TheClimateChanger

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.

Data not truncated, it's from the perspective of today (i.e., records still in existence). A tied record value is still a record value. Regardless, what I said is true, showing only the first occurrence necessarily favors more records in the earlier years. That is not always the convention... NOAA lists all years with a record high in its climate data, typically emphasizing the most recent occurrence where multiple ties have occurred.

And these are the corresponding temperatures at hour 84. Should be good SWE ratios, I would think.

NAM looking very juicy at 84.

@GaWx Revisiting December's anomaly, I think the biggest surprise is UAH's satellite record for lower tropospheric temperatures had December 2025 as the SECOND most anomalously warm month on record in the satellite era. Again, not second warmest December, but second warmest of any month for both US48 & US49 [Conus + AK]. For CONUS (US48), it was behind only March 2012 & for US49, it was behind only February 2017. Since the satellite measures across a certain depth of the atmosphere, it makes me wonder if surface inversions and the like prevented us from fully realizing just how warm it was last month at the surface (2m temps). I know California was plagued by surface inversions for much of the month, so that might be a big part of the divergence between the surface record and the LT anomalies.

iPhone app is up to 16-20 inches, 15-18 of which is forecast to fall on Sunday.

Yes, there must be a 10% chance of something other than one of those three scenarios occurring. Maybe a few percent chance of a cutter, and the balance on a northward curve along the coast that is too far east to produce measurable snowfall (i.e., hybrid of cases 1 & 2).

Some good information from the AFD:

I don't agree with you all that often, but this is very true. Ratio moving rapidly in the direction one would expect. Although I must note that the chart itself is also "rigged" in a few ways to produce an incomplete picture. I'm assuming, of course, it's accurate. Who knows about station selection, have to assume all stations meeting the criteria were selected. (1) Martz only posts the first time a record was set and ignores later ties. This, of course, produces a bias for both record highs and lows towards the early years - which we can plainly see. The dropoff in highs (and, to an extent, lows) would not be as dramatic otherwise. (2) The data is unadjusted. Most of the GHCN stations switched from afternoon/evening observation times (5/6 pm) to morning observation times (~7 am), which is the time in which the instruments would have been manually reset. While maybe not a huge factor, this favors occasional "double" counting of record highs up through the mid 20th century and occasional "double" counting of record lows thereafter. (3) Unclear what direction this bias goes. But it should be noted that a more complete picture would be rendered by indicating the percentage of total data available for each year. The criteria was for stations that reported at least 85% data for 100 years - but where is the missing data. If there is station dropoff towards the end, then that also contributes to the general "softening" of the records. Like I said, this information wasn't presented so I can't so for sure what effect, if any, this has. But I can say for certain that presenting that data would be helpful for presentation. Regardless of the rigging, the data is fully consistent with a warming climate - record highs are clearly outpacing record lows. The apparent loss of extremes in both directions from the earlier decades is largely (maybe not entirely, but significantly) affected by the convention to list only the first occurrence of a record high or low. That choice necessarily will produce a dynamic where earlier decades show more record-breaking temperatures than later decades.

Most anomalously warm months for the CONUS, per UAH lower tropospheric data [expressed as deviation from 1991-2020 mean] (1) March 2012: 2.24°C (2) December 2025: 2.10°C (3) February 2017: 2.06°C (4) April 1981: 1.97°C (5) October 2024: 1.89°C (6) November 1999: 1.87°C (7) November 2016: 1.84°C (8) December 2021: 1.81°C (9) May 2018: 1.75°C (10) March 2007: 1.57°C

UAH satellite temperature record confirms incredible lower tropospheric US warmth in December 2025. (1) CONUS average a whopping +2.10°C above the 1991-2020 mean, which was the SECOND warmest of any month on record (since December 1978). Only March 2012's +2.24°C was warmer. That month is sometimes referred to as "Morch" of 2012, as a portmanteau of March and torch. (2) CONUS + Alaska average checked in at an incredible +1.77°C. This was also the second highest value of record, being narrowly edged by the incredible torch of February 2017 ("Torchuary") which came in at +1.80°C. This one is even more incredible given the noteworthy cold in parts of Alaska. Source: nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.1/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.1.txt

I just figured I'd take a look and see what it shows for Pittsburgh, after seeing Clay Travis's post on X/Twitter saying it was showing 15-18" for Nashville on Saturday.

Just took a peek at the iPhone app, and it says 9-11" on Sunday for Pittsburgh? Anyone seeing this?

CPC nails it again.