radarman

4 hours ago, MaineJayhawk said:

I went down to Portland's waterfront for sunrise

That's awesome.  Is that at J Oyster? Helluva haddock chowder

59 minutes ago, HIPPYVALLEY said:

16” after compaction.  I did not measure every six hours so I’m just gonna go with that officially.   Pretty dense stuff too.  Certainly not cement but not fluffy either.

Beast did quite well.  Was already skiing in great by noon.  Had enough meat in it to cover stuff up.

10 minutes ago, PowderBeard said:

Oh that is fantastic to hear. Was bummed to see those reports from Greylock area. Might have to give it a go ASAP.

Catamount powder day tomorrow.  We were skinning by 7 and I haven't had a chance to check how they even did down there.   But it'll probably be good I presume.  Heck, even the beast will be good again with the human groomin.  Reports of 30+ in the S Greens are tempting, if you don't mind running the gauntlet... we'll likely stay local.

1 hour ago, PowderBeard said:

Yea multiple reports from the Berks. My "fats" are 115 and the lowest I can surf on is about 8-10" of heavy wet on bare ground, not super steep, and with some minor bottoming. I wouldn't even attempt 15" of blower on bare ground. Good way to end your season early or destroy them. 

Wasn't really blower.  15-20+ at the Beast and every trail more or less fine.   We skied UMass, Grizzly, Jug, Liftline with nothing underneath with only very light damage.  I'm on 111 underfoot.  Granted, we weren't throwing weight into big turns... skinny down the fall line, keep em floating.  By noon it was skiing in well across the hill and we could be set up going forward. 

3 minutes ago, HIPPYVALLEY said:

Damn, small but well formed dendrites.  Cold powder storm incoming.  Driveway already coated. 

Same here.  Small but fluffy.  Not baking powder.

Catamount just announced opening Friday.  Berkshire summit pass FTW

Feb reported 3"/hr type stuff in Lancaster PA, with 6.8" before a flip to +IP

14 minutes ago, USCAPEWEATHERAF said:

I need an actual human observation from ACK.  

You've got the graupler observing humans

1 minute ago, powderfreak said:

Very Jelly of my hometown just SW of Albany... 18z GFS with a sick panel for that band from BGM-ALB-RT 2 in MA.

Hippy gets crushed.

 

Beast-ly

Fat skis

Poor kids might not even get a snow day out of it, they'll have to cheer for damaging ice storms now...  talk about externalities

I'm a little skeptical about the ability of models to accurately depict subsidence holes, especially small ones.  This will be a good test.  My feeling is that this will be by and large a people pleaser in SNE... Perhaps not as evenly distributed as say, the Superbowl 2015 storm, but without the huge sucking sounds we sometimes get, like say, last storm.

March '13, I had almost 8" at 740' living on the hilltop in the valley, and at 300' was a slushy coating.

Interesting calling for more on Old Silver Beach than in GC.  But they probably figure dragons won't call in totals anyway.

27 minutes ago, powderfreak said:

Gotta use it to figure out what VT ski area gets the most snow.  Think you gotta ride with Mt Snow but I was thinking the banding on NAM might have been north of that even.

If you're looking to take a road trip, Magic is planning to open on Thurs. 

Whereas the east flow could be problematic for some in this area (hi!) due to terrain downsloping, I'll be pretty surprised if mid level subsidence is a major factor. 

3 minutes ago, JC-CT said:

I'm not seeing anything on any model indicating widespread amounts higher than maybe 15" for the most aggressive runs

Agree, certainly not calling for #1 all time at BOS (at the time) but that was another weak ass lp with a big high to the north.  I know the setups aren't precisely the same, but saying totals are limited to 8-12" just because it's high 990s instead of mid 980s raised an eyebrow for me. 

2 minutes ago, Cmass495 said:

A POTENTIAL RED FLAG AGAINST SOME OF THE EYE-POPPING TOTALS SHOWN BY
DETERMINISTIC GUIDANCE IS THE RELATIVE LACK OF DEEPENING OF THE
SECONDARY LOW. ENSEMBLE MEMBERS KEEP THE LOW IN THE HIGH 990S OR LOW
1000S, WHICH INDICATES A LACK OF DEEPENING OR CYCLOGENESIS REQUIRED
FOR THE SYSTEM TO HAVE MORE STAYING POWER AND REDUCE THE POTENTIAL
FOR TOTALS MUCH HIGHER THAN A FOOT AT THIS TIME.

Tell that to PDII

Just now, Damage In Tolland said:

Nice SE shift Reggae 

Nice to have some buffer for the shuffle

24 minutes ago, powderfreak said:

3km NAM Kuchie 

Seems reasonable.

So much pow, so little time

14 minutes ago, ineedsnow said:

That snow hole over me isn't sitting well with me

bullseye!!

On 12/14/2020 at 1:11 AM, Professional Lurker said:

Sweet! No doubt we've crossed paths.

I'll be bumping chairs there every Thursday.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk
 

How bout this Thursday? 

couldn't possibly care less about central mass holes on guidance.  Boxing day had us at 18" or something and we got a slantsticked 3".  The fact the surface LP is relatively weak here works to our advantage IMO.  We don't need giant banded nukes pushing the 970s, winds shredding the dendrites to pieces.   At any rate, it's ski season.  Berkshire East was on the verge of nil 36hrs ago, now looking like an opening day powder fest.

The areal averaged soundings on TT are a pretty nice tool.  I note that the 3km nam and the gfs are pretty similar off the coast... around hr 54 the GFS really starts racing convection ENE off like VA beach....  If anything convective parameters for the nammy are a little better in that region (approaching 200 j/kg SBCAPE, mid 60s/low 60s, a ton of helicity)  and yet it's not nearly as aggressive as the GFS in actually generating ^(organized) thunderstorms.  

2 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

It is, which is why I was sort of satisfied with the low finally off ACY unlike other runs.

yes.  It was substantially deeper there than in previous runs. 

The GFS is really aggressive with the convection offshore.