TheClimateChanger

What time is the snow supposed to start? Looks like maybe some areas of light snow by 8 or 9 pm, but heavier and steadier snow holding off more towards 1 or 2 am?

3Z Monday is 10 pm Sunday [5 hours ahead], so that would be between 9 & 10 pm on Sunday.

I think it depends on where you are located. At my house, in the woods, there is an inch or two of solid snow. So I imagine that wooded areas - except on east or south facing slopes - are still fairly well covered. Obviously, in the city, there's little if any snow left, but the rivers are quite ice covered now.

Let's hope this comes to fruition.

Doubt we would see much more than clouds and some flurries even if it does hold together with this very dry airmass (dewpoints near zero).

Here's what snow depths could look like after the storm according to the 12z NAM:

Snowfall depth positive change looks solid too. Maybe some sleet contamination over the Laurels?

90th percentile:

Expected snowfall through 7 pm Sunday:

I don't know what's going on at the top of the map. It doesn't line up properly. Typical DT.

Here are the numbers to beat. Maximum 1-day snowfall Maximum 2-day snowfall

40 is a bit exaggerated, no? All of the official temps are like 33-34 right now.

Looking forward to those 90th percentile maps, if that's the current expectation.

Here are the numbers to beat. Note, xMacis shows 25.4" in 1950 but that's incorrect; the 27.4" given by the NWS is accurate. Legitimately, you could tack on the additional snows on the subsequent days and have up to 32" from that storm. The 1927 storm is shown as 19.4" for the dates given on xMacis - not sure which is correct. Honorable mention to 1978 for its back-to-back foot plus snow storms. Source: snowfalldata

That's what I guessed afterwards. It's been awhile since we've had a storm of this magnitude to track, but the NAM traditionally is the most amped. So it looked like a very NAM-like solution. Sometimes it's right, but if it's the only model showing the mix getting that far north, I wouldn't bet on it. Still a very solid hit areawide if the snow maps are accurate.

*Only through 12z

Which model is this? The NAM?

In all, there are 307 days on which the current record high is unmatched, 59 days in which the record high was set in at least 2 years, 11 days in which the record high was set in at least 3 years, and 2 days in which the record high was set in 4 years.

Some data analytics. Calendar days at New York City where the current daily record high was set in multiple years: More than 4 years: No days 4 years: July 28 & July 30 3 years: February 10 April 22 May 5 June 12 & 14 August 18 & 19 December 19 & 20 2 years: January 4, 5, 9, 18, 22, 31 February 11, 12, 20 March 6, 7, 12, 18, 23 April 28 May 2, 6, 8, 31 June 21, 23, 25, 28 July 1, 10, 24, 27 August 6, 10, 17, 30 September 10, 11, 20, 22, 26 October 12, 20, 26, 30 & 31 November 9, 18 December 14, 18, 23, 26, 28

Icy on my back patio. Watch for slick spots tonight.

Fortunately, it's the UKMET, so it's probably way overdone.

Maybe I'm wrong to call it "rigged" but it just so happens that this incontrovertible fact favors the spin that the original poster wanted. And Grok even cited climate as an example, I didn't even bring it up in my query. All I'm saying is that explains a significant portion of why records - both highs and lows - tail off later in the dataset. Of course, lows are dropping more rapidly than highs because the mean is not constant, but rather is slowly rising. As the famous saying goes - often attributed either to Benjamin Disraeli or Mark Twain - "there are lies, damned lies and then there are statistics."

I just knew someone would call me out for simply stated an incontrovertible fact. Run a random number generator with a certain degree of random variability around a, more or less, constant mean. If you credit the record (i.e., highest and lowest value) only to the first occurrence, more "records" will occur early in the dataset. This is simple mathematics/statistics - no tricks.