vortex95

#3 NESIS March 1960...you won't find that kind of 20"+ coverage that often in SNE. 31" at ACK for their all-time. Explain that! https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/monitoring-content/snow-and-ice/rsi/nesis/19600302-19600305-8.77.jpg And as I mentioned, if snow measurements were consistent going way back, you;d be surprised at Miller A totals. esp. since their LEQ is usually higher. Recall many locations through the 1950s used to melt a snowfall down and then multiple by 10! As if all storms were 10:1? Given how ridiculously cold the Feb 1899 blizzard was, and the above? @CoastalWxneeds to adjust! And you exclude NNE and @dendrite. Very disappointing! Too much IMBY and relying on anecdotal snowstorm experience! Need to look outside the Weymouth/GHG/Brockton realm.

Overall for the E Coast for the top positions, Miller As rule on the NESIS. Bliz of 93 #1 Bliz of 96 #2 https://micromet.psu.edu/ewall/NARR/1996/us0107.php Mar 2-5, 1960 #3 https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/monitoring-content/snow-and-ice/rsi/nesis/19600302-19600305-8.77.jpg Bliz of 1899 was Miller A and was on par w/ the Bliz of 93 https://www.woodtv.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/51/2023/02/1899-Weather-Map-Feb.-12-1899.jpg And best snowstorm BOS ob ever and highest gust w/ a snowstorm is from the Bliz of 93! BOS RS 2250 W0 X 0TS+BS 875/31/31/0647G62/916/R04RVR06-V06 TB50 SW MOVG N OCNL LTGIC DRFTG SNW PK WND 0670/33 PRESFR SNOINCR 3/11/12 If you had snowfall measurements done consistency and right back in the day, BOS top 10s would not be what they are currently as prior to the 1990s. Snowfall practices then resulted in too low totals. But Don't be a @CoastalWx and act IMBY only!

The "what if" and "could be" scenarios along w/ endless speculation, conjecture, and opinion are all that matters. It is the business paradigm, and a deplorable one at that. ENSO does not work necessarily in a linear fashion for all regions of the globe, so the notion that this is strongest one on record = worse by default is flawed. Also, you can't compare ones long ago (1877-78) to what would happen today in terms of societal impact. 50M fatalities then and equating to now? Back then, the world was very different. You did not have scale of global economic trade and communication, let alone forecasts that allow us to prepare. And we did just fine in all other very strong El Ninos since 1950, so why is this one going to be *any* different overall? I say "overall" b/c that is key. Yes, the Atlantic TC season is more suppressed than ever, and the EPAC is record levels, but focusing on such details is narrow-minded. What is happening in the big picture, and taking into account to what has happened before in very strong El Ninos, is actually happening as expected for TCs in the Atlantic and EPAC. And we already see signs for the STJ getting active in the LR and already a wet pattern across the Gulf Coast States, and perhaps our first Gulf wave/Miller A storm. There is far to much focus on what is different and the negative, and the same and positive are ignored, ever notice that? You'd think El Nino leads to pure atmospheric chaos, when it clearly does not. It is well understood and has plenty of order, as evidenced what was said in the previous paragraph. And yet you get fear-mongering articles like this: https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/23/climate/super-el-nino-heat-deaths Notice it is "could cause", again, conditional supposition. But here what they do not tell you. Such warmer global conditions mitigate significant cold-related issues/fatalities globally, and cold causes more fatalities than warm in the mean. The article says that there could be an excess of 3500 fatalities in the U.S. alone, but no mention of lives saved due things like the lack of hurricanes and a mild winter. Clear cherry-picking/omission of facts here. Want harder info and proof? See here about the impacts of the 1997-98 event. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/80/9/1520-0477_1999_080_1819_ioenog_2_0_co_2.xml So they found for costs: • $1.7 billion, and uninsured losses were estimated as $ 1.1 billion based on the fact that insured storm losses normally represent 65% of all structural losses from storms • federal government relief = $400 million; • state assistance costs = $125 million; • agricultural losses = $650 to $700 million; • lost sales in snow-removal equipment = $60- $80 million • losses in the tourist industry = $ 180 to $200 million. For benefits: • reduced heating costs = $6.7 billion; • increased sales of merchandise, homes, and other goods = $5.6 billion; • reductions in costs of street/highway removal of ice and snow = $350-$400 million; • reductions in normal losses due to absence of snowmelt floods and no Atlantic hurricanes = $6.9 billion; • income from increased construction and related employment = $450-$500 million • reduced operating costs to airlines and trucking industry = $160-$ 175million. Totals: LOSSES Human lives lost = 189 Economic losses and costs = $4.2-$4.5 billion BENEFITS Human lives saved = 850 Economic gains = $19.6-$ 19.9 billion So how is this bad net-net? Very strong El Nino has a considerable net benefit. and from an individual intuitive/empirical observation POV, it is not hard to see how such benefits come about in society. The savings in heating costs *alone* exceed all other losses.

And 39 years ago today, the best early season PT snow event ev-A! Needless to say, it was not fcst! Accum map attached but it's off a bit. 7" fell at DXR and 1" at HVN. Max amount of 26" at Slide Mtn NY and 22" at Grafton NY. 18" at Pownal VT. A trace of snow fell as far E as Ashburnham MA in the @ineedsnow area and as far S as NYC. Not just an elevation storm as even ALB got 6". I have read that the snow was so wet, it was 3:1 ratio, but I do not think that is possible. Let the snow weenie here chime in on this -- "what was the lowest snow ratio event you have had?" It is the first time the term "warm snowstorm" was used, as many areas never fell below 32 for the entire event. Did an 8 year old @CoastalWxrecall waking up this Sunday morning and wondered, "how could this happen?!" Does he even remember it at all?

And in case @CoastalWx thinks "this is too early for a Gulf wave," enter Oct 3-4, 1992. He's be surprised... Sig tor outbreak in the TPA area, 5 foot storm surge in the FL PH, and over 10" of RPLUS in Brunswick GA.

The Miller As begin! And it eventually comes to the NEUS.

Now the 00z GFS does what the GFS likes to do w/ TCs in the long range, overly aggressive. What the other global models show do not look very tropical. The system is highly asymmetrical and looks more like a monsoonal depression or STS. With a front fcst across the central Gulf, that appears reasonable. It reminds me of ET lows that you get in the cool season in the Gulf when strong El Nino is present, and the subtropical jet does become more defined in the next week. You can get strong ET lows in Oct in this area. Here's one from Oct 3, 1992. Take note @GaWx of the big rains in Brunswick GA! A strong low pressure system moving northeast out of the Gulf spawned several tornadoes in the Tampa, Florida area. One person was killed and 23 homes were destroyed as an F2 twister moved through Largo. 3 people were killed and 75 were injured in Pinellas Park as an F3 tornado ripped through. Total damage was estimated at 32 million dollars. Heavy rain spread over northern Florida and Georgia on this day and continued into the 4th. Jacksonville, Florida recorded 8.69 inches of rain and Brunswick, Georgia was deluged with 10.14 inches in 24 hours. Strong winds and a long fetch pushed tides 4 to 5 feet above normal along the west coast of Florida.

Be more specific. Let me put it this way, if NNE gets a foot plus and @dendrite is walking in "white gold," and Weymouth is all rain, you are just as mad as if no storm occurred at all!

Well that's part of the issue overall w/ you. Beggars can't be choosers. Now, I guess we can say for @CoastalWx "if it is not a Miller B, who cares...MEH!" And what about the ones that don't "fit?" Dec 9, 2005 for instance, Or the early March 2013 "surprise" event? How about the 100 hr snowstorm late Feb 1969? Oh, wait, "the BOS 26" fell over 100 hr. It was all S- w/ sucky dendritic growth w/ an avg snowfall rate only 1/4"/hr -- WORST EVA!" Meanwhile, in @dendrite country, 50"+ falls!

"I HAZ?"

"Yah but" you do not have to be concerned about the storm developing "too late" or any issues w/ moisture. You do not even need a strong sfc low and still get crushed. Jan 20, 1978 is a classic example. Gave BOS is biggest 24 hr snowstorm up this time.

Looks like @CoastalWx gets to keep his beloved NAM a little longer! As for his "garbage" model (RRFS), it does appear to have issues w/ making deeply occluded lows into TCs too easily. It did that for the most recent storm. But non-TC CAMs usually do.

Since operational intensity was borderline and it's not really a sampling issue, I don't really see how they would bother. I mean, that's not overwhelming data for reanalysis to circumvent the operational intensity, IMO. Lots to consider in this case, and given the dearth of HUs this season, I hope focus on Fay by NHC is not overthought or nitpicked if we do not have any clear HUs for the rest of the season! I am just thinking external pressures that can hurt the objectivity of the met science here (e.g. social media making a stink or crying foul w/ armchair mets and hype-masters going off!). ASCAT has issues in heavy rain areas leading to a high bias. And in convective area that pulse when downbursts are more likely, that is an issue. On that ASCAT image provided from the X link, it is a very small area of 65 kt winds, that can suggest a mesoscale transitory feature., Also, I have seen it noted that Fay had an eye briefly. That was more dry slot residual b/c leading up to that appearance you could see a narrow band of dry air curling into the center. This dry air present also promotes pulsing convection and downbursts. That's one thing I have found questionable at times for assigned intensity. Spot winds are not the same as mean winds. Local convective winds are not the same as avg synoptic gradient winds. Many moderate to strong TS briefly have HU force winds from localized intense convection that pulses in blobs, esp. when some shear and dry air is present, but that does not make them a HU. So one has to be careful here. Sometimes I see "given the possibility of undersampling." That is a slippery slope IMHO. You can always say that in measuring meteorological phenomena, but does that mean you always say it was stronger and go higher? If so, what is the limit as to how much stronger? It is subjective and fluid. Dvorak classifications for TCs do best for winds approx 60 to 105 kt, so that means TDs are often min TSs and intense HUs are often stronger in reality. We know this from recons, but in the absence of recon, we don't officially assign a stronger value due to the limitations of Dvorak. It's why you will not see a system above 160 kt in the Atlantic or eastern/central Pacific in the absence of a recon. Best you can say w/ high confidence is that it was at least this strong and mention "it could have been stronger" in something like the TCR given any number of ancillary factors that can exist when it comes to determining TC intensity. A SAR pass showed 73 kt for Fay, but this remote sensing tech has been shown high bias here as well compared to recon measurements.

@CoastalWx wants one? Pad his yard snow totals? https://www.powder.com/news/ski-ward-begins-snowmaking-september

We need more Miller Cs! Apparently, those are Sandy-type systems. Hazel in 1954 and 1938 fall under that. However, I have been unable to confirm if "Miller C" is a thing officially, but these are unique -- those systems that get a big boost from a TC phase and the TC itself gets the best of both worlds, derived energy from baroclinic and SSTs so they can remain atypical strong much farther N than you'd expect for a TC in our region. Sandy buried WV up to 36" and up to 48" in VT from the 1804 hurricane and Ginny in 1963 w/ 13" in ME. Double PT for @CoastalWx here!