Roger Smith

Here's a list to aim for a top finish ... 3.3" gets to 60%, 4.4" to 66.7%, 5.1" to 70% and 6.8" secures second place at 75.6%. To pass 1997-98 will require 22.1" (the blizzard of 1888 or equivalent) ... Most in this list accumulated most of Mar-Apr in March but a few were mostly April (1981-82, 1937-38, 1914-15 and 1923-24 in particular). 1966-67 was about 34% and below the thresh-hold value of 35% to make this list (I set it at 35% expecting to get a top twenty so bonus ranks below that). This shows the strong March snowfall climatology especially for poor producers some of which made the list, others like 1931-32 did not (0.6" of 5.3" was only 11.3%). 1972-73 was almost done before March (a very mild one) began (0.2" of 2.8" was 7.1%). 2011-12 had zero snow to add to its meagre total of 7.4" and set a record for Oct percentage for sure (39%), second best there was 1952-53 at 3.3% and 1925-26 was 2.7%. The only other winter that had a percentage was 1876-77 at 2% (unless one counted Oct traces as 0.05" then a few others would have some outcome and one could say that 1972 had 2.2%. TOP THIRTY-SIX NYC WINTERS for % TOTAL SNOWFALL in MARCH-APRIL Winter _____ Total snow __ MAR-APR __ % Mar-Apr 1997-98 ________ 5.5 _________ 5.0 ______ 88.9 1955-56 _______ 33.5 ________ 25.2 _____ 75.2 1991-92 _______ 12.6 _________ 9.2 ______ 73.0 1895-96 _______ 46.0 ________ 33.5 _____ 72.7 1889-90 _______ 24.4 ________ 17.4 ______ 71.3 1918-19 _________ 3.8 _________ 2.7 ______ 71.1 1914-15 ________ 28.8 ________ 17.9 ______ 62.2 1905-06 _______ 20.0 ________ 11.5 ______ 57.5 1915-16 ________ 50.7 ________ 28.8 _____ 56.8 1958-59 _______ 13.0 _________ 7.3 ______ 56.2 1913-14 ________40.5 ________ 21.5 ______ 53.1 1891-92 _______ 25.3 ________ 13.0 ______ 51.4 2018-19 _______ 20.5 ________ 10.4 ______ 50.9 1940-41 _______ 39.0 ________ 19.2 ______ 49.2 1887-88 _______ 45.5 ________ 22.2 ______48.8 1992-93 _______24.5 _________11.9 ______ 48.6 1874-75 _______ 56.4 ________ 27.3 ______ 48.4 2006-07 _______ 12.4 _________ 6.0 ______ 48.4 1943-44 _______ 23.8 ________ 11.3 ______ 47.5 1983-84 _______ 25.4 ________ 11.9 ______ 46.9 1959-60 _______ 39.2 _______ 18.5 ______ 47.2 1937-38 _______ 15.1 _________ 7.1 _______ 47.0 1980-81 _______ 19.4 _________8.6 _______ 45.3 1899-1900 ____ 13.6 _________ 5.9 _______43.4 1869-70 _______ 27.8 ________ 12.1 _______43.2 1923-24 _______ 27.5 ________ 11.6 ______ 42.2 1981-82 _______ 24.6 ________ 10.3 ______ 41.7 1927-28 _______ 14.5 __________5.7 ______ 39.3 1951-52 _______ 19.7 __________7.4 ______ 37.6 2014-15 _______ 50.3 ________ 18.6 ______ 37.0 1957-58 _______ 44.7 ________ 16.1 ______ 36..2 1879-80 _______ 22.7 _________ 8.3 ______ 36.1 1906-07 _______ 53.2 ________ 19.1 ______ 36.0 1916-17 ________ 50.7 ________ 18.2 ______35.9 1979-80 _______ 12.8 __________4.6 ______ 35.9 1998-99 _______ 12.7 _________ 4.5 ______ 35.4

Made the point in the other storm thread that currently a blend of GFS, Euro and GEM looks better than any of them alone, has a good track for 13th-14th. Maybe they will converge on that, a track something like HAT to Benchmark to western Gulf of Maine. I think there's still a bit of hope for Saturday (or Friday night) but only looks like a 2 to 5 inch sort of potential. The second storm has considerable potential. Blend of models for the win on that (or Korean which I read about but haven't seen).

06z GFS taking baby steps towards a good solution for (Monday 13th into) Tuesday 14th. No blockbuster low but a fairly good track from TN to e of VA to about 38N 68W. Drops to 990 mb. Has the look of a 3-6 inch event for large sections of NE. You can build from this towards a stronger storm. An equally weighted blend of Euro, GEM and GFS actually has a better storm than any of the three, would be something like 988 mb at the benchmark by 03-06z 14th. Go model blend! Future track of that would also be better, slowly moving north into Gulf of Maine.

The files in the thread have been updated to show Jan-Feb 2023 and winter 2022-23 values where needed. It was a very mild winter at NYC with only 2.2" snow to date; Toronto has had its sixth mildest winter but snowfall picked up at times and the totals are closer to long term averages. The excel files have also been updated. Due to size limits, I cannot post those here, but they are on the parallel Net-weather thread. To navigate to the excel files, follow this link: http://www.community.netweather.tv/topic/93113-toronto-180-a-north-american-data-base-of-182-years-now-includes-nyc-1869-2022/page/4/

Hey great now the GFS crushes on Thursday 16th !!! in Newfoundland. ax to head emoji

Feb 2023 has replaced eight record high daily means (for weeks ending 13th-20th) and the mean max was a new record for six (weeks ending 15th-20th) while the mean min was a new record for just four (13th-16th) ... 1984 held on to three ending 17th-19th and 1981 held on to week of 14th-20th. At either end of this streak there were a few second or third place finishes too. Details are in the thread (scroll back to page one, Feb records). This adds to the five new weekly record high daily means ending Jan 2 to 6 to give 2023 a total of 13 (out of 66 it could hold). At random it should have 0.3 !

The Euro storm is a monster, it just fills slowly almost in place, if you could get it to follow a track 50 miles more out to sea ... wow. But I realize it's very hypothetical. The thing about the GFS is, forecast error at 96h is a lot smaller than at 192h. I notice in my routine forecasting in Europe that the GFS is taking a different approach from the other models too, tracking a low further north within 48h across Ireland and the UK. Makes a big difference to snow potential there. I'll report which model(s) got this right some time within next two days, if this model disparity doesn't disappear.

So do you want the weekend GFS, the midweek Euro, or ... ... both (heh heh) ??

Just saw the 192h Euro, it keeps going with the 12z evolution and parks a 982 mb low over Salem MA. 850s look good, warm seclusion look. 20-30 incher without seeing the snowfall maps.

Weatherfella, and anyone interested in 1956 storm, as your recollection is from n NJ these are the NYC daily data from 16th to 19th March 1956 ... date ____ MAX __ MIN __ PREC __ SNOW 16th ____ 33 ____ 22 ____ 0.90 ____ 6.2 17th ____ 33 ____ 20 ____ 0.05 ____ 0.5 18th ____ 30 ____ 21 ____ 0.38 ____ 3.8 19th ____ 26 ____ 23 ____ 0.78 ____ 7.8 ======== It was a great run of cold and snowy months of March, other than 1957 which even so managed 2.5" snowfalls on 1st and again Apr 4th, then 1958 had 4.1" 14th and 11.8" 20th-21st, 1959 had 5.5" 12th, and 1960 had 14.5" 3rd-4th. Some of these storms may have been heavier in New England too.

Just wondering if weatherfella could confirm this, from the maps, in 1956 storm 1 developed off the coast around Friday March 16th and dropped snow Friday night into Saturday morning, storm 2 developed on night of Sunday 18th- Monday 19th, The gap between peak of storms was 48 to 54 hours. Does that match what you recall? Map for Monday 19th below, you can navigate back through the sequence. Both coastal lows were transfers from inland lows and did not develop over the southeastern U.S. ... the first one actually looks stronger on the maps but I'm not sure where exactly weatherfella was in 1956, think I know where he lives now (se MA?). http://www.wetterzentrale.de/reanalysis.php?map=2&model=noaa&var=1&jaar=1956&maand=03&dag=19&uur=1200&h=0&tr=360&nmaps=24#mapref

The King gave the word ... great were the multitude of the preachers.

This could be the most important 00z model run of the lifetimes of anyone born since 11 p.m. Friday.

Most of the significant historic March storms were coastal lows from the southeastern US, not coastal redevelopers. That includes 1888, 1914, 1956, 1958, 1960, also Apr 2-3 1915. I found one that was more similar to what's being suggested for next weekend, and that was March 22-23 1967. Coastal redevelopment was working with an antecedent record cold high in that case. Similar comment for Apr 5-7 1982.

Since it was discussed earlier, 1888 maps exist and could be considered broadly reliable given the grid of weather obs then available across North America and probably numerous ship reports in the Atlantic. Here's a link to Mar 4, 1888. From this you can navigate day by day to the time of the blizzard 11th-13th. http://www.wetterzentrale.de/reanalysis.php?map=2&model=noaa&var=1&jaar=1888&maand=3&dag=4&uur=1800&nmaps=24&h=1 This is a brief summary of events: MAR 4 a strong arctic high is located near Ontario-Manitoba border. New England in a northerly flow behind departing low pressure near Newfoundland. Most of northern US covered by east to northeast flow from the 1045 mb high. MAR 5 Not much change, a weak low appears over Georgia. West coast appears to be in a moderately deep trough with low pressure q.s. near nw WA. MAR 6 All features slightly weaker again, but flow essentially unchanged. The weak GA low is suppressed to a position near northern Bahamas. MAR 7 As the low over western Atlantic continues to drift east, the northerly flow over New England develops a trough and the mid-continent ridge continues a slightly retrograde motion. Low pressure forming over Nevada as the Pacific milder air masses continue to be prevented from entering Pac NW or BC by easterly outflow from the SK-ND ridge (center of high has retreated to arctic source central n Canada to n Greenland). MAR 8 The mid-continent ridge splits to form a discrete 1035 mb high near Wisconsin. The trough in New England begins to fill slowly. Western low pressure around 995 mb near central-southern CO. Cool east-northeast flow into GOM. MAR 9 The arctic high now close to BUF, western low moving slowly east with an inverted trof to southern Manitoba. Has the look of a 1-3" snow event for western Lake Superior and Wisconsin regions. Any nucleus of eventual blizzard is probably east of BRO as 1005 mb wave at most. MAR 10 Arctic high crests over New England at about 1035 mb. Low moves to near Chicago at about 1008 mb. Still not much development in GOM or east of FL. MAR 11 Rapid development as GL low deepens to near 1000 mb east of Lake Huron (18z) and GA-SC low starts to form. By 06z 12th, GL low has moved to eastern shore Hudson Bay and the southeastern US low has moved to east of Cape Hatteras at about 1000 mb. MAR 12 Coastal low undergoes rapid intensification east of Delmarva to south of Long Island, likely around 970 to 975 mb by about 18z and 970 mb by 00z 13th, south of Nantucket. 1035 mb high near northern Lake Huron. MAR 13 Slowly filling low plods northeast past Cape Cod then east to east-southeast into 14th. (the outcome is well known of course, note that both NYC and Toronto had record low temperatures after the storm moved away, so this was pretty much the perfect evolution of bombing coastal low interacting with severe cold highs both ahead and following)

Just to maintain the record of guidance tracking, 18z GFS depicts a rather weak event in the same area, then a second coastal forms two days later and is somewhat more productive. I would estimate 1-2" from first event for NYC area and 2-4" from second one. Both have some potential to taint. (verbatim, I'm not saying any of that will be the actual outcome). Both of those events would combine to keep 1972-73 on the seasonal snowfall futility throne, and I suspect it might bring 2022-23 down to second in the DonS futility index (maybe to 1918-19 or 1997-98, or maybe third to both of them?) But if those snowfalls only added up to 2-3" it could keep 2022-23 in first place there (last place I suppose). I don't have a strong hunch about how this plays out. I suspect what you need is for the Pacific coastal trough to relax enough to allow the right upstream look, but not to such an extent that it floods too much Pacific warmth into the plains states. By the way, locally we have our maximum winter snow pack now, around 22-24" and I think we have finally creaked our way to a near normal outcome for this ski resort location, unlike further south it has not been overly snowy here, but the winter started early (late October) and has seemed to drag on forever.

Snowfall contest updates This table will be updated whenever snow falls in March. Bold entries are maximum forecasts for location, and underlined are minimum forecasts. Total and departure show your total for nine predictions, your current departure from actual (most of which are below forecasts) and in brackets, the portion of this departure which cannot be reduced (by current under-forecasts at BUF for most, and at SEA for some). If you are only behind BUF, your total departure is your total minus actual total, plus twice your BUF error. Apply the same principle if you are also passed by actual anywhere else now (SEA) or later (DEN may come into play soon). Rank is current for departure, and subject to future changes. The contest has been placed in rank order now. Rank _FORECASTER ___________ DCA _NYC _BOS __ ORD _DTW _BUF __ DEN _ SEA _ BTV ___ Total and departure _01 _ Scotty Lightning*___________16.0 _23.0 _ 33.0 __ 44.1 _37.5 _ 81.9 ___ 65.9__5.9 _ 84.0 ____ 391.3 __ 166.1 (53.9) _02 _ hudsonvalley21 ____________13.2 _ 29.3 _ 46.2 __ 42.8 _44.0 _ 90.0 __ 48.7 _ 8.2 _96.3 ____ 418.7 __ 172.9 (43.6) _03 _ so_whats_happening ______ 18.0 _38.0 _ 64.0 __ 45.0 _380_ 110.0 __ 42.0 _11.0 _ 84.0 ____ 450.0 __ 173.6 (28.3) _04 _ RodneyS ___________________ 7.4 _ 33.0 _ 50.0 __ 44.0 _48.0 _ 93.0 __ 46.0 _ 7.0 _ 98.0 ____ 426.4 __ 178.2 (42.4) (05) ____ Consensus _____________16.0 _40.0 _ 55.5 __ 44.1 _ 49.9 _ 93.7 __ 50.0 _ 8.2 _ 90.0 ____ 447.4 __ 194.2 (39.9) _05 _ DonSutherland1 ____________10.0 _36.0 _ 55.0 __ 45.8 _52.5 _ 95.0 __ 44.0 _ 7.0_ 100.0 ____ 445.3 __ 197.1 (42.4) _06 _ Roger Smith _______________22.2 _44.4 _ 55.5 __ 55.5 _66.6_ 133.0 __ 52.0 _15.9 _ 88.8 ____ 533.9 __ 202.1 (0.6) _07 _ RJay _______________________20.0 _50.0 _ 65.0 __ 31.0 _27.0 _ 86.0 ___ 50.0 _15.0 _ 80.0 ____ 424.0 __ 206.2 (57.6) _08 _ wxdude64 _________________19.5 _40.0 _ 58.5 __ 42.8 _50.5 _101.0 ___ 41.6 _ 8.7 _ 104.0 ____466.6 __ 209.0 (37.7) _09 _ Tom _______________________ 14.2 _ 41.1 _ 49.6 __ 53.9 _ 49.9 _ 93.7 __ 79.2 _ 6.7 _ 81.2 ____ 469.5 __ 219.1 (41.3) _10 _ BKViking ___________________ 25.0 _52.0 _ 60.0 __ 38.0 _50.0 _90.0 __ 60.0 _18.0_ 90.0 ____ 483.0 __ 237.2 (43.6) _11 _ George001 _________________ 12.0 _62.0_105.0__ 65.0 _70.0_140.0__ 60.0 _ 8.0_ 130.0____ 652.0 __ 319.0 actual snowfall to Apr 4, 2023 __0.4 __ 2.3 __12.4 __ 19.7 __37.0 __133.6 ___46.7 _ 8.1 _ 72.8 ____ 333.0 total Current best forecast ____________(04) __(01) __(01) ___(07) __(01) __ (06) ___(04)_(02,11)_ (07) (01 Scotty Lightning has three, (04) RodneyS has two, (07) RJay has two, (06) Roger Smith has one, and hudsonvalley21, George001 are tied for one (SEA). Lowest forecasts are best at all but DTW, BUF and SEA. ====================================== (Mar 4) _ All forecasts are still above actual values for DCA, NYC, BOS, ORD and DTW as well as BTV. One forecast is now equal to current total at DEN, otherwise the rest are still above the current value. BUF has passed all but two forecasts (Roger Smith 133.0, George001 has 140.0). SEA has a bit more than half the forecasts, and is between George001 (8.0") and hudsonvalley21 (8.2") with other higher forecasts. The table now contains the total error value which in most cases is subject to later decreases, but for those already passed by BUF or SEA, new snowfall will increase these values. NOTE: BUF now has no contest implications, further snow will not change differentials, except for myself and George001. I can gain 16.4" (twice my reserve of 8.2") but that would only move my rank (8th) closer to 7th. George001 is too far back to benefit much from further snow at BUF. Probably DEN is the most volatile location for changing ranks. The more reserve you have for DEN, the higher your potential to move ahead -- but that snow has to happen. Seems unlikely that the four northeast locations or Chicago will pass any forecasts, but DTW could still be a factor. Looks as though Scotty Lightning has the edge, he needs less than 1.0" more at DEN to pass so_whats_happening and then would have a bigger reserve than any chasers, except Tom, and his margin over Tom at DEN would not reverse the outcome. Unless there are very heavy snowfalls later in March at other locations, I think DEN will determine the outcome. (Mar 11) _ DTW has now passed RJay and is gradually approaching our cluster near consensus. As a result RJay fell from 5th to 7th. No change at the top because DEN has seen no new snow since last report. (Mar 16) _ BUF has now reached the second highest forecast (Roger Smith) so I cannot gain any further ground, a combination of that plus more snow at DTW moved me into 7th and RJay into 8th, otherwise no changes in the scoring order. Scotty awaits any further snow at DEN to move ahead of so_whats_happening who also has 0.5" more to use up as both of our leaders find DTW about to pass them. The net result would be that if DTW does pass both, Scotty will need about 1.8" more at DEN to pass swh. If nothing else changed by then, Scotty has the same forecast for BTV and appears in good shape otherwise. (Mar 20) _ DEN added 1.5" snow which moved Scotty Lightning into the lead. If DTW adds a small amount then so_whats_happening could retake the lead unless DEN adds similar amounts. BUF has moved past all but George001 now, but the margin for further gain is only 6.7"x2 or 13.4" which is not enough to change any contest ranks. (Mar 28) _ DEN added a further 3.6" and BTV 0.3" in the past week. This has led to a few changes in the contest ranks. Meanwhile, the table is now ordered by contest ranks instead of following the forecast table. The contest is not settled yet. Further snowfall at DTW could move hudsonvalley21 into the lead. However, Scotty Lightning retains more DEN snowfall to use up if the total exceeds 48.7" (hudsonvalley21's prediction). RodneyS also has some potential for gain at DTW, but he cannot pass hudsonvalley21 unless about 9" more falls there. Large late season falls at BTV could also help hudsonvalley21 and RodneyS, as SL and s_w_h have equal forecasts of 84.0", albeit 12" above the current total there, so that advantage would only begin to materialize after 12" more might occur (not too likely from climatology or current model runs). Also RodneyS and hudsonvalley21 have to avoid larger snowfalls at DEN in April or May, as SL has a margin of over 15" and they have recently, or will soon run out of margin there. Meanwhile so_whats_happening has one faint hope left, which would be April snow at SEA combined with no further snow anywhere else in play (BUF would not matter). I don't see any route to a contest win for those below fourth place although there are mathematical possibilities (that likely will not verify) mostly involving very heavy April snowfalls in the midwest. (Apr 4) _ Small additions at BUF and BTV, DEN may add today and tomorrow but not yet changed in table.

Waited a couple of days for late entries but two or three AWOL this month, anyway here's what we do have ... welcome Rhino16 I have rounded your predictions to the nearest tenth. Table of Forecasts March 2023 FORECASTER ______________ DCA _NYC _BOS ___ ORD _ATL _IAH ___ DEN _PHX _SEA Scotty Lightning ___________ +1.0 _ +1.0 _ +0.5 ____0.0 _ +1.0 _+1.0 ___ +0.5 _ +1.0 _ 0.0 wxdude64 _________________ +0.6 _ -0.4 _ -1.9 ___ -1.1 _ +1.1 _ +0.9 ___ -1.5 _ +0.4 _-1.8 ___ ___ Normal ___ ___ _______ 0.0 __ 0.0 __ 0.0 ____0.0 __ 0.0 __ 0.0 ____ 0.0 __ 0.0 __ 0.0 DonSutherland1 ____________-0.4 _ -1.8 _ -1.7 ___ -0.3 _ +2.5 _ +1.0 ___ -1.2 _ -2.6 _ -3.6 wxallannj ___________________-0.5 _ -0.9 _ -1.2 ___ -1.0 _ +1.2 _ +1.5 ___ -1.0 _ -0.6 _ -2.0 Rhino16 ____________________ -0.8 _ -1.0 _ -1.0 ___ -1.8 _ +0.5 _ -0.4 ___ -1.3 _ +0.3 _ -1.8 ___ Consensus ______________-0.9 _ -1.4 _ -1.3 ___ -1.3 _ +0.8 _ +1.2 ___ -1.2 _ -1.0 _ -1.9 hudsonvalley21 __ (-1%) ___ -1.0 _ -2.5 _ -1.4 ___ -0.1 _ +1.9 _ +1.3 ___ -0.6 _ -1.4 _ -2.3 RodneyS ___________________ -1.2 _ -1.4 _ -1.3 ___ -2.5 _ -0.6 _ +1.3 ___ -3.5 _ -1.8 _ -2.4 RJay ________________________-1.5 _ -1.5 _ -1.5 ___ -1.5 __ 0.0 _ +2.0 ___ -3.0 _ -1.5 _ -2.5 BKViking ____________________-1.8 _ -1.4 _ -1.2 ___ -1.8 _ +0.5 _ +1.5 ___ -1.2 _ +0.2 _ +0.2 Roger Smith ________________ -2.0 _ -2.2 _ -1.8 __ -2.4 _ -2.4 _ -1.8 ____ -1.0 _ -2.5 _ -1.3 - - - - - __ Persistence (Feb 2023) _ +6.8 _ +5.2 _ +3.1 ___ +5.1 _ +8.6 _+2.8 __-1.6 _ -2.8 _ -3.3 __________________ Forecasts are color coded for warmest and coldest. Normal is tied for warmest at ORD. In a few days I will bring over the latest snowfall totals and compare them to contest entries.

Are the scores based on D-J-F or the extended winter season? In other words, can 2022-23 move up if there's any significant snow to come?

Would people agree with any of the following? During rapid coastal redevelopment, bands of very heavy rain could form over Long Island Sound and se MA, Cape and Islands, with winds ENE 50-80 mph at least in squalls. Frequent thunder likely. Arctic front sags into n CT and between Salem and Boston, stalls out roughly s HFD-sPVD -BOS. This becomes focus of thunder-ice pellet sleet after midnight. Very windy also. Heavy snow extends to within 10-15 miles of stalled arctic front and amounts generally 10-15" across most of MA and extreme northern CT. Some thunder with this snow also. Winds back to NE 30-50 mph. Boston metro I think gets alternating periods of rain, sleet and snow, turning over to heavy snow after 0700h. A notable feature of this storm will be extremely tight gradients. Could see things like 50F Newport and Fall River and 30F Providence 15F Worcester at same point in time (around 0300h).

A general question, not aimed at any specific person, do you consider the Central Park snowfall "problem" to be lowball measurement or something more related to site problems in exposure to the full amount of snow that could fall on a wide open flat space? I know a park is supposed to be a wide open flat space but I gather they measure fairly close to some obstructions and there are trees around (albeit some are probably bare of leaves in snowfall months). I live in a snowy place so I am well acquainted with the large variations in snow depth after snowfalls around this rather small town, so I would imagine in NYC there would be considerable differences over small distances. Then also, what's the opinion on historical trends in this snowfall measurement problem? Could I assume that all NYC snowfall is 10 or 20 per cent below what actually fell, ever since the earliest days? The weather station was not in the park before 1920 from what I've read. If there has always been a similar problem then at least the historical record is useful since one case can be compared to another (both being in error by a similar percentage). If there's a trend in measurement problems, then that should be factored into any analysis. One optimistic way of looking at it, they have at least managed to measure 4500 inches of snow over 150 years, and that's 375 feet of snow.

I think the main problem created by the urban heat island is that it creates an artificial warming component in any long-term data base like Toronto downtown or NYC Central Park relative to what would be available from a less urban site (such as the ones used in the CET although they do subtract 0.2 from their data to remove a slight but growing urban effect), which people intuitively realize is there in the data, but then because the effect is also real it becomes part of the discourse about warming. I have estimated the overall average impact of the u.h.i. for Toronto downtown at 1.1 C and I have created parallel data bases, one being the actual reported temperatures, and the other subtracting 0.1 per decade during the ten decades 1881-1980, and 0.1 for the period 1981 to present (assuming the urban heat island stabilized around 1980). I apply the same corrections to NYC although I assume that their overall warming is 1.4 C and it began before the data set began but grew at a similar rate, albeit from a base of 0.3 already embedded. The corrected data sets allow for a better comparison along the lines of, if there were rural sites with similar long-term data sets, this is how they would most likely compare. And the key point is that the temperature series show a warming even after the corrections for u.h.i., which tells me that either (a) my estimates are too low or (b) the climate is warming even in non-urban settings. I've found that for Toronto (data 1840-2023), the coldest third of months will shift about 15% of its members from the earliest third of data to the last third of data, and vice versa for warm months. To take one example, a month in the 1840s that ranks about 75th out of 183 in raw data will rank about 55th in adjusted data and move from the middle third to the warmest third. Meanwhile, a month in recent decades that ranks about 105th will move to 125th or so, from the middle third to the coldest third. But the overall distribution of raw data and adjusted data in color coded graphs only changes appearance slightly -- it still basically looks like the first third is cold, the middle third is moderate and the last third is warm, with variations. You can see these graphs in the Toronto excel file available within the Net-weather thread. I would have preferred to use a data base in a less urbanized setting but unfortunately these only start up around the 1880s or 1890s leaving out (in the case of Toronto) four decades of weather. On a completely different subject, a complicating factor for anyone wanting to do research on 19th century weather is that a set of weather maps produced by NOAA for the period 1836 to present (it has been moving back steadily over the last decade) contains some very rudimentary and probably useless maps over North America especially before about 1850. I can see from the Toronto and Providence RI data that the pressure systems depicted are shadows of what surely existed (the Providence journal has three daily barometric pressure readings). The same is true to some extent for the maps over Europe; the infamous Jan 1839 windstorm in Ireland was known to have had a central pressure bellow 930 mbs but the weather maps produced only show a pedestrian 970 mb low. The track appears correct. On the east coast of North America, entire major storms are missed entirely or appear as very weak systems. I would caution anyone not to use these historical weather maps for any research purpose, and what is shown further west could be entirely bogus. Perhaps the mid-ocean components of these maps make some sense being based on some number of ship reports, but the mapmakers apparently didn't know of the existence of the Providence weather journal. The situation improves through the 1850s and I think the maps begin to resemble reality by the 1860s.

This is of course a complicated subject. But I detect a general tendency for observers to separate into two camps, one seeing the dominance of human activity modifying the atmosphere, and the other firmly resolved to stay in the mindset of the legacy climatology (which did great work in its day), and look for mostly or all natural variability causes of observable change. Then also there remains somewhat of a spectrum of opinion about what change is legitimate to observe. Notice I am not making any value judgments about who is right or wrong, partly because I take the view that recent trends are driven by a combination of natural variability and human activity. In fact, even back to around 1990 when this climate change movement was emerging (as global warming), I took the view that we were observing a blend of human caused impacts and natural variations. I have done a lot of independent study and research using publicly available data, and produced detailed studies of recent to long-term trends at a number of locations, including Toronto and New York City (augmented by some 1831-60 data for Providence RI), the Canadian arctic, western Canada, and the British Isles. My work has been presented in a number of internet threads on this forum, Net-weather (UK based), and the boards.ie weather forum (located in Ireland). The Toronto and New York City studies are located both here (in this climate change subforum) and on Net-weather (in their climate change forum). Canadian arctic studies are on Net-weather only at the moment; I will migrate a copy of the data sets over to this forum. Cambridge Bay on Victoria Island has the longest data set with intermittent values from the 1930s and fairly complete data since 1940. Resolute further northeast has fairly complete data from 1948 to present. And so does Eureka on Ellesmere Island. I have not yet delved into the eastern arctic record from Iqualuit and other locations on Baffin Island. The key UK analysis thread is located in a different part of Net-weather, the historical weather sub-forum. You'll find it a few pages in, because there are dozens of enthusiasts there who like to discuss very specific historical events and I don't post new material very often, I edit tables already developed with new material. This is generally my habit, to edit posts at a regular pace so just because my threads don't pop very often with new posts does not mean new material is not being posted. I try to keep all of them current to the latest averages and record values. Difficult to sum up any generalizations, but overall, my view is that (a) the postulated "recent" trends are legitimate, not caused by any instrumental problems or hidden bias, manipulation etc. In particular, the Canadian arctic data definitely show trends towards warmer seasons, and this is supported by snow cover reports which would be more resistant to contamination than site changes for thermometers (a factor which is virtually non-existent at these arctic locations, for example, Cambridge Bay is a very small urban community but even so the airport is a mile away from that small village and urban heat island effects would be nil). (b) the cause of these warming effects, clearly visible in every study I've attempted so far, seems to be a combination of greenhouse gas emissions, circulation changes, and urban heat island growth in some cases. This opens up an interesting question, should we remove urban heat island effects entirely to maintain a "constant" climate record, or is the urban heat island part of the problem subsumed under the heading of human-caused climate change. I understand the physics involved, urban heat islands are temporary and occasionally ventilating build-ups that are different in nature from a steady build-up of greenhouse gases and their effects. However, at the same time, a lot of people live in large cities with growing heat islands, and when that heat does ventilate (usually in strong winds) or when it dissipates in an interval of cloudy wet weather, the heat escapes into the general circulation. That constant release of urban heat has to be part of the cause of rising global temperature. Is it a large portion? I suspect not. (c) My opinion is that if we accept a 1.5 C increase (more like 1.0 in lower latitudes, 2.0 in higher latitudes), then about two thirds of it may have a human cause and the other third may have its origin in natural variability. The IPCC takes a different view. As I understand their statements, they think the background climate should be cooling slightly (based mainly on solar activity and long-term Milankovitch cycles) but human activity has reversed that cooling and turned it into a sizeable warming. They may well be correct. I find it very difficult to find reliable indices for what the atmosphere should be doing in the absence of a proven theory of atmospheric variation similar to Newton's theory of gravitation (leaving out its flaws at near-light speed as improved by Einstein). There is no similar set of equations which allow me or you to calculate what today's atmospheric state ought to be, so that we could then say, but it is actually not that but this, and this happened because of us (not natural variation because the equation would be based on that). (d) So to sum up, I am not a skeptic or denier, I am also not in lockstep with the climate establishment. I am looking for what is actually true and I feel that if I can discover what is actually true I can make better predictions of what may happen. Let's say the current situation is a 2:1 blend of human and natural sources of warming. Then what if these natural trends are in a weak stage and return to some stronger stage (to some extent, like 1997-2006 compared to 2007-15 excl end of 2015)? What if we hit another peak of natural warming with no real diminution of human contributions? Then we are very likely to spike again as we saw around 1998 and 2006 (in most of the climate regions I studied, and earlier peaks around 1990 and 1975 and 1948-53 and 1921 etc, all seem fairly widespread). This is partly a political debate of course (as it should be). We need to figure out what is happening, what may happen in the future, and what we can or should be doing about it. I am a very big proponent of mitigation and adaptation. If we imagine that by making political and economic changes, we will "fix" the "broken" atmosphere, I am 99.9% sure that is a pipe dream. We might make some changes, but I am willing to bet they are miniscule and ineffectual. We could catch a break with a strong natural cooling cycle, and eventually of course technology will totally move on, but human activity will likely keep pushing the envelopes, and then if the global population keeps increasing and more and more people live in huge urban complexes, then the earth will warm significantly for at least 3,000 more years before really significant Milankovitch factors overcome that trend (at present all three main Milankovitch cycles are near pause or flat-line and really have next to no effect on climate trends). The two main problems to be solved are sea level rises and heat stress in already hot climates. As I mentioned to people on the Irish weather forum, the idea that a 2 or 3 C increase in temperatures in Ireland would threaten national security is rather ridiculous; people spend a lot of money to vacation in places that are 5 to 10 degrees warmer than Ireland and the UK. And the people who live there (Madeira, Costa del Sol, Greece) aren't dying in vast numbers. But you wouldn't want to be a resident of Pakistan or the Gulf states or possibly parts of the southwestern U.S. in an amplified warming trend. There isn't a lot we can really do to stop oceans from rising (in my view) short of surrendering to draconian schemes to reduce the population by a huge percentage and re-impose medieval economic feudalism. The number of bicycle riding civil servants that any society can actually tolerate before collapse is very close to being realized now. But massive desalination remains an option. There are places on earth where ocean water could be diverted and ponded. A large part of Mauretania is very close to sea level or below, behind coastal dunes. That could be expanded to give extra available volume. A lot of ocean water being desalinated could slow the rise also, and the effects on the landscape could further reduce the problems. We are spending trillions of dollars on weapons and other useless, destructive things, and not very much at all on desalination. It seems like madness to me, and Israel as one example has figured that out to their benefit. Other regions that could profit from larger desalination include the western USA, much of Australia, the Middle East, west Africa, southern Africa, and South America. Carbon capture technology seems to be in its infancy too, and might eventually be a larger solution. I think the trends towards wind power and solar are probably dead ends (especially wind), producing relatively small and in some cases unreliable components at prohibitive costs. We should keep on trying, of course, but the taboo on nuclear power is increasingly irrational and needs to be re-imagined for a more available and cost-friendly solution. Next time I come in to this discussion, I will bring some data along from the Canadian arctic, in graphical format, to show how much larger the increases are up there compared to down here. As to the much reported other aspects of climate change, like more frequent severe storms, displaced polar vortices, heavier rainstorms, the climate record largely negates these postulates. I actually think we should be talking about global blanding when I see the evidence of what the "healthy" older climate used to do on a regular basis. I don't believe we are seeing more frequent severe storms and heavy rainstorms and the places with long data sets support that view on any reasonable statistical basis. The evidence being used to support those aspects of the climate change theory is almost entirely anecdotal and lacking in proper context. That is a political phenomenon and is probably the main cause for widespread public skepticism about climate change (especially among older people who remember more weather events). Also there is a considerable irony in the displaced polar vortex theory. As I understand it, the goal of the climate change movement is to restore the climate to what it "should" be and what it used to be. Like in 1895 and 1899 when huge displaced arctic air masses did considerable damage to the southern United States, so what exactly are we trying to accomplish, to have a different contextual explanation of displaced arctic air masses? Either way you get them. I find that rather ironic. Also if you really delve into 19th century weather records and even early 20th century, the weather was nothing you would really want to re-create with unseasonable cold spells on a frequent basis, too much rainfall (and snowfall in some cases) alternating with severe droughts. Maybe we should be happier with the bland dome climate we seem to have created for ourselves.

Complete list of March 1 or 2 day snowfall totals > 4.5 inches arranged by dates that they ended (daily record amount shown if no qualifying storms) Storm ended MAR 01 __ "blizzard of 1914" see 2nd for total _ 7.7" 2005 (4.8" Feb 28, 2.9" Mar 1) MAR 02 __ 1914 14.5" (13.5" + 1.0") __ 1896 10.0" (1d) __ 2009 8.3" (1.8" + 6.5") __ 4.6" 1996 (1d) MAR 03 __ 1960 storm see below for total _ 7.0" 2019 (4.0" + 3.0") MAR 04 __ 1960 14.5" (12.5" + 2.0") __ 6.0" 1917 (1d) __ 2019 additional 2.0" MAR 05 __ 1981 8.6" (1d) MAR 06 __ 1916 7.6" (1d) __ 4.0" more fell on 8th 1916 __ MAR 07 __ 1915 7.7" (6.9" + 0.8"), 1923 7.3" (5.4" + 1.9"), 1870 6.0" (1d), MAR 08 __ 1941 18.1" (2.4" + 15.7") __4.5" 1996 (1d) __ also 4.0" 1d 1875, 12.8" 1st - 8th in four events MAR 09 __ 1928 5.3" (1d) MAR 10 __ 1907 6.0" (1d) MAR 11 __ 1934 5.6" (4.5" + 1.1") MAR 12 __ Blizzard of 1888 see below for totals MAR 13 __ 1888 19.5" (16.5" + 3.0") _ 20.9" incl 1.4" 14th MAR 14 __ 1993 10.6" (10.2" + 0.4") __ 2017 7.6" (prec 1.97") MAR 15 __ 1906 6.0" (1d) MAR 16 __ 1896 12.0" (3.6" + 8.4") _ 2007 5.5" (prec 2.03") MAR 17 __ 1877 3.5" (1d) MAR 18 __ 1892 8.0" (0.9" + 7.1") MAR 19 __ 1956 11.6" (3.8" + 7.8") MAR 20 __ 1944 4.8" (2.0" + 2.8") MAR 21 __ 1958 11.8" (4.7" + 7.1") .. 2018 (8.2") (1d) 8.4" incl 0.2" 22nd MAR 22 __ 1967 9.8" (0.8" + 9.0") MAR 23 __ 1896 4.3" (+0.2" 24th) equalled 1d 4.5" 1883 30th (there has never been a 2d snowfall total greater than 4.5" Mar 23-31 although Mar 24, 1912 has missing data for snowfall, and a storm that was cold enough for some of the heavy precip 1.37" reported to have been snow) APRIL has had a total of seven more one- or two-day snowfalls greater than 5.0" ... 8.2" Apr 1, 1924 5.5" Apr 2, 2018 10.2" Apr 3-4 1915 (10.0" + 0.2") 6.5" Apr 5 1944 9.6" Apr 6 1982 6.4" Apr 9 1917 (6.5" incl 0.1" 8th) 10.0" Apr 13-14 1875 (8.7" + 1.3")

The KU term you asked about are the initials of two meteorologists (Kocin, Urcellini) who did a study on severe snowstorms.