eduggs

Maybe a period of light snow on Tuesday night with an outside chance of minor accumulations in elevated spots of NNJ, NEPA, or SENY? There's been a slow and gradual trend towards higher QPF over the past few days on most of the mid-range models and with overnight timing and a marginal antecedent airmass, it's not out of the question. The shortwave is dampening, but once in a while these end up more robust than modeled.

This is an example of "progress blindness" with underlying aspects of negativity bias, availability heuristic, and confirmation bias. Long-range ensembles have never been as reliable as they are now. At the same time, they are not now and never previously have been particularly useful for sub-continental-scale pattern forecasting beyond day 10.

There is a significant lag between an increase in global atmospheric CO2 & CH4 concentrations and an increase in mean continental surface atmospheric temperature. Most data sources show global temperature increased most significantly after about 1920. In the US, there appears to have been mean warming in the early part of the 20th century, following by cooling through ~ the 1970s, followed by the period of pronounced warming that we're in. The 1930s were warmer than parts of earlier centuries for sure. This was likely the result of a combination of astronomical and anthropogenic climate factors. The rate and magnitude of current warming is much more significant than previously observed during historical times. The data that bluewave showed does suggest that low snow years in the 1930s were more related to total precipitation than to temperature compared to the present. Though temperature in the 1930s was likely more of a factor than during the 18th or early 19th centuries. And I suspect persistent under-measurement of snowfall was also a factor.

Graupel shower. Ground whitened. 47F

The 4" number is arbitrary and/or coincidental. It is way over the top to claim that threshold is "required." If there is or was a meaningful causal relationship between December & winter snowfall at a particular reporting station, the causal factors have probably become less meaningful in the modern warming climate regime. This statistical connection is much more likely to represent merely a historical correlation than a causally predictive metric. There are likely too many confounding factors and too small a sample size for such a statistic to be meaningful. Snowfall is a very local phenomenon. Just a few miles can separate significant snow from flurries or rain. And the way snow is measured has changed over time. Maybe a novice statistician or a superstitious hobbyist would take this seriously. But I suspect others would rightly poke holes. When we have 1000 winter season to adequately power an analysis, we can revisit this argument.

Great snow squall in West Point and Garrison, NY. Most surfaces briefly snow covered. Might have been half an inch in a few grassy spots before quickly melting.

Still looks good for flurries and maybe scattered snow showers on Tuesday! But the mid and early-long range look a little less interesting today.

This upcoming week should include both first trackable flakes and first long range trackable but unlikely wintry threat. These are fun seasonal milestones to achieve... Nicely covered by the previous posts. I'm looking forward to some webcams and images from Chicago later tonight.

Now using facts, the scientific method, and reason are "leftist?" When did that happen?

Agree with Walt D. about the possibility of first flakes in the 11/10 - 11/12 period. The GFS, EC, CMC, and ICON show a few different possible scenarios to achieve it. Parts of the mid-Atl may even be favored to get flakes before us. There should be some steep lapse rates and hopefully snow showers if an ULL swings through (ECM/ICON) and/or in the cold northwest flow that develops behind the rain event (GFS).

Yeah. And I wouldn't ever expect wall to wall cold in November. The mean jet is historically to our north and its undulations deliver alternating cool and warm shots. But in a warming climate regime, I'm happy for every seasonal cold shot we get.

Inter-model guidance still showing a nice cool shot around Nov. 10-12. We'll see if it holds.

Most snow lovers want snow whenever they can get it. Winter-season snow sticks around longer and holiday snow enhances the season. So we'd choose those scenarios if given a trade option. But it doesn't work that way. Any apparent correlation between early season snow and winter snow is likely coincidental and skewed by a small sample size.

I agree that a wintry coastal storm is unlikely. But I think your MSLP graphic at 198hrs is misleading. First, it's a snapshot in time at long range. And second, at first glance the color schemes resemble height anomalies, which is confusing. The ensemble averaging effect almost always produces noticeable differences between an individual operational run and its ensemble average at that time range. But to my eye, the op and ensembles are in reasonably good agreement with some kind of cold wave centered around the 10th. To argue otherwise seems somewhat disingenuous. But if the intent is to merely downplay the likelihood of accumulating snow from a coastal storm at the coast, I completely agree. But I don't think you need to label the op run as an outlier to make that point. The 1009mb off the Delaarva at 192hr on the 12z GFS is 12 hours earlier than a cluster of SLPs associated with the shortwave on the individual ensembles. But the broad representation is consistent.

With respect to the GFS op vs. the GEFS... it's mostly a timing issue. The op is has a higher amplitude trof with a deeper SLP and slower progression. Such a difference is typical at that time range. That's why we generally disregard specific local weather outcomes at that range. But the signal and progression of the GFS op is similar to its ensembles.

The EC-AI is cold in the long range... probably too cold. 1000-500mb thicknesses are near or below 540dm from Nov 9 through the end of the run. They bottom out near 510dm! The GFS, CMC, and their ensembles have a solid cold "signal" too. Nothing historic or severe... but definitely wintry-precip-supporting cold. I feel like these modeled cold snaps usually moderate in time. I'm be curious to see how well it holds through the coming week.

ICON has the Nov 10 threat too. I will almost always "sell" a wintry threat near the coast this early in the season unless it's modeled in the short term. But what I'm happy to see on guidance is maybe the first decent Canadian-cold delivery of the early season. If wave timing is ideal, it's the kind of scenario that could whiten elevated NEPA, southern tier of NY, Catskills, Berks etc.

EPS, GEFS, and GEPS all have a semblance of a wintry threat centered on November 10, plus or minus a day. It's been there for a few cycles now. All the usual caveats apply. Far inland, elevated spots look to have a decent chance of flakes over the next 10 days or so. That seems fairly consistent with historical norms.

I think there's an issue regarding how "major flooding" is defined. If a road is inundated that doesn't normally flood, it's hard not to describe that as major flooding. But that doesn't necessarily match up with USGS statistical data and graphics. Although I'm not sure how minor, moderate, and major coastal flooding are defined.

From what I can see from the hydrological stations in and around new york harbor, this afternoon's high tide has crested slightly below yesterday's predictions. That's a good thing for people on the immediate shoreline, but there's still widespread minor to isolated moderate coastal flooding ongoing.

This storm unfortunately didn't quite bust the drought west of 287. The surface is moist from days of drizzle, but the (subsurface) soil moisture is still low.

The precipitation gradient or "cut-off" is oriented almost perfectly north to south across our area. It's a little more common to have more of a southwest to northeast orientation to the gradient.

That buoy is like 50 miles offshore.

Injecting aerosol into the atmosphere on a large scale would be extremely risky. We don't know exactly what the impact would be and at the level that would be required to have a meaningful impact, the potential consequences to water resources (irrigation, drinking water, drought), farming (food production), and general weather patterns could be quite severe. This would seemingly also require international large-scale cooperation to avoid regional or global conflict. This type of technology might be worth investigating or attempting, but it is unlikely to be a magic fix... certainly not without major societal costs and unintended consequences.

It is not correct that renewables cannot provide sufficient baseload. That classic argument about winds not blowing or the sun not shining is outdated ignorance. Hydro, geothermal, and a variety of wind/solar with battery are completely viable alternatives technically. The issue comes down to economic viability. Nuclear can and does provide an excellent and relatively affordable supply of baseload power. The issue with nuclear comes down to society's appetite for risk. Fukushima Daiichi was considered much safer than most currently operating nuclear power plants in the US. We cannot anticipate and mitigate all sources of risk. Even if the likelihood of catastrophe is very low, if the consequences of such an event is that a large area is rendered essentially permanently uninhabitable, the overall risk assessment might force us to turn elsewhere. Society still doesn't have a permanent solution for spent nuclear fuel, which presents a significant risk for potential accident or terrorist act.