The NWS has boston with about 20% more rainfall so far than average this month, 10% more in January. but it was heavily concentrated during the period of larger snow storms. Since we are talking anout snowfall in Boston, that would be the relevant number. Across s. New England things have been about average this winter in totals. The link I provided certainly is relevant to the larger picture. The data you are referring to are not relevant to the question. you are wasting my time go away.

The precipitation data does not show increased moisture.
For the Northeast, it is below normal precipitation for the last 60 days. Just look at precipitation for the last 60 days versus normal:

Northern Maine and Northern New York show drought level conditions. Boston is closer to average.

http://water.weather.gov/precip/

Are you saying that less precipitation results from more warm moist air?

Analysis of the data shows that this record snow is not driven by increased moisture. If it was too warm to snow, Boston would be having normal or less rain in January and February than average. Record breaking snowfall is being driven by increased COLD.

Providing a link to a broader view that does not reflect conditions over the last 60 days is meaningless. You may as well blame Hurricane Katrina.

FTOP, no, you are simply not correct. The significance of warm seas is not how warm the snow is. The warmer sea surface is important because of the amount of moisture it adds to the atmosphere. How warm/cold sticky/fluffy the snow is when it falls is a matter of what happens at the site of the snow formation, which is potentially hundreds of miles away from where the moisture goes into the air.

For a broader view of the question of anthropogenic global warming and precipitation in the US Northeast, see this: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/02/23/global-warming-changing-weather-in-the-us-northeast/

This entire post is factually inaccurate. Boston measured the water content of the snow and found it to be only slightly above normal (3.83 vs. 4.83) for the record snowfall.

Thus 4.83″ turned into 96″ of snow
Were it warm and moist, 4.83 would turn into 48″ of snow or less

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/24167100/wet-snow-vs-dry-snow-there-is-a-difference

Folks are jumping into the soft dry snow from second story windows. If it were caused by warm waters, it would be very wet and very hard.

I wish climate scientists would use science. I guess we can always hope.

Boston’s record low temperature is -18 F, recorded on February 9, 1934. Last night’s low was -3 F.

I really don’t want to be the guy who “reports from the location” for to this part of the world, but I guess I’ve already given myself away so let me help you out.

Boston is not ‘humid’ in the winter; look it up on the National Weather Service site. Maybe compared to the deserts out there where you live?

Storms like we’ve had do get some enhancement when they move over the ocean, but the energy/moisture originally comes from systems moving from the S or the W intersecting with arctic fronts from the NW.

Now, whether or not one can make a statistical attribution to climate change for any single event or pattern, you can certainly make a logical case that what we have experienced is very consistent with a disrupted and more energetic climate system. Deeper dips in the jet stream are hardly a surprising outcome.

Do you have an alternative model?

Karlbmiles, so far I’m pretty sure you comment is not clear enough to even respond to. Would you like to try again?