Roger Smith

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.

Four Seasons contest 2022-23 __ Winter segment Each season is scored 10 points for high total score, then 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 for 2nd to 7th, and 1 point for anyone else who entered a minimum of 2/3. FORECASTER _________ DEC __ JAN-FEB __ TOTAL __ Points RJay ___________________690 ___1189 ______ 1879 _____ 10 RodneyS _______________740 ___1020 ______ 1760 ______7 DonSutherland1 ________654 ___1068 ______ 1722 _____ 6 wxallannj ______________ 672 ___1027 ______ 1699 _____ 5 ___ Consensus _________ 700 ___ 982 ______1682 _____ 4.3 hudsonvalley21 ________ 694 ___ 981 ______ 1675 _____ 4 Roger Smith ___________ 646 ___ 980 _____ 1626 _____ 3 so_whats_happening ___ 692 ___ 928 _____ 1620 _____ 2 BKViking _______________ 686 ___ 890 ______ 1576 _____ 1 Tom ____________________ 645 ___ 900 ______ 1545 _____1 wxdude64 _____________ 646 ___ 872 ______ 1518 _____ 1 Scotty Lightning _______ 536 ___ 611 _______ 1147 _____ 1 ___ Normal _____________ 650 ___ 426 ______ 1076 _____ 1 StormchaserChuck ____ -- -- ___ 674 ______ 674 ______ 0 (1/3) George001 ____________ 584 ___ --- ---____ 584 ______ 0 (1/3)

-2.0 _ -2.2 _ -1.8 __ -2.4 _ -2.4 _ -1.8 __ -1.0 _ -2.5 _ -1.3

I was just looking at the evolution of the 1914 blizzard (March 1-2) which was a late-developing coastal storm spawned in a trough that moved to the east coast with a fairly sizeable system in central Canada; when that reached Michigan, pressures began to fall on Feb 28 over the southeast coast, but the major low did not bomb out until it had almost reached Long Island. Record low pressure of 962 mb for NYC and 14" to 18" local snowfalls resulted, parts of NJ were very badly hit by drifting snow. The blizzard of 1888 was roughly similar although the coastal developed more gradually and the antecedent inland low was weaker than 1914. Another very large March snowfall was 8th-9th 1941. That one was a straight nor'easter, inland low pressure did not phase with it.

Posting a reminder for NYC folk who enter forecast contest (general weather forum) that March deadline looms.

=== === <<<< ---- ANNUAL SCORING for JAN-FEB 2023 ---- >>>> === === Best scores for the nine locations are shown with red highlight, best totals for regions in bold. FORECASTER ____________ DCA_NYC_BOS__east__ORD_ATL_IAH__cent_ c/e__ DEN_PHX_SEA__west __ TOTALS RJay _______________________155 _158 _ 133 __ 446 __148 _135 _134__ 417 __863 _ 102 _ 84 _140 __ 326 ____1189 DonSutherland1 ___________ 100 _ 92 _ 138 __ 330 __ 98 _106 _156 __360 __ 690 __106 _132 _140 __ 378 ____1068 wxallannj __________________ 95 _104 _157 __ 356 __ 115 _ 72 _150 __ 337 __ 693 _ 110 _124 _ 100 __ 334 ____1027 RodneyS ___________________64 _ 82 _122 __ 268 __ 113 _ 47 _136 __ 296 __ 564 _ 158 _140 _158 __ 456 ____1020 hudsonvalley21 ____________85 _ 94 _141 __ 320 __109 _ 88 _130 __ 327 __ 647 __ 94 _104 _136 __ 334 ____ 981 ___ Consensus _____________89 _ 92 _147 __ 328 __ 101 _ 58 _134 __ 293 __ 621 _ 110 _100 _150 __ 360 ____ 981 Roger Smith _______________ 82 _ 84 _138 __ 304 __ 79 _ 91 _176 __ 346 __ 650 __ 98 _ 74 _148 __ 320 ____ 970 so_whats_happening ______ 90 _ 82 _138 __ 310 __ 101 _ 41 _134 __ 276 __ 586 __ 98 _ 96 _148 __ 342 ____ 928 Tom ________________________90 _ 75 _126 __ 291 __ 87 _ 52 _ 112 __ 251 __ 542 __ 118 _ 94 _146 __ 358 ____ 900 BKViking __________________108 _ 98 _145 __ 351 __ 83 _ 50 _ 108 __ 241 __ 592 __ 92 _ 82 _ 124 __ 298 ____ 890 wxdude64 _________________ 88 _ 83 _140 __ 311 __ 27 _ 50 _ 110 __ 187 __ 498 __ 142 _108 _124 __ 374 ____ 872 Stormchaser Chuck (1/2) __ 87 _ 86 _ 32 __ 205 __ 93 _ 64 _ 86 __ 243 __ 448 __ 048 _ 84 _ 94 __ 226 ____ 674 Scotty Lightning ___________ 35 _ 40 _ 68 __ 143 __ 29 _ 35 _132 __ 196 __ 339 __ 106 _ 46 _ 120 __ 272 ____ 611 ___ Normal _________________ 00 _ 00 _ 38 __ 038 __ 00 _ 00 _ 62 __ 062 __ 100 __ 118 _ 88 _ 120 __ 326 ____ 426 _______________________________________________________ ___ Persistence ____________ 91 _ 52 _ 20 __ 163 __ 60 _ 85 _ 126 __ 271 __ 434 __ 70 _148 _ 42 ___ 260 ____ 694 Best Forecasts * shared with one other forecaster for one month (does not apply to Consensus or Normal, if they qualify, so does the high forecaster score whether tied or not) FORECASTER ____________ DCA_NYC_BOS__east__ORD_ATL_IAH__cent_ c/e__ DEN_PHX_SEA__west __ Months RJay _______________________ 1 ____ 2 ____ 1 ____2 ____ 1*___2**___0 ___ 1 ___ 1 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ____ 0 DonSutherland1 ___________ 0 ____ 0 ____ 0 ___ 0 ____ 1*____1*____0____ 1 ___ 1 ___ 0 ___ 1 ___ 1* ___ 0 ____ 1 _ Jan wxallannj __________________ 0 ____ 0 ____ 0 ___ 0 ____ 0 ____0 ____0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ____0 RodneyS ___________________0 ____ 0 ____ 0 ___ 0 ____ 0 ____0 ____0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 1 ___ 1 ___ 1* ___ 2 ____0 ___ Consensus ____________ 0 ____ 0 ____ 0 ___ 0 ____ 0 ____0 ____0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 1 ___ 0 ____0 hudsonvalley21 ____________0 ____ 0 ____ 0 ___ 0 ____ 0 ____0 ____0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ____0 Roger Smith _______________ 0 ____ 0 ____ 0 ___ 0 ____ 0 ____0 ____1 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ____0 so_whats_happening ______ 0 ____ 0 ____ 1 ___ 0 ____ 0 ____0 ____0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ____0 Tom _______________________ 0 ____ 0 ____ 0 ___ 0 ____ 0 ____0 ____0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ____0 BKViking __________________ 0 ____ 0 ____ 0 ___ 0 ____ 0 ____0 ____0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ____0 wxdude64 _________________0 ____ 0 ____ 0 ___ 0 ____ 0 ____0 ____0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 1 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ____0 Stormchaser Chuck (1/2) __ 1 ____ 0 ____ 0 ___ 0 ____ 1 ____1*____ 1 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 1 ___ 0 ____1 _ Feb Scotty Lightning ___________0 ____ 0 ____ 0 ___ 0 ____ 0 ____0 ____0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ____0 ___ Normal _________________0 ____ 0 ____ 0 ___ 0 ____ 0 ____0 ____0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ----------------------------------------- EXTREME FORECAST SUMMARY So far, 16 of 18 forecasts qualify, 11 of them for warmest, and 5 for coldest ... Jan 6-2, Feb 5-3 FORECASTER _______ Jan _ Feb ____ TOTALS ___ (adjusted for ties) RJay _________________ 5-0 _ 2-1 ____ 7-1 _______ 5.5 - 1 StormchaserChuck __ -- --_ 5-1 ____ 5-1 _______4.5 - 1 DonSutherland ______ 2-0 _ 1-0 ____ 3-0 _______ 2.0 - 0 RodneyS _____________ 1-0 _ 1-0 ____ 2-0 _______ 2.0 - 0 wxdude64 ___________ 1-0 _ 0-0 ____ 1-0 _______ 1.0 - 0 Roger Smith __________1-0 _ 0-0 ____ 1-0 _______ 1.0 - 0 so_whats_happening _ 0-0 _0-1 ____ 0-1 _______ 0.0 - 1 (all others) ___________ 0-0 _ 0-0 ____ 0-0 _______0.0 - 0 ===========================================

NYC 0.9" to midnight (0.21" liquid), season total 1.3" monthly total 0.94" This event is taking NYC out of top ten dry months of Feb (needs about 0.10" more) and perhaps a couple of notches down the list of mild Febs where it was quite recently top three.

One thing worth keeping in mind here, this event has a very unusual origin from low pressure dropping south along the west coast. Moderate rain and 49F at San Diego currently. That low has just begun to make an eastward turn now. Details could change and the models could get a better handle on what is going to happen with its relatively fast motion towards the lower Great Lakes over next 48h. Current model solutions may have significant errors. This could go either way from the current disappointing outcome. A better outcome could appear at the last minute. Any trends towards stronger blocking, earlier transfer are potentially good as the warm Atlantic gets involved. I am watching with interest to see what actually happens. Step back from the ledge, George.

Predict the temperature anomalies (relative to 1991-2020 averages) for DCA _ NYC _ BOS __ ORD _ ATL _ IAH ___ DEN _ PHX _ SEA Deadline Wed Mar 1st at 06z Good luck!

Lost lobe of the PV drifting down the west coast, temps near 35F central OR coast to Eureka, cold rain at sea level and probably snowing above 200' asl, meanwhile ahead of the coldest phase, 45-50 F around SF Bay and low 50s s CA coast, 20s in San Gabriels. The peak mountain blizzard conditions there will come tomorrow into Saturday. I live north of the border, a snappy -2 F here at sunrise, now about 10 F, sun through high clouds, nasty NE wind at times. Coldest day of the winter so far. SOG here is about normal, 15" with 18-24 in local mountains (ski resort says anyway). I will report from time to time on what happens around soCal as I don't think we have members there. Think the record snowfall near sea level around LA was in Jan 1932, 2-3" .. think this may be more of a sleety mix but could get some measurable at LAX.

Hey at least there's something on offer, and the most likely 3-4 day error with these transfers is that they delay the energy pass, that can work both ways for outcomes. In this case (Feb 28-Mar 1) I think you want a fast energy transfer before the low gets past about Cleveland. I don't think there's much chance of an upper echelon type of storm but 6-10" looks feasible. The second one is too far off to do much more than hope, it has the right look also. March seems to be the month for these coastal transfer type storms, you hardly ever see them in other months.

I posted this list of very warm February readings at NYC back on the 2nd, here's an update including changes and additions, plus two near misses for record high minima in Feb 2023. So far there have been just one tied record high max (10th), and two new record high minima (10th, 16th). The latter (56F) was the second highest value in February after 58F set for 24th in 2018. Another record high maximum was missed by one degree (16th) and two record high minima were missed by 2F on 15th and by 1F on the 20th. The list includes all days that reached or exceeded 65F and notes "warmest since" values when records are before 1970. February record high maxima and minima for NYC (Central Park) Date _____ Hi max ______ Hi min __________ Other maxima 65+ (and warmest since records set before 1980) Feb 01 ___ 67 1989 ____ 50 1988 _________ Feb 02 ___ 59 1988 ____ 42 1952 Feb 03 ___ 64 1991 ____ 46 1999,2006 Feb 04 ___ 68 1991 ____ 46 1991 _________ Feb 05 ___ 70 1991 ____ 51 1991 __________ also 68 in 1890, 65 in 2019 Feb 06 ___ 68 2008 ____ 42 1884,1938 Feb 07 ___ 56 2020 ____ 42 1904 __________previous record was 54 (1938) Feb 08 ___ 62 2017 ____ 48 1965 Feb 09 ___ 63 1990 ____ 46 2005 (42 2023) Feb 10 ___ 61 1990,2001,2023_ 45 2023 (43 1999) Feb 11 ___ 65 1960,2009 _50 1966 Feb 12 ___ 62 1999,2018 _ 45 1966 Feb 13 ___ 64 1951 ____ 47 1880 Feb 14 ___ 63 1946 ____ 50 1949 __________ 1949 was 59F, warmest since 1949 are 1990, 2011 58F Feb 15 ___ 73 1949 ____ 49 1984 (47 2023) ___ 69 in 1954, 67 in 2023 (previously warmest since 1954 was 62 in 2018) Feb 16 ___ 71 1954 ____ 56 2023 44 2002 ___also 70 in 2023 previously, warmest since 1954 was 60 in 1976 (also 62 in 1921) Feb 17 ___ 68 2022 ____ 49 2022 ___________ also 67 in 1976 Feb 18 ___ 68 1981 ____ 48 1981 ____________ also 67 in 2011 Feb 19 ___ 66 1997 ____ 53 2017 ____________ also 65 in 2017 Feb 20 ___ 69 1930,39__48 1939 (47 2023) _ also 67 in 2018 Feb 21 ___ 78 2018 ____55 2018 _____________ also 68 in 1930, 67 in 1953 Feb 22 ___ 69 1997 ____ 46 1996 _____________also 66 in 1874, 1991 Feb 23 ___ 72 1874 ____ 55 1985 _____________ (warmest since 1874 was 70F in 1985, also 68F in 2022, 65F in 2017). Feb 24 ___ 75 1985 ____ 58 2017 _____________ also 65 in 1930, 1961 Feb 25 ___ 75 1930 ____ 51 1930 _____________ also 70 in 1976, 67 in 1985 Feb 26 ___ 65 1890 ____ 49 1976 _____________ warmest since 1890 was 62 in 1951, 1976 Feb 27 ___ 72 1997 ____ 49 1976 _____________ also 68 in 1880, 67 in 1976, 66 in 1971 Feb 28 ___ 67 1976 ____ 47 1903,10,2017 ________ warmest since 1976 was 62 in 1997 Feb 29 ___ 69 1880 ____ 47 1896, 2016 ______ warmest since 1880 was 67 in 1976 (61 in 2016) -- - - - - - - - - - - --

I had a look at this situation. Apparently the 87 degree low was the overnight low for July 1-2, as the daily minimum for July 2 was 79. The max and rainfall you mention match what I have in the NYC data base. That does not really change the essence of your question about how a night's low could be 87. The weather map available in the archives (NOAA on wetterzentrale.de) shows a typical quasi-stationary front between two lows over MN and eastern Canada, probably located just north of NYC overnight 1-2, with thunderstorms probably rolling along that front. If any other data exists for the time, it would be interesting to see other regional rainfalls. My guess is that the storms stopped during the morning, after rumbling away from after midnight, which is why it stayed that warm all night, maybe July 1st had been quite a hot day in n NJ and e PA (NYC max had been 92F) and the heated air was kept in motion all night in southwest winds associated with the front and storm cells, dew points might not have been excessive, maybe 75-80? Then without much of a frontal passage after the storms moved on, the mid-day high was 91 and it cooled to 79 for the daily low, either in a storm cell after the overnight low was recorded, or perhaps by midnight. That fits the reported values for July 3, 1903 which I see as max 83, min 74. Sounds like a day between fronts with a sea breeze and clouds around. The frontal trough settled to the south and began to return north later (July 3 has a small rainfall amount of .08"). The actual highest daily minimum for NYC is 84F which has been recorded on four different dates, two in 1908 (July 7, Aug 14) and others more recently including 1995 (July 16) and 2011 (July 22). There had been a lot of very cool and sometimes wet weather in June 1903 and it only began to warm up on June 30th (81F) with fronts often near NYC, a record rainfall was recorded on June 29th (2.57") along with a record low max of 65F. Another 0.28" rain fell on June 30, probably the tail end of the previous day's downpour. I would suspect that the warm spell that followed was very humid especially on July 1st, so that might be a background to the situation producing the record high overnight low July 1-2. The eventual low of 79F for July 2, 1903 was not the daily record high minimum, that was 82F set in 1901 during a scorching heat wave with highs near 100F.

Signs of a pattern change so would hold off on the post mortems for a while. March can produce, even April has sometimes had over five inch totals.

Yep, I just post the estimates so people can see where the scoring might go if you make various assumptions about the actual finishing values, if you think I am let's say 0.5 too low on five locations then you might have 50 more points than shown (5 x 10), and anyone already below my estimates will have 50 fewer points, for a net gain of 100. That may be the case for the first five scoring columns. I will update them all tomorrow after 12z runs, based on new projections. Check back tomorrow evening maybe, the projections will have a note showing whether they are updated on 21st. Then the scores would have been updated before I post that note as I edit the two posts at the same time. (later edit _ I have adjusted the scoring today Feb 21st).

Final scoring for February 2023 Scores are based on final monthly anomalies as shown in the table. FORECASTER ______________ DCA_NYC_BOS__east__ORD_ATL_IAH__cent _ c/e _DEN_PHX_SEA__west __ TOTAL Confirmed anomalies _______+6.8 _ +5.2 _ +3.1 ____ +5.1 _+8.6 _+2.8 ___ ___ ___ -1.6 _-2.8 _-3.3 Stormchaser Chuck _________ 87 _ 86 _ 32 __ 205 __ 93 _ 64 _ 86 __ 243_ 448 _ 48 _ 84 _ 94 __ 226 ____ 674 RJay _________________________ 82 _ 98 _ 62 __ 242 __69 _ 64 _ 76 __ 209 _ 451 __ 88 _ 64 _ 54 __ 206 ____657 Roger Smith _________________ 38 _ 62 _ 92 __ 192 __ 49 _ 35 _ 78 __ 162 __ 354 __ 98 _ 74 _ 64 __ 236 ____590 so_whats_happening ________ 48 _ 64 _100 __ 212 __ 59 _ 23 _ 84__ 166 __ 378 _ 92 _ 68 _ 50 __ 210 ____588 ___ Consensus _______________ 40 _ 60 _ 96 __ 196 __ 41 _ 26 _ 76 __ 143 __ 339 __ 80 _ 68 _ 52 __ 200 ____539 wxallannj ____________________ 40 _ 62 _ 98 __ 200 __ 39 _ 22 _ 76 __ 137 __337 __ 80 _ 68 _ 42 __ 190 ____ 527 DonSutherland1 _____________ 32 _ 38 _ 72 ___ 142 __ 19 _ 35 _ 74 __ 128 __ 270 __ 88 _ 90 _ 66 __ 244 ____ 514 BKViking _____________________ 58 _ 66 _ 94 __ 218 __ 43 _ 32 _ 80 __ 155 __ 373 __ 52 _ 40 _ 30 __ 122 ____ 495 RodneyS _____________________ 15 _ 40 _ 66 ___ 121 __ 47 _ 15 _ 64 __ 126 __ 247 __100_ 80 _ 66 __ 246____ 493 wxdude64 ___________________ 44 _ 58 _ 94 ___ 196 __ 11 _ 24 _ 70 __ 105 __ 301 __ 82 _ 58 _ 42 __ 182 ____ 483 Tom __________________________ 36 _ 44 _ 76 ___ 156 __ 27 _ 28 _ 76 __ 131 __ 287 __ 76 _ 62 _ 56 __ 194 ____ 481 hudsonvalley21 _______________24 _ 46 _ 78 ___ 148 __ 35 _ 18 _ 66 __ 119 __ 267 __ 64 _ 72 _ 50 __ 186 ____ 453 Scotty Lightning _____________ 15 _ 28 _ 58 ___ 101 ___ 19 _ 15 _ 84 __ 118 ___ 219 __ 58 _ 24 _ 24 __ 106 ____ 325 ___ Normal ___________________ 00 _ 00 _ 38 ___ 038__ 00 _ 00 _ 44 __ 044 __ 082 _ 68 _ 44 _ 34 __ 146 ____ 228 - - - ___ Persistence ______________ 91 _ 52 _ 04 __ 147 __ 60 _ 83 _ 74 __ 217 __ 364 __ 00 _ 98 _ 20 __ 118 ____ 482 ------------------------------------------------------ EXTREME FORECAST REPORT DCA (+6.8) is a win for StormchaserChuck (+5.5) at current estimates. NYC (+5.2) is a win for RJay (+5.0) and a loss for StormchaserChuck (+6.0) BOS (+3.1) does not qualify for an extreme forecast, close to consensus forecast. ORD (+5.1) is a win for StormchaserChuck (+5.5). ATL (+8.6) is a shared win for RJay and StormchaserChuck (both +5.0). IAH (+2.8) is a win for StormchaserChuck (+3.5) and a loss for RJay (+4.0). DEN (-1.6) is a win for RodneyS (-1.6) with second lowest forecast and a loss for so_whats_happening (-2.0). PHX (-2.8) is a win for DonSutherland1 (-2.3). SEA (-3.3) is a win for StormchaserChuck (-3.0). _________________