Typhoon Tip

It's really raced through ...wow. I mean we knew that was/could be a limiting factor, but fall rates would need to be pretty huge to get to the 12" end of the range ( speaking for Rt 2 corridor folk or where ever else was all snow). We never pinged once here in Ayer. 21 F. Presently a burst of mod/hvy but looking at rad, this ends to flurry bursts after glow here over the next little while. I was est 6" two hour ago. We had a nice burst around 5 to 7 am where it appears the ballast of this fell. Prior cracked eye out of slumber looked very light out of window. Two dreams later ... eye shot featured exceedingly low visibility during that 2-hr time span. It's been S- between 7 and very recently. We'll probably end up 8.1 or something.

This does not absolve your loutish crass demeanor in this engagement - unfortunately - with the possible exception of those that with mid brow I.Q.s Your POS of turn of phrase is a false equivalence to my calling you out for it. But you obviously wont' take culpability for your own actions in that matter, and your ego doesn't accept what it is you just proved yourself to be. Ignorable

6" here est .. no measure just yet, but using the standard weiner window method. S- at the moment. Radar appears to have a sleet ball N CT to springfield Mass, so the sleet line probably made it to the Pike ( so far). Ptype rad shows the snow is still tucked deep into CT ... must be a very elevate melt layer, which is consistent with a very highly sloped elevated front. I'm skeptical of 'wrap around' idea this evening over NE zones/S NH... Too often I've seen that end up butterscotch glowing skies flurries, *however* this situation may strand a saturated layer under inversion, and that can end up being steady light from those mechanics.

You're being a fantastic asshole ! All I ever said about the UKMET is that people were auto-86ing the solution, with no logic or reasoning behind what was ( clearly..) some knee-jerk neurotic defensiveness. I merely said, 'I'm not sure I see why the UK has to necessarily be wrong' You got pissed, because I touched a nerve. Tough shit! That was impulsive to do so - That's it. Sorry I never avered the model would be right. I even gave a rough percentage of model weighting, said to use 15% UKMET, which was the minority input by a goodly margin. Get a grip. This storm was handled well by the models. I stated multiple times that it would sleet to the Pike - and in fact, that has not even happened yet. Also, people over all are completely judging model performance based upon what's going on out the window IMBY - this is gone back to primitive internet culture circa 2002 BS ... whatever.

My fault

Do you really think that -EPO is all the bluster though? You know I'm beginning to have my doubts. Take this for example ... last night's GGEM and Euro operational runs move a close 540 dm ridge node through the Alaskan sector, between day 2 and day 6. 540 That's what's come of the -EPO that was forecast for this episode back when it was 10 or 12 days in advance, when I recall that being significantly more amplified in the model depiction/vision... Point being, the tendency to over-do that blocking up there seems air apparent, and I am noticing subtle nuances in the GEFs to belay ( also ) the -EPO it has. ...I'm just a little leery of the 'over magnification' thing getting into deterministic territory/ranges as not being as "instructive". The other aspect is more orbital ...we are about to really transform the hemisphere by radiative forcing ( seasonality ). The 00z operational Euro, excluding details..., in principle shows a 'flashing' of the hemisphere, with a pattern break down and sudden warming of 850 mb layout over the Canadian shield. GGEM does too... The GFS doesn't but that model has a ranging speed hard-on in July so ... Anyway, I'm just not as sold on cash-in result from mid March. Obviously, we can get blizzards until May 10th around here. This doesn't preclude the 1997's or 1977s or 1888s... But barring those, I'm not sure the pattern really is 'dependable'

The strength matter there ... The stronger depiction ( right ) would lend to the stronger warm intrusion aloft -

Lol, ...I just caught this ... ha - although, in a way it's entirely right - because the "25th" could certainly included all the missed opportunities, too.

I wonder if the ratio/stack efficiency is being considered enough here ? - haven't heard/read much discussion related to that. Presently, the hygroscopic temperature is quite deep here N of ~ HFD-PVD-TAN over SNE. However .. a key difference in this particular idiosyncrasy: unlike the typical wet bulb saturation temperature result ( 2/3rds to 3/4ths the distance toward the temperature side) this air mass is superbly back-built off -10 to +10 F (N-->S) polar-arctic air mass source that is not moving during the duration of this event. I'm not trying to "bun" a way to get to those huge totals here ( hahaha) but if 1.2" of model blended QPF suspends through this column from any DGZ ... provided there isn't a sufficiently large amount of riming probably sends the ratios to or over 15:1 - I don't honestly know if there is a ratio calculator of sorts for deterministic efforts; that's just years of experience offering that suggestion. If so, that's our 18" at maxes ...certainly 15". I'm just offering one way to get it done that is still consistent with the synoptic metrics I'm looking at this morning. Heh, these system always provide at least tedious distractions for a turbo nerds - maybe this question is one of them. LOL The caveats are: warm layer at 800 - if that gets too close, the jig is up ... that impedes by densely compacting the aggregate... well, fluff factor drops. speed of the system - I think this is moving very fast.. perhaps limiting, and adding to that ... if the nested frontogen banding "pulses" on rad, together we don't distribute enough QP anyway - you may have hinted at this by saying you liked the distribution but not the magnitude. Whether those are more stationary aligned somewhere between the Pike and rt 2, or over Rt 2 ...etc... would matter, because if a 2 or 3"/hr band were anchored for 3 or 4 hours, that'd do it.

Mein kampf looks a little NORLUNy into NE Mass Friday evening

Not a whole helluva lot - unlikely. Mine were spit ballin. But frankly the blended means been some 80% of where the consensus is now goin back three days.

I believe this is the biggest diurnal change of the entire season LOL… Seriously though – maybe go in the other direction but whatever

I know! let’s ask George what the weighting array should be …

Well sure. I mean the discussion on weighting probabilities is based on where we are heretofore up to this point. If things sig change tomorrow than the conversation’s moot - we’d have to come up with a different percent contribution

GFS 30% ECM 25% GGEM 20% UKM 15% mesos the remainder with less emphasis on the NAM in this aggregate mean for 10%

I thinks that’s too heavy. Arithmetically, if we blend all other guidance, then take that mean and blend it with the NAM that’s given that helmet and drool cup kid one helluva participation trophy

Folks should try and remember ...whether for muse or the educational value. This is the hemisphere on Friday morning according to the GEF's mean. Looks pretty convincing snow stormy, huh -

I'm starting to wonder if the -EPO gush for mid March may be a red herring - It's already a little less panache/attitude in the ens means out there - I haven't seen the 300 EPS but.. 240 ... Anyway the GEFs seems a little less impressive. Plus, we have to remember that radiative forcing across the hemisphere is a huge delta and it can start normalizing things particularly as we head deeper into March. I was telling others that the EPO may not correlate on March 15 the same way as it does on Dec 30.

We haven't had one of those type of BD events in quite some time. ... We've had our springs disrupted by other weirdness, causing wild oscillations of temperature that were not related to BD's per se - it may be that these odd springs have interfered with the general circulations types the cause the BD phenomenon. We've had them..but they've tended to shallower versions. I have to go back to the aughts of 2000 to get one of those big dawg shock and awe BD blasts. The last I recall was April of 2003... I was working at the time down on Comm Ave, across from the BU rec center - which doesn't exist now..I think it's a gym and whatever... Anyway, it was 94 F at noon, partly cloudy with CU and some TCU toes along the horizons. The BD roared through the city, passing that location at 1:30 PM... The sky was interesting, with Kelvin-Hemholtz rolling scud fragments racing W, while the towers of cu leaned east over top. When I left to head up the street for the parking garage, I did so in 45 F ... essentially a 50 F correction between 1:30 and 5:30. It was 39 by 8 pm all the way out to Waltham where I lived. That BD never made as far west at ALB... That next day, I recall it was 86 out there, while it managed back to 43 still under slate sky back in Boston. That was one of the more impressive ones I experienced, but the most was March 31 1998. It was 91 F ...in fact, it was D 3 of a 89, 90, 91. It was truly unique. I think those records will probably stand for a long while, as they have since. But at 3:15 pm on the 31, it was 91.4 F on the monitor at UML's wx lab. I looked at the obs up in Maine, knowing that the BD was coming... at that time, CAR's ASOS was 36 F with NE wind gusting to 45 mph. That radar had that serpent. Sometimes very powerful ones will get a weak ribbon echo ...probably because their plowing pollutants along - I dunno what drives that honesty. But it sinuous like a side-winder as it moved SW from out of Maine about to enter NH. It came through the Merrimack Valley around 5:45 ... with a lot wind and dust. 38 at dawn the next morning.

I recently was given the impression it may be this year ...

OH there you are

heh... jackpot could very well be where I'm located here in Ayer. In fact, I could see 15 or so mi either side of a line from Petersham, me, Lowell, Methuen maxing... Still time to wiggle S(N) but for now

Right - been a mantra of mine over some odd 20 pages in this thread: There's a limit in how far N this thing could trend in the runs. Those N solution - NAM a separate matter ...hold on for a minute - were really pressed against the proverbial wall and could only come S. That was proven true when every next cycle subsequent of a N solution, halted or went the other direction. I guess some 'wiper blade' aspect but ... you know - the whole needle threading track oscillation noise. The way around that N limitation would have/need to be a change in the (bold abv) scaffolding. But that's not happened yet, nor is there very much room in the hemispheric mode anchoring to assume any trend gets under way. If anything, this may come S even more - but cross the bridge. The NAM? That idiot was just handling the total synoptic manifold differently, including that larger mechanical exertion - enough to allow it's solution. But like you said all morning, it's the only run really doing that and beside... Man, the NAM has a W-N bias at time ranges beyond 48 hours. It's funny - it's almost like it's gotta bias NW so bad that it re-engineers the circulation mode to get to it's obsession LOL

step 1 ... cold front. Appears to be passing my location here in Ayer. Dark line of cu with wind shift and gustiness... 69 to 63 almost immediately

Oh, you must be referring to that comment I snarked last night. I meant that in deference to that particular run, ...as in, the RGEM's rendition sucked. The model may in fact suck, in general. But I'm not I don't use it? I get the sense for those that do, and comment on it... that it may have patterns it does better in. This season may not have featured very many of those -