vortex95

Confirmation bias, one of the most common logical fallacies and *rife* in society, as has always been, but the age of information overload has exacerbated it.

Thanks for the info/input. The 2/2/1976 storm, yes 957 mb at CAR is their lowest pressured on record. BOS had 965 mb for its second lowest on record (has this been matched or exceeded since?). Bliz of 93 was about 963 mb when it passed over central MA (up from 960 mb peak over the Mid-Atlantic). What is the "OV Blizzard?" The Feb 1976 one? The Jan 2018 blizzard offshore SE of ACK was 950 mb. I seem to recall in the New England Wx Book (Ludlum) stated a storm SE of ACK in the mid 20th century was 947 mb. The "CLE Superbomb" Jan 1978 lowest was 956 mb in Mt Clemens MI. The New England non-tropical pressure record is 955 mb at BID set on 3/7/1932. And Canton NY had 955 mb in a Jan 1913 storm. These are the lowest non-tropical pressures for the CONUS, although very close is 955.2 mb at Bigfork MN set on 10/26/2010. The

So did the high winds knock the ratios down as expected? Never had realized that until it was brought up leading up to this past storm.

You get *that* much "mashed potatoes," that's whats going to happen. Not often you get so much snow that is wet/high LEQ for the duration of the storm. Same thing happened in the DC area for the storm last month (plows getting stuck/equipment breaking), but for a different reason. 6" of snow, followed by 2-4" of PL, then a seal coast of FZRA! Then wicked cold after. It turned into a glacier quickly ("snowcrete" came up as a term, new one for me!) and made snow removal unusually difficult. This is why I say that I would take 3 ft of fluff over 6" of mashed potatoes any day, at least when it comes to overall impact and the hassle of driving in it and cleaning it up!

Talking about low track, this storm was a bit odd. It tracked just outside the benchmark, yet you look at the SNE snowfall plot (attached), things stand out. To have ptype issues or lacking big snowfalls on the Outer Cape, and yet heavy snow lacking once you get to the NH border and in the Berks, and monster totals "wedged" in-between, is atypical for a New England snowstorm. Typically, if the S+ does not make it into NH or Berks, there are *no* ptype issues in SNE or any issues are corrected quickly due to the ageostrophic flow/backing winds as the low wraps up well to the S and SE, so even the Outer Cape will do just fine, at least later in the winter season. Sure, PVD gets an all-time snowfall smashed, but BOS/ORH/CEF/BDL not even top 10, in fact, not even *close* for any of these cities? That's quite a disparity, probably the biggest one on record for a New England snowstorm. So in some ways, this was *not* a classic snowstorm for SNE or New England. The storm's big S+ area was rather confined and small N and NW of the low center, and the models overdid the big amounts in Berks and srn VT/NH until the last minute. I was confident 15-25" would make it into these areas, why not?, based on the track of the sfc low, that's what you'd expect! Do I sound pedantic? Well, the details count here, as they do in all sciences. Subtle differences not so obvious can and are *huge* as to sensible wx for an event. I go back to my previous (long) post on this thread, "one size does not fit all" and thus you can't gloss over any event calling it "perfect" or "classic" or "what it should be." That's not how the wx, climate, and atmosphere work. One explanation I think for the odd snowfall pattern/gradient is the cut-off 500 low stayed well offshore. For the best expansive comma head S+, you want sfc low right near the benchmark, but the 500 low to pass right over or very close to the BOS-ORH-BDL-PVD zone. You get the biggest height falls and max dynamic cooling aloft, so "part 2" of the storm (no mdt-hvy snow break though) is solid fluffier, more convectively-driven snow. In this case, the 500 low as it passed SNE was almost co-located w/ the sfc low. That's not common for a classic blockbuster for New England. Why was that? Well, no blocking over NAMR for one. In fact, deep 500 low near Greenland! Second, no polar jet at all. Just one big solid jet across the cntrl/srn CONUS. Hard pressed to call it a STJ though! And remember, some posts I saw elsewhere on this, the CONUS pattern 2 before the storm, it was pointed out, "does this look like a 500 flow over the CONUS and a blizzard on the E Coast 2 days later??? (attached is the 2/20 12z 500 analysis). Where is your cold confluence over the NEUS? No Hudson Bay vortex! See what I mean, non-standard not just in the smaller-scale for the event itself, but the larger-scale across NAMR!!! Third, the 500 low itself, going by its last closed contour, was rather small. Look at 18z 2/23 GFS 500 analysis below. The last closed contour extended only from central ME to about RIC's latitude. Also, the elongated of the trough as a whole to the SW?, again, not something you see typical for a KU! Comments?

The below is a bit of a rant, but I know the snow weenies of this forum will appreciate detailed and proper meteorology when it comes to snowstorms! And I cannot emphasize this enough, when you know wx history so you can quote examples to support your position/argument, it makes a huge difference (see "one size does not fit all" statement below). Concerning the link in the quoted post. "Goldilocks situation" -- first I have heard of this label concerning a snowstorm, at least for track. The Blizzard of '78 tracked farther NW, and look what the did, snowfall heavier both in absolute totals and areal coverage. https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/monitoring-content/snow-and-ice/rsi/nesis/19780205-19780207-5.78.jpg There are other cases, of course. There is no studies or literature I am aware of that say, "if a low pressure takes X track, that means the max amount of snow will be Y" or "X temps present, then Y snow." Actually, when you think about it meteorologically, these statements are ridiculous IMHO. Low pressure track is one of *many* factors for total snowfall, and can't be treated in a vacuum. The list is long, and I know the weenies here know the below, but worthy laying out anyways! 1) High pressure - Its position, NW, N, or NE? How strong/expansive? Is there even a high? (there are a few KU cases where *no* high existed). 2) UA jet structure/features - Is it just the PJ involved (northern stream), or the STJ (southern stream), or both? Is it a full phase of both jets (or s/w trofs)? Position of entrance/exit regions of the jets? When/where does this phase occur relative to the location of interest? 3) Antecedent air mass - How cold is it pre-storm? Low-level cold only or deep layer cold? Is there any cold at all pre-storm? (we know about that -- look at the Blizzard of '97!). 4) Size - How large is the storm, both sfc and aloft? Is it just a little "dent" at 500 (Feb 1983), or a massive 5 contour 500 cut-off (May 1977)? 5) RI - At what lat/lon does the RI take place, if any RI at all? RI is not required, neither is an intense sfc low - see the big snowstorm last month. 6) Speed/direction - Does the storm stall/slow/loop or move along? And slow movement for a blockbuster is not required. Look at the Bliz of '93. As typical w/ Gulf waves, it *flew* NE! And then you get the weird outliers, like March 8-9, 2013 (a CoastalWx fav). Low pressure 600 mi SE of ACK and yet 1-2 ft in parts of SNE. MQE gets 29.8" for a top 5 snowstorm (up to the time). So how does the work for a track correlation? The point is there is no "one size fits all" for snowstorms, and wx in general. Oh, we try to force things into such categories/classes, but nature doesn't give a hoot about what we try to do or think! And the article linked, in general, it has some glaring generalizations and glosses over important details, as to dilute things down for general public consumption? But it not just about things being diluted, some things are factually wrong or overstated/exaggerated. "The nor'easter quickly intensified to easily qualify as a “bomb cyclone" and featured thundersnow and lightning, two things rarely seen in snowstorms." First, "thundersnow and lightning" treated as two things? Well, you can't have one w/ the other. Saying "lightning" in this case is superfluous. If you have thunder, you *have* to have lightning, so just say "thundersnow." Second, thundersnow is not rare in snowstorms, or not as rare as claimed to be. Sure, at any *one* location it is rare, but when you include the entire areal coverage of the snow and the existence of the storm itself? "An unusual combination of winter and summer weather — thundersnow and lightning — flashed at times with this storm, thrilling meteorologists on air. That's because “you only see it in the most intense winter storms,” Where does it say thundersnow is only seen in the most intense winter storms? The famous Dec 1996 Cantore ORH video, that nor'easter was pretty avg for a winter storm for intensity. And based on what? Central pressure?, max winds?, total snowfall? You don't need an intense storm to get CSI and thus slantwise convection for thundersnow. The article mentions it if were any colder there would not been as much moisture in the air to feed that snowfall. Really? Anyone ever hear of the fluff factor and snow ratios? How about what happened in Jan-Feb 2015 in SNE, for that snowblitz, it was unusually *cold* for so much snow, and all-time records were set. So absolute total moisture availability is not always a deciding factor, neither are temps! "A little farther inland and its would have lost its ocean energy" Huh? Are we talking about tropical cyclones or baroclinic winter storms? And since when is "ocean energy" required for intense blizzards and snowfalls? See the OH Valley Jan 1978 blizzard (957 mb) or November 1950 Appalachia monster (62" in WV). I could go on and on, but you get the idea!

Really tired of these kind of statements from various media outlets and organizations (not upset at you MJO812 ), as if it is AK vs. the rest of U.S. for cold/snow, and anything in the CONUS for cold/snow that "outdoes" AK means it is significant. These kind of statements are more for content and engagement bait that drives the social media algorithm than anything else. Anchorages avg winter snowfall is 76.4" and so far this season, they have 65.6" as shown above. However, what they conveniently leave out on the infographic is that avg season-to-date snowfall for Anchorage is 61.4". So nothing unusual going on in Anchorage for snowfall this snow season. And Anchorage for a location in AK for snow is relatively "low" for the state as a whole, so not a good comparison location. Bu the general public doesn't know that. They think AK is all cold/snow to the extreme. See what's going on here? Make more out of what it really is, or turning the ordinary into the extraordinary for wx (all too often done these days by the MSM). It's the same for temps, and this created hype has already happened this winter. Well, we all know that when it CONUS is very cold, AK is often very mild, so temps warmer in AK in the winter than say in the Deep South are not uncommon. Why don't they compare Fairbanks for snowfall? That's b/c they have had 89" so far this winter. Well, that won't work for hype, will it? Must be nice to cherry-pick locations to "force" significance. And there have been a significant number of winter seasons where locations in southern New England have outdone the larger cities in AK, so again, how is this a big deal in the large pix?

I recall this incident quite well, and the filed court case was of public record. Holy cow, if even 1/10th of what was claimed occurred in that court paper, it is unreal BS like that went on for *any* length of time.

I know BOS has had issues for observers and snowfall since the NWS moved to Taunton in the mid-90s. But I did not know the LEQ was such an issue. Has the LEQ been a problem for a long time? Same w/ PVD? And I know for much of the time, the snow obs have not been taken at Logan, but from observers close to the airport, which is fine, but couldn't the off-site snow observer do an LEQ? Then they could take that LEQ and mesh it w/ any ASOS rainfall, and come up w/ a reasonable amount.

It's really an insult to the climate record. And how much is based off of such records, and it is this bad? And there are ways to mitigate snow loss from wind w/ equipment. Blue Hill has done it forever.

Sorry if this has already been brought up, but so many posts, it's hard to read them all! So w/ no augmented ASOS snow observations at PVD 05-10z and it appears at least a foot fell during that time, how does that work? Going by just SOG is an issue in this case b/c of the blowing and drifting, never mind settling as temps where 31-32 F during this time. And LEQ for PVD CLI on 2/23 .58" and 35.5" of snow?? Same w/ BOS .47" w/ 17.1" of snow?? This is a *major* problem and significant impact to the climate record. Also, we are drought conditions currently in the NEUS, but are we really or it is as bad as it is shown on the U.S. Drought Monitor? LGA/JFK/EWR/PHL/BWI do not have this snow/LEQ issue. Same for many other ASOS climate sites around the country.

Is weatherwiz "mad" he only got, what, 10" total????

With this being said from CoastalWx, and him getting two 20"+ blockbusters in Weymouth in a month, I *never* want to hear him Cartman b*ticin' about no snow or saying "THIS BLOWS" again!!! Recall earlier this winter, "THIS PATTERN BLOWS" was said by him, even though it was much better overall for New England even early on w/ the big snows in Nov on Mt Mansfield. That should have set him on a more positive path for the odds of a good winter.

Just catching up on reading all these ob posted for this storm. Attached is the CG plot from around 3am Monday. That is a *lot* of CGs for S+ bands well N in the cold sector of a coastal, looks like several dozen over a 2 hr period. I can't recall that so many near or over SNE for a snowstorm, even the Bliz of 93. On the BOX radar from 257am Mon attached, the uber snow weenies here I bet can answer this question. That much solid 30 dBZ in multiple bands for for a SNE snowstorm? Often it is more peppered dBZ 30-35 within 20-29 dBZ for bands like this, but not so solid. So how does this radar rank for S+ weenie bands? And BOX radar was not running "hot." I checked OKX at the same time and the dBZ matched over SE CT.

Tony, I have been on the New England section of this board a lot more recently. You'll find that the uber of uber snow weenies all here, and the passion has not waned. "CoastalWx" probably tops them all, at least for number of posts he has done over the last 15 years (take a look at his stats). Boris

Heaven help us when the next hurricane make a direct hit on SNE. Even a weak hurricane like Belle from Aug 1976 would be really bad. Look at what Irene did in 2011 and that was only a 50 kt TS. And any of the hurricanes that hit from 1938 to 1960? We'd be talking 50-75% of the population of MA/RI/CT alone w/o power, that would be 6.5 to 9.8M in a relatively small area, by far the biggest outage for the region. Sandy had about 8M w/o power, but that was stretched from BOS to DCA, big difference! Since it has been since 1991 for the last direct hurricane strike, the trees have not been "taxed" hard by big wind for a long time while they are in full leaf, esp. inland sections, so that is going to make it that much worse when we do get one. Sure, going a record 34 years w/o a direct strike has its positives, but there is a flip side as well.

I did discuss the social aspect of thing in my first or two posts on Blizzard of 78 comparisons. And you bring up the social aspects of things made me think more. These days it is TMI to the extreme, and so often, people do know not *what* to think concerning the forecast, esp. when it comes to stormy wx. Oh, *we* know on this forum what is what, but we are a small minority. The avg person has a tough time w/ wx these days, and I don't blame them! They have no idea who to trust, or even where to starts to try to get the best wx info. And w/ the hype out of control, ppl get frustrated and start to tune it out. Once again, i don't blame them at all. They are so sick of every wx event treated as if the end of world is nigh, who wouldn't get fed up??? This is why I think now, the social sciences concerning wx are now the most important. Our forecasts have come such a long way and are so good now, that's not the problem anymore. The problem lies w/ presentation and communicating that info, and having "too many cooks in the kitchen" -- armchair wx ppl on social media thinking they are the "da bomb", among other things, all vying for attention and trying to monetize their content! Not sure how to address these social issues, and it is a very complex problem. But just understanding why things they way they are is a good start!

It's a weird hybrid. The sfc low formed over the Carolinas but not really a secondary b/c the primary low, if you want to call it one, is quite weak and just has been sitting in place over the ern Great Lakes. It isn't a clipper type low associated w/ a strong polar jet trough that is steadily moving ESE that phases in w/ a southern stream s/w trough. There is no real polar jet, but not really something you could call a STJ either! Just one big solid jet across the center of the CONUS, in the mean anyway if you avg the wavelengths. Doesn't matter in the end though. Get the blockbusters any way you can!

Oh yes, when I got my first FWD car in 1998, it made a world of difference driving in snow, never mind the anti-lock brakes. You had to work at it to actually fish-tail or wipe out in an open parking out testing things out!

I knew I left something out!

Part 2 of my Blizzard of 78 comparison "rant"! So for the meteorological aspects of this storm compared to the Blizzard of '78?, it really does not hold a candle to it IMHO. Yes, I know the intensity of the low pressure itself will be stronger than than 78 and the pressure difference from the low S of New England and the high pressure center over western Ontario is significantly larger now than 78, but that is just one aspect, and you can't treat one factor in a vacuum or use single aspect, and say, "it's going to be worse for sensible weather!" That's not how it works in the atmosphere as many other factors come into play. The upcoming storm will not stall for 24 hr like the Blizzard of '78 did. The pattern is progressive and not blocked. Also, when the Blizzard of '78 stalled and rapidly deepened, it was in an absolutely ] ideal location for southern New England to get the worst of it. In many storms, there is a "sweet spot," so to speak, where the low rapidly intensifies and one area, usually N of the sfc low, gets the max sensible wx impacts, whether than be the most intense precip rates or or highest winds. For this storm, the RI will take place tonight not far off the Delmarva, well S of the region, by the time the low gets close enough for its biggest impacts to the region, that rapid intensification period is done. Oh, don't get me wrong, it is still a very powerful storm, but we are not in the absolute "sweet spot" like we had in the Blizzard of '78. Yes, I know I sound like I am splitting hairs here, but these details count. For instance, it may be the difference between getting "only" 3"/hr snowfall rates instead of 5"/hr. I know looking from a broad view that may seem insignificant, but snowfall rates do count for impact, esp. for airport operations and road crews. The overall pattern over NAMR now is nothing like it was leading up and during the Blizzard of '78. This is the biggest difference overall. For 78, the evolution was about as ideal and extreme as you could get, with a very deep trough amplifying in the eastern U.S. to form a very large, cut-off low pressure at 500 that stalled. At the same time, an enormous ridge built up in the western U.S. and Canada, actually forming a cut-off high pressure at 500 in Canada, which is quite rare, in fact, the only case I know of for a big East Coast storm. It was about as textbook classic as you could get! This NAMR pattern in Feb 78 was along the lines of what happened for the Blizzard of '93. Not exactly the same pattern for the 1993 storm (the "triple phaser!"), but still extraordinary, and the result both times were record storms. The pattern now? You look at it yesterday and the day before, and it looks nothing that unusual, and actually it was pointed out to me two days ago, "would you think looking at the 500 over the Lower 48, a blockbuster blizzard would occur on the East Coast a few days later???" So kind of non-standard or lacking classic setup, but the wx has virtually endless combinations and can spit out some odd events that don't fit the textbook classic what you learn in college! This is what keeps forecasting a challenge and enjoyable, always learning! And how about the other big thing w/ the Blizzard of '78?, the coastal flooding, and not just one big storm tide, 4 in a row, and many locations had their highest storm tide on record, which was not exceeded in some locations until 2018. Not going to see that w/ this storm. There should be some significant coastal flooding, but since the storm is moving along, and the actual size of the storm is not as quite large to set up a big wind fetch which really builds the storm tides, I don't see how you can compare much to 78. Another item? There was a frigid arctic air mass in place in the NEUS prior to the Blizzard of '78. We don't have that this time. This does make a difference often for total precip. Having a frigid air mass at low-levels makes for great overrunning. Recall the big storm last month? That had a frigid air mass in place, yet | rather weak sfc low development, but it didn't matter for blockbuster snow amounts. Now this time, we have an intense surface low, so that in itself will result in a lot of precip. But compared to 78, which had an intense surface low *and* a frigid air mass in place for it to run into, that made for some exceptional snowfall amounts. Regarding snowfall, no model is forecasting 3 ft or more snow for any location. Max amounts in the Blizzard of '78 reached 50" in RI and eastern MA. 3 feet was widespread. So the Blizzard of '26 is not forecast to have snowfall amounts *this* high, so one needs to be careful when bringing up our "big one" for comparison since it can and does cause confusion, worry, and stress, among other things! I would say that this blizzard will be a lot like the Blizzard of '13, which was a solid biggie/classic in all respects. That *should* be enough for CoastalWx, and Weatherwiz for that matter! LOL. Weatherwiz though w/ his uber level of excitement (exceeding CoastalWx I think now) will not be happy w/ anything less that 0SM TSGS+ SNOINCR 6 at his home!

If I repeated what has already been said, I apologize. I have not read every posts on this thread. Let CoastalWx-type weenie-ism do that!

Have to get this off my chest! There is a lot of talk going around comparing this to the Blizzard of '78 or "will be like" the Blizzard of '78. To deflate the senseless click-bait hype and assuage fears, it will not be anything like the Blizzard of '78 when looking at the entire picture, and the details count here as well! Both from a meteorological and non-meteorological standpoint, this imminent storm will not reach the legendary status of 1978. I can say that w/ high confidence. Why?, b/c when you know history and circumstances, not only for storms, but also how society has changed, the picture becomes clear. In this post, I will talk about the more obvious and straightforward, the non-meteorological parts/factors Preparations leading up to a storm are *everything*, or at least a lot more that many think, as to lessening overall impact. As I have said before, a disaster is typically only as bad as the preparations, or lack of, before it. This does not mean very high impact still does not occur, but so much "bad" is averted or mitigated. The forecasts for the Blizzard of '78 were not that good overall, so many from the individual to local/state agencies were not prepared. This almost never happens anymore for storms, certainly not for the really big and high-end ones, and the science of forecasting and modelling have improved immensely over time. And the way we get information has also dramatically changed, so it is very hard *not* to know what is going on w/ the weather now. Yes, it has gone the other way w/ *too* much hype for every single event, no matter how small or typical, and that has its own share of issues, but we are hardly ever "caught by surprise," at least for big winter storms. So something like the Blizzard of '78 Rt 128 disaster w/ 1000s of ppl stuck and cars stranded resulting in the highway closed for a week, simply cannot happen now. Ppl know to stay off the roads and businesses closed down for the storm, so the road crews can do their job. So from what I said above, physically that made the Blizzard of '78 much worse, and also psychologically was huge b/c witnessing the region paralyzed like that is an unsettling thought, to say the least! Another aspect, snow removal has evolved over the decades, and we are much better at it. From better chemicals to put down on the road to the actual snow removal equipment itself to how it is all coordinated. We learned a lot from the Blizzard of '78 and many other blockbuster snowstorms since then, and that's a good thing! There are a lot more private contractors plowing now than 50 years ago, and things like those little Bobcat front-end loaders are ubiquitous now. Didn't see those much in the region through the 1980s for snow removal. Snow removal has become big business! And the general population knows ahead of time what is coming, so the shock and awe factor is much less. Ppl change their plans, stock up on supplies, and think of various contingencies, like if power goes out. This smooths out the impact of the storm psychologically, and again, that is a good thing!

No trees left in GHG after this!?