think Allan meant to target New England in his tweet haha

I'll take my chances with that. The look verbatim too would favor trough axis more into the Southeast as opposed to farther west. Would help with getting any digging system to go negatively tilted as it digs into the region. Much better then recent crap luck of having all this occur more into the Mississippi Valley.

We can still get snow threats here with above-average 2M temps in January and February. Obviously as you go towards NYC latitude and points south your chances decrease drastically. Also, keep in mind with using 2M temp maps (in this case is) are the anomalies being driven by well above-average overnight temps or daytime temps?

Here's 18z NAM bufkit for ORH Friday. That's not too bad looking for a period of light-to-moderate snow.

Shortwave tracks pretty much overhead. Quite unstable too.

Haven't we had periods in the past where the atmospheric state became totally opposite of the oceanic state for a time and the result was an active pattern with big storm potential? Given the pathetic luck we've been having with this Nina-state maybe having an atmospheric state Nino-like will work to our advantage.

Something will hopefully pan out so we don't have to keep staring at bare ground with dry Arctic blasts every few weeks.

I don't disagree with that at all. There is absolutely nothing wrong with discussion. I mean everyone has their different motives, some just love discussing and assessing the potential, some just want the big storm, and some really want to learn more and understand the "why this happened and why this didn't happen". It's just more of the kickback that happens. When someone starts posting thoughts/opinions (whether backed with data or not) that goes against the overall majority, then the discussion becomes messy and is it really discussion anymore?

This is my point! There have been dozens and dozens and dozens of posts the last 2-3 years with "[INSERT PERIOD] looks promising", "models look promising", "ensembles look promising". Every shortwave that shows up on guidance 5-10 days out always seems to be "promising" but what have we to show for it? If every single shortwave and signs of a trough keep getting labeled "interesting" eventually the word just means nothing.

At this juncture, pretty soon we'll be looking into March for these "potential's" and then all of a sudden, one model run will start showing 80's on the 384-hour prog and everyone will be like, "WTF did winter go"?

Our best potential/storm will probably end up coming from a clipper diving southeast out of Canada and developing south of Long Island.

I still say we need to see significant changes to the pattern over Russia/Asia with regards to jet stream structure/evolution there before we see any meaningful changes occur within the Pacific. Everytime we start to see models "look" favorable going out past 6-7+ days, as we get closer, we just revert back to the same background state. We need things to change in a big way. Otherwise its just the same themed crap of horrible antecedent airmasses then bitterly cold/dry behind the system and then rinse and repeat when it's time for the next one. This isn't going to change until there is a drastic overhaul somewhere and for something to spark that overhaul.