LibertyBell

according to Ray in the NE forum (he does it there too) he was dropped on his head in the snow a few too many times

I'm going to message Randy about him

Most of us coasties have had our seasonal snowfall for the entire winter already

and you had a big storm last week with over a foot of snow, you didn't need a negative NAO

Thats what I've been saying. lol

I see 100 degrees in your future this summer, I hope you have your a/c

But JFK almost always gets less than half the snowfall than the jackpot, no matter the situation. My main point being this.... NYC was never going to get 25 inches of snow. It's in a central location and jackpots are usually to the west or to the east or to the south. Look at what ACY got in January.... 33 inches. Now are we to assume that locations further south do better in a positive NAO? Of course not! And we had a negative NAO in December and all it got us was 0.3. A negative NAO is much less important for us than a west coast ridge, we need that above all else. We can't hope for perfection-- it's very rare that everything will line up perfectly, and quite frankly if there is one thing I had to pick wouldn't line up it's a negative NAO. We've had historic snowfall seasons and historic snowstorms without one (PD2 and 1993-94 and 1960-61 being cases in point.) And look how well ACY did in a positive NAO in January. We can't root or hope for perfection, because it rarely happens. I also question the value of the nao when we have south based blocks and east based blocks that do diddly for us. So rather than chasing ghosts, I'd rather have the sure thing-- which is a great Pacific. Everything else matters FAR less than that. Also, I choose not to compare JFK to ISP, because JFK would never get that kind of snowfall in any scenario unless we had a strong el nino. I choose to compare JFK against its own historical record....and for JFK getting over a foot of pure snow is an MECS. It was a great storm. Anyone from Brooklyn on east and south had a great storm and has absolutely nothing to complain or whine about.

February 1996 February 2006 and February 2020 beg to differ (of course they came after El Ninos)

I thought it was because of chasing the convection and the bifurcated low? Because honestly JFK is part of the city and did fine in the storm so we cant say that NYC needs a -NAO. NYC got over 50 inches of snow in 1993-94 with a +NAO too. It was by chance that Manhattan didn't do well in this storm, this storm could have easily been slightly to the west. This storm was a lot better than last year's so give me this pattern.

what if someone puts tarp over the snow?

good, it looks dirty

Well if there is a pattern change in the second half that would be the logical time to see another big snow storm and it's highly favored climate wise too

February 2015 isn't on this list? That's a surprise-- it was frigid and snowy.

This area doesn't get many serious ice storms (>0.50 inch) and the big ones we did get didn't really affect us that much around here, they're far worse for the South as I've been repeatedly saying and Abbott's incompetence and lack of regulation of methane companies (so-called "natural" gas) hasn't helped any. It's a good thing I remember pretty much everything I've ever seen or read...it comes in handy (especially for finding hidden patterns in even seemingly random things.) I even remember stuff I memorized back in middle school, like pi to 100 digits, the presidents (first middle and last names), the chemical elements, the constellations, square root of 2 to 100 digits and the Greek alphabet. I hope I die before I ever start to lose my memory.

one of my all time favorites. historic ice storm and power didn't even budge

Actually most of the snow is gone here already, the rain will only clean up the dirty snow piles.

What do you think of the mega solar flare stuff by the way? Do you think the sun noticeably changed during those historic events (as in, people could notice changes in it with their own eyes?)

Yeah I understand and the sun's spectral type is G2 and that's not going to change for millions of years, I think that should be enough for people to realize that the sun's basic color doesn't change lol.

The city and east of the city didn't get much but I remember November 2012 was sort of like that with 8 inches of heavy wet snow a week after Sandy. We didnt lose power but driving in it was scary with large limbs and branches down.

That was horrendous, and oh, the lines at the pump! Worst I have ever seen. We had another massive power outage in August 2003 I think it was, but that was rodent related, not weather related.

Hey I deal with my personal experiences not with alarmist takes, in my 40 plus years I've experienced numerous winter storms and ice storms in particular and lost power in NONE. Some people have a hidden agenda to be alarmist well I will have NONE of that. If you can't acknowledge that the governor of Texas has done an awful job at regulating their own grid, then you have your head buried in the sand. It's not the fault of the communities obviously, it's the fault of the politicians who make decisions for them. Like the aforementioned "governor" who has been called out numerous times. Even now he's letting certain gas companies get away with opting out of the new winterization law. on a side note, I finally got the multiquote thing working (yay) and multiquoting to a different thread is an extra plus!

Sandy here and that tornado event we had last November were my two biggest ones....25 hours and 3 hours. There's been others like that here but nothing of note since they were all an hour or less. Only had 1.5" of snow in Octosnow so not really enough to do anything, plus I don't remember the winds being high in that event. Sometimes we lose power just from wind alone, but these are all minor power outages of less than an hour.

This is incredible stuff https://www.21stcentech.com/charlemagne-event-774-775-ad-caused-solar-storm/ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05883-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/774–775_carbon-14_spike Several possible causes of the event have been considered. Annus Domini (the year of the Lord) 774. This year the Northumbrians banished their king, Alred, from York at Easter-tide; and chose Ethelred, the son of Mull, for their lord, who reigned four winters. This year also appeared in the heavens a red crucifix, after sunset; the Mercians and the men of Kent fought at Otford; and wonderful serpents were seen in the land of the South-Saxons. — Anglo-Saxon Chronicle[9] The "red crucifix" recorded by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle has been variously hypothesised to have been a supernova[9] or the aurora borealis.[2][10] In China, there is only one clear reference to an aurora in the mid-770s, namely the one on 12 January 776.[11][12] Instead, an anomalous "thunderstorm" was recorded for 775.[13] The common paradigm is that the event was caused by a solar particle event (SPE), or a consequence of events as often happen, from a very strong solar flare, perhaps the strongest ever known but still within the Sun's abilities.[2][7][14][15][16] According to a summary of the state of knowledge on radiocarbon dating in 2020, the spike is thought to have been caused by an extreme SPE.[3] Another discussed scenario of the event origin, involving a gamma-ray burst,[8][17] appears unlikely, because the event was also observed in isotopes 10 Be and 36 Cl.[16]

Even if it does change so what? Everything in nature is dynamic, nothing is static. Maybe he's talking about the sunspot cycle and changes in how the sun looks (or maybe even solar storms?) There is documentation from history that the sun's appearance has changed during historic solar storms. https://www.livescience.com/ancient-solar-storm-solar-minimum An extremely powerful solar storm pummeled our planet 9,200 years ago, leaving permanent scars on the ice buried deep below Greenland and Antarctica. A new study of those ancient ice samples has found that this previously unknown storm is one of the strongest outbursts of solar weather ever detected and would have crippled modern communications systems if it had hit Earth today. But perhaps most surprising, the massive storm appears to have hit during a solar minimum, the point during the sun's 11-year cycle when solar outbursts are typically much less common, according to the study, published Jan. 11 in the journal Nature Communications. Because of this unexpected discovery, the study researchers are concerned that devastating solar storms could hit when we least expect them — and that Earth might not be prepared when the next big one arrives. Sponsored Links Further analysis of the cores showed that the storm was particularly powerful — perhaps on a par with the most powerful solar storm ever detected, which occurred during a solar maximum between the years 775 B.C. and 774 B.C. RELATED CONTENT 'Internet apocalypse' could ride to Earth with the next solar storm 15 unforgettable images of stars 9 ideas about black holes that will blow your mind The newly discovered storm's occurrence during a solar minimum, when magnetic activity on the sun should be low, left the study authors puzzled and alarmed. "This [storm] further pushes the magnitude of a potential worst-case scenario for [solar storm] events," the researchers wrote in the study. According to the study authors, it is now essential for researchers to detect more ancient, extreme storms in the ice-core and tree-ring records, to determine if there is some sort of pattern beyond the sun's 11-year cycle that dictates when the most extreme storms will occur.

they need to five post his reactions too, I wonder why there isn't a function for that?