Roger Smith

I can tell you that it has been very mild in the daytime here (I am due north of Spokane near the border) for about a week now, and we are probably around +2 or +3 here. The low anomaly in SEA is probably mostly due to daytime inversions, they have been in fog quite often in Vancouver this past ten days with the milder air on the slopes. IAH had a few very cool days and otherwise near normal. Chuck, sorry you missed Feb, I should have sent you a reminder after that good start in Jan but I get very busy with all sorts of contest duties on three different forums and by the time I noticed it was getting towards the end of the penalty cutoff. Anyway, March thread will open around the 24th in this short month.

Tracking anomalies and projections ... ____________________________ DCA _NYC _BOS __ ORD _ATL _IAH ___ DEN _PHX _SEA _11th ____ (10d anom) _____ +1.8 _ +1.6 _ +1.7 __ -0.2 _+0.9 _-7.4 __ -2.7 _ -0.7 _ -0.7 _21st ____(20d anom) _____ +1.8 _ +1.7 _ +2.1 __ -1.0 _ +1.5 _-5.5 __ +0.3 _ +1.1 _ -0.3 _11th ____ (p20d anom) ___ +1.0 _ +1.0 _ +1.0 __ -1.0 _ +1.0 _ -2.0 __ +1.0 _ +1.5 _ +1.5 _11th ____ (p28d anom) ___ +2.0 _ +2.0 _ +2.0 __-1.0 _ +1.5 _ -1.0 __ +2.0 _ +2.5 _ +2.0 _21st ____ (p28 anom) ____ +1.0 _ +1.0 _ +1.0 __ -2.0 _ +1.0 _ -3.0 __ -2.0 _ +1.5 _ -1.5 _25th ____ (p28 anom) ____ +2.0 _ +2.0 _+1.5 __ -2.0 _ +2.0 _ -4.0 __ -2.0 _ -0.5 _ -2.0 _28th ____ (final anoms) ___+2.6 _ +1.4 _ +1.3 __ -1.4 _ +3.2 _ -5.8 __ -3.6 _ -0.8 _ -1.9 (11th) _ Cold air has been confined to the central regions most of the month so far, with variations producing small anomalies in both east and west. Recently very warm weather has developed over the west and there will be several very cold days in the east, but these appear likely to be balanced against warmer spells. So the projections show little change at first, other than a flattening out of the larger negative anomalies, then a general slight warming trend later in the month. Confidence is not all that high in the exact outcomes shown but for most locations a positive anomaly looks more likely than negative on balance. IAH will also run fairly warm but has a larger negative anomaly to overcome. (21st) _ The trends 11th-20th were generally about as expected although warming at both IAH and SEA was weaker than I had estimated, so their anomalies remain lower (SEA by a less significant amount). Going forward, it now appears that there will be significant cold air intrusion in the east after a brief warmer spell, and longer more sustained cold in central and western regions other than for PHX which looks relatively warm. The end of month projections now reflect those trends. The degree of cold air for the east seems insufficient to flip the anomalies to negative but the interval itself will average about -3 or possibly -4 F. (25th) _ Adjusted the projections, looks a bit milder after very warm days earlier in the week in the east despite cold air now pressing in, meanwhile slightly colder for IAH and PHX than expected, preliminary scores to be adjusted. _28th _ Most of the projections are close enough at this point to wait for final adjustments, but IAH will come in lower which will activate the "max 60" scoring, thus not much difference to current scoring and also DEN looks colder so have revised scores for now based on -4.0. ... overnight all other values will be adjusted to final values and scoring will be updated as required. (As of 12z all scoring is complete with the final anomalies available, see above). ========================================================= Updated winter snowfall totals ... to Mar 10th DCA _ 12.3" NYC _ 17.9" BOS _ 53.8" ORD _ 32.1" DTW _ 39.6" BUF _ 87.5" DEN _ 39.8" SEA _ 9.2" BTV _ 57.8" ____________________________ This list will now be updated only in the March contest thread.

That low over the Great Lakes just sits there losing what little energy it ever had, until it almost disappears. For once, you might actually benefit if the Great Lakes low had some energy because that could trigger a coastal reflection instead of what the GFS currently shows as an OTS non-phasing low. I think there's a chance, given the faint signals available from other sources. Should see a trend towards this phasing over the weekend if it's going to happen.

Table of forecasts for February 2022 Forecaster ____________ DCA _NYC _BOS __ ORD _ATL _IAH ___ DEN _PHX _SEA Don Sutherland 1 _____ +1.5 _ +1.2 _ +1.0 __-1.1 _ +1.8 __ 0.0 ___ -0.8 _+0.1 _ -1.6 BKViking ______________ +1.2 _+1.0 _+1.0 __ -1.4 _+1.2 _+0.6 ___ -0.4 _+0.3 _-1.2 wxdude64 _ (-1%) _____+1.1 _+0.8 _+1.2 __ -1.3 _+0.9 _+0.5 ___ -1.1 _ +1.8 _-2.2 Scotty Lightning _______+1.0 _+1.0 _+1.0 __+0.5 _+0.5 _+1.5 ____0.0 _+1.0 _+0.5 hudsonvalley21 _______ +1.0 _ +1.0 _ +0.1 __-1.9 _+1.4 _-0.5 ___ -0.2 _+1.0 _ -0.3 so_whats_happening __+0.8 _+0.7 _+0.5 __-1.6 _+1.5 _ +1.0 ___+0.4 _+1.2 _ -1.0 ___ Consensus ________ +0.8 _+0.7 _+0.5 __-1.3 _+1.2 _+0.2 ___-0.7 _+1.0 _-0.8 RodneyS ______________+0.7 _+0.3 _+0.7 __-0.9 _+2.1 _ -0.7 ___ -1.2 _+0.4 _ -0.8 RJay __________________ +0.5 _+0.5 _+0.5 __-1.0 _+1.0 _+1.0 ___ +1.0 _+2.5 _+2.5 ___ Normal ______________ 0.0 __ 0.0 __0.0 ___0.0 __ 0.0 __ 0.0 ____ 0.0 __ 0.0 __0.0 wxallannj _______________-0.4 _-0.5 _-0.7 __ -1.2 _ +1.2 _ -1.6 ___ -0.7 _+1.5 _ +0.4 Tom ____________________-0.9 _ -1.1 _ -1.2 __ -1.5 _ -1.2 _ -1.9 ___ -1.2 _ +0.8 _+0.9 Roger Smith ____________-1.8 _-2.2 _ -3.0 __ -4.5 __0.0 _ +0.2 ___-3.5 _+1.8 _-4.3 ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== [] ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== swh ORD fcst -1 (late revision) color codes show warmest and coldest forecasts consensus is median or 6th ranked forecast of 11. any later entries welcome, will adjust consensus.

-1.8 __ -2.2 __ -3.0 __ -4.5 __ 0.0 __ +0.2 __ -3.5 __ +1.8 __ -4.3

Looks to me like a better than average chance of February snowfall, not an ideal pattern but very little torch potential after the brief warming around Thursday, even that could lead to a bit of snow in northern parts of MD and higher parts of WV. I see one scenario in particular around ten days from now that looks promising, with much colder air digging back into the interior west and central plains regions.

We get about the same amount of snow around here as many parts of New England but it comes in rather boring 2-4 inch dumps on a regular basis and seldom is there what I would call a snowstorm. On the other hand at this elevation (I am at about 4000 ft asl) it seldom melts once on the ground, although it can rain here and turn a snow pack into a mess. Current snow depth here is more or less what it has been for weeks, 15" with 2 feet at the local ski hill and 3 feet in the alpine. Down in the Columbia valley they vary from 6" to a foot most of the winter and sometimes lose the pack. It has not actually snowed here for two weeks but it looks about the same as it did every day since mid-December. I think the snow pack here is a bit below normal, it can be up to 4-5 feet. These storms you get are considerably more interesting but our heat waves rock (five days over 105 F last summer). Severe storm action is about a toss-up.

The 100th anniversary of the Knickerbocker storm of 1922 came and went. I guess with the death toll that might not be seen as worthy of a thread. Also there was a recent 250th anniversary of the Washington-Jefferson storm of Jan 1772. And today is 12 years from the onset of the great run of snowstorms in 2010.

Worth keeping in mind that snowfalls are often 10% or so higher than resulting snow depths, as snowfalls are totals of six-hour measurements on swept surfaces, snow depths at end of an event will usually have some compaction. Sometimes the difference can be a greater percentage too. I have seen cases where snow depth exceeds snowfall, that is sometimes the case at arctic weather stations where snow blows into an area after a light snowfall and so the observer finds a greater snow depth than the previous time of measurement, not from the snowfall but from the drifting.

Great, I only need 16 more of those events then.

This is a reminder to the several NYC forum members who participate, to submit February forecasts and an invitation to others to join the party. (it's in the general weather forum). I thought with the combination of the storm and the big football games today, it might not be top of mind. Have a great rest of your weekend blah blah.

So BOS tied top one-day I gather ... for the 2-day which was only 0.2 higher this is where it fits into the list that was posted by sonebody (forget who now) that I copied from their source, and which needed editing as shown because they had come up with two entries for two storms that ran three days (a list of this kind should have only the storm's better two-day total, I think). Some hidden coding in the block copy has conveniently updated the rank numbers, my edit screen shows them as they had been before I inserted the new 6th place Blizzard of 2022. I cannot edit that without just typing it all over myself. And I cannot vouch for either the accuracy of this list or its acceptability as being "official" but for what it's worth ... Feb. 18, 2003: 27.6 inches Feb. 7, 1978: 27.1 inches April 1, 1997: 25.4 inches Feb. 9, 2013: 24.9 inches Jan. 27, 2015: 24.4 inches (new to list Jan 29, 2022 __ 23.8 inches) Feb. 17, 2003: 23.6 inches **** Jan. 23, 2005: 22.5 inches (should be 7th) Jan. 28, 2015: 22.3 inches **** 1Feb. 9, 2015: 22.2 inches (should be 8th) Jan. 21, 1978: 21.4 inches (should be 9th) Dates shown are second of any two-day totals. (my edit to the above ... **** are secondary reports of a storm in the list, and should not be in the list)

Re my earlier post of snowfall totals, I went back into the NWS documents where the CF6 is now also updated (I reported from the first appearance of daily climate reports) and found that with one exception, the CF6 documents have my numbers and not those quoted in the "NWS chat." For ISP, the CF6 had adjusted the Friday portion from 1.2" to 1.5" ... otherwise all CF6 docs have the same numbers that I had seen in the climate reports. Not to say these may not change if the NWS chat is based on some later information not yet placed in the CF6. As of this time stamp, the ISP climate report for Friday 28th had not adjusted the amount shown in the CF6, it remains at 1.2". Will continue to monitor and edit any changes that I see into my post. I also checked the climate reports (none of which have any new editions posted) to see if they now say anything different, and none of them do. The now adjusted value for ISP is still in the current version of the Friday climate report. My work with the Central Park data base and various other official products has convinced me that there are two sets of official data that sometimes have slight variances in them, but when you go back further there are larger ones from time to time. I have no idea what's causing this to happen. Since I obtained the data from Don S, I asked him about checking into one recent discrepancy between data and product tables, and they changed the value we queried. Another one remains unchanged in the document (their CF6 for a recent Dec has a different mean temp than the document shows). Those were the only two months that had differences in the past 30 years, then you get into more frequent 0.1 F differences for a few decades, and then even larger differences especially in the period 1890 to 1910. Hoping to get answers one day as to why these exist, but anyway, it underscores the fact that "official climate data" can be maintained in two separate data bases by two different people or groups of people, and sometimes then their numbers don't match perfectly. The answer is to have one person maintaining one set of official records with no parallel sets of records. That is how the CET data are managed, and so there are never discrepancies between products, although errors can still happen and adjustments can still be made at later dates by that one person (I presume he has assistants but he's the sole authority on the integrity of data in that long-running data base).

For NYC the daily amount of 7.3" has been confirmed but keep in mind that 1.2" also fell just before midnight on Friday 28th so the storm total is 8.5" -- whether that's accurate or not, it is a new daily record replacing 4.7" (1904) for the 29th, and that was the lowest value for any January record snowfall so that gap is filled. The other locations all had similar small amounts from Friday to add to the Saturday amounts, these are what I see on the climate reports just updated for the Friday-Saturday totals: (edit _ I have since checked the CF6 documents updated through 29th, ISP has been adjusted in this list, but other cases where the quoted NWS chat varies from these numbers are not changed in the CF6 and I will continue to check the CF6 to end of month; these are the official records so I'm not sure why the NWS chat would be at variance with them.) JFK ___ 1.6 + 9.3 = 10.9" LGA ___ 1.3 + 8.1 = 9.4" ISP ____ 1.5 + 23.2 = 24.7" BDR ___ 0.9 + 9.6 = 10.5" EWR ___ 1.4 + 6.6 = 8.0"

In some ways yes, but they don't have as long a period of observations. If I can get some acceptance from NWS relevant authorities for the integrity of my data base, then they could use it with adjustments they think are justified. I don't feel qualified to make such adjustments without at least discussing the topic with better qualified individuals (including Don Sutherland) who are perhaps more familiar with the details of the site changes and the potential adjustments that might be warranted. I'm a bit more familiar with the problems posed by site changes around the Toronto location in my study, having gone to university and stayed in a dorm on campus where the instruments are now located (they were in a government office building property when I was a student and for decades after that). I don't consider the three sites that I know to be used at different stages of the Toronto observatory to be significantly different in exposure but they have been gradually surrounded by a large city and its urban heat island. There was however a brief period around 2020 when it appeared to me that the Toronto rainfall data was being augmented by daily sprinkler contamination (much more frequent daily amounts than regional stations, albeit rather small ones when not actually weather-related). There I am already making inquiries with Environment Canada about a variety of issues raised. As to how much the CP (NYC) data might need adjusting, that would have to be worked out carefully and I don't have any preliminary ideas about what might be necessary or appropriate, if in fact anything is needed. One factor would be to assess whether a gradual "parkland densification" at the site is actually an anomaly for the metropolitan area or if it perhaps represents an evolution of the setting that is not necessarily unusual. I know from some field experience that tree canopies can reduce maximum temperatures in calm weather patterns (warm season) but they can also increase overnight lows by similar amounts so that mean temperatures don't suffer as much with two sources of compensating errors.

I would need 18 more of those to make my numbers.

Good, my 24-48 from early on verified, in your back yard alone I see. (I know 48 doesn't count from drifts but hey, 24-48 was the target range, some place is probably going to end up 30). This will rage on for hours IMO, the low is tucking into the NH and Maine coast and the surface flow there will back to NW 40-60, LI Sound squall bands likely to set up and some places could see another 10-12 inches, others just an inch or two and blowing snow.

That 18z map is probably right, it is 2020z now though and I posted from very recent satellite and buoy data, maybe let's say 50-75 miles east of CHH to be more precise. It will be east of Provincetown soon enough. Extrapolated central pressure from standard wind speed at buoys closest to centre. Too bad there's no buoy in the exact location to watch it go over top. Think it will hit 967 mb 75-100 east of Cape Ann around 00z.

Several earlier posts about surface low position, it is actually about 50 miles east of Provincetown at around 970 mb. Any satellite indication of a center over the Cape is some merging upper low circulation. Winds at the buoy 54 miles southeast of ACK have remained northerly as the low tracked past just to their east. Buoy at George's Bank has no temps or wind but pictures available show it sunny with distant high cloud, imagine they are SSE 40-60 and 50 F there. The buoy 78 miles east of Portsmouth NH has east winds 47-57 knots, Boston harbour buoy has N winds 45-55. From 12z GFS still the idea of a track due north tucking more into the NH-ME coast before sharply turning northeast around 03z. This storm will continue to rage with pivoting and rotating bands until then. Hopefully some of the bands will drift to new areas to share the wealth a bit. Otherwise the results will be something like a coastal band of 35-45 inch totals, a sub zone of 15-25, and another band of 20-30 perhaps west of that. Epic storm from this distance, I would hate to be a five minute drive from a death band but I lived in the Lake Huron- Ggn Bay snowbelt for a few years and got into situations like this where house had zero snow and the town 10 miles to my southwest had 20" with a 30" max another five miles south of that. Then another day would see the exact opposite with me in the max and them fringed. Whether it's highlighted in forecasts or not, I don't know, but winds in the NH and Maine coastal areas are going to ramp up severely this afternoon and evening as that part of the gradient gets tightened by interaction of the coastal gradient and inland topography. That buoy east of Portsmouth has been gradually ramping up all day (now 47-57 knots). Coastal Maine is likely to have a very impressive death band close to the US 2 Portland to Bath (going on distant memory hope that's still there).

This is the list of top ten 2-day BOS totals from a link already posted (without this list fully visible) ... my analysis below ========= divider Feb. 18, 2003: 27.6 inches Feb. 7, 1978: 27.1 inches April 1, 1997: 25.4 inches Feb. 9, 2013: 24.9 inches Jan. 27, 2015: 24.4 inches Feb. 17, 2003: 23.6 inches Jan. 23, 2005: 22.5 inches Jan. 28, 2015: 22.3 inches Feb. 9, 2015: 22.2 inches Jan. 21, 1978: 21.4 inches Dates listed are the end date from a two-day period of snow accumulation. ============================= (my analysis below ========= divider) The article states that the period of record is 1891 to present. So all of these storms occurred from 1978 to end of data, not one from 1891 to 1977 shows up. I saw in another post a mention of a four day total from Feb 1969. The blizzard of March 12-13 1888 may have made this list, although I seem to recall reading that the very high totals in western New England (30-50") tapered down to two feet or less in some eastern regions. Getting back to the list, not only are they all 1978 or later, but seven are in the 21st century. However, it's really a top eight list not a top ten. Here's why. The search must have been for two-day totals. That brought in two storms with two entries (Jan 26-28 2015 and Feb 16-18 2003). Their 3-day totals must have been slightly higher than the higher of their two appearances in the list. A corrected list should delete the lower of their two entries in each case, making the 10th place storm in the list 8th all-time. After making that adjustment, two winters (1978 and 2015) had two storms each, separated by 17 and 13 days. This one will probably end up number one if they measure correctly. I think it goes to 29-32" from the current 16". It won't end before midnight so it will show up in the list as Jan 30, 2022 by the protocol used. However the 29th one-day total might also end up near top three or even number one also.

At the buoy 54 miles SE of ACK, pressure in past hour has dropped 5 mb, low appears to be approaching it, pressure around 980 mbs, winds NE 45 G 55 knots (approx). At this rate historic blizzard James will track right across the Cape in about 4-5 hours. That rate of pressure fall as many will know is near the limit.

I think you can double expectations west of the river, this looks to me like it could go off the charts. That GFS evolution as I mentioned in the other thread (and NWS seems to have picked up same idea) is very explosive, and in fact I think the low is going to deepen below 970 mbs. It appears to be heading across the Cape and into western Gulf of Maine. There is already considerably more snow in the lower Hudson valley as per NYC forum reports, and I think western MA could easily see 12" and possibly 15-18" amounts. Even Albany NY could see 6" or more. The snow shield will be back to Utica to Plattsburgh at this rate.

06z GFS takes a track past Cape Cod and hooks back into western Gulf of Maine. I noted a possible 50-100 mile eastward initialization error (shows as 70.5W but more likely 71.5W) which I think could translate into additional deepening on what is already quite an impressive 18-hour deepening cycle (to 970 mbs as shown). Factoring that in I would expect very slow eastward drift of the banding and heavy snow axes now setting up, and possibly back into that earlier "superstorm" sort of evolution which might up snowfall potential especially for LI and CT, and also wind speed potential later today.

I would imagine there would be a constant dull roar of OMG as the board comes to life and sees this rather startling track, the thing goes around the Cape and takes a very hard look at PWM before going up the coast. And as I said the map has an initial position that looks too far east, it's basically 38N 70.5W and the low looks closer to 71.5W on radar and satellite (and from buoy reports). If this evolution started from that corrected position it could imply 3-5 mb extra deepening potential. I know it's just another model but you can see this rather steady forcing and the signature of upper lows closing in for the kill. Given what's happening along the Jersey coast, this could mean astronomical snowfalls for parts of LI and NE.

Big doings on the 06z GFS ... from what appears to be a slightly erroneous initial position (the error looks to be 50-100 east of actual sfc low) the track is now tucked right into the western Gulf of Maine with the 700 mb low crossing se MA to phase. Considering that error as perhaps a weakening factor in the model development (which is close to being intense), this could return things to the earlier very intense storm status. I am seeing explosive development potential over the entire region.