donsutherland1

This is what denial looks like. The BBC reported: The top 10 warmest years on record in the UK have all occurred since 2002, a new analysis from the Met Office says. Its State of the UK Climate report shows that 2014 remains the warmest year in a temperature sequence now dating back to 1884. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49167797 The underlying report, which is packed with data, can be found at: https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/joc.6213 Tom Nelson tweeted the following response, "Sounds like complete BS to me: 'UK's 10 warmest years all occurred since 2002' - BBC News" https://twitter.com/tan123/status/1156527168572272640 When it comes to science, "sounds like" isn't a sufficient basis for arriving at a conclusion. It is nothing more than an evasion aimed at circumventing the rigor of the scientific method and its emphasis on evidence.In other words, he reached a conclusion without evidence, without data, without anything of substance to inform it. Put another way, his conclusion is little more than a conspiracy theory based on the implied premise that science and scientists are misleading the world. With respect to such conspiracy theories, the Oxford Research Encyclopedias explains: Conspiracy theories that accuse government of perverting science often view the conspirators as having socialist or totalitarian aims. Some Americans, Canadians, and others have objected to the government inclusion of fluoride into drinking water (Carstairs & Elder, 2008; Newbrun & Horowitz, 1999; Oliver & Wood, 2014b). They argued first that there was a conspiracy of silence to hide the negative side effects from an unsuspecting public (Connett, Beck, & Micklem, 2010), but also that fluoridation was the first step in a growing expansion of government control over an individual’s life, part of a trend in America toward socialism or totalitarianism … once the precedent was set for using public drinking water to medicate the population, the government would argue for the addition of birth control medication, or sedatives or an "anti-hostility" drug. (Reilly, 2006, p. 329)... Climate change denialist conspiracy theories often follow the same logic as other conspiracy theories accusing government. These conspiracy theories make a series of interrelated and often interchangeable claims: (1) that ideological organizations, including government, have used grant money to pervert the science; (2) that the peer-review process has become tainted by an oligarchy of scientists seeking to suppress dissent; (3) that climate science is less about science and more about socialist ideology; and (4) that larger international groups have faked climate science as a scheme to achieve global wealth redistribution or one-world government (Douglas & Sutton, 2015; Goertzel, 2010, 2013; Hurley & Walker, 2004). https://oxfordre.com/climatescience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-328 In the end, when it comes to such flippant responses of denial, the public should reject them absent credible and sufficient evidence to support them. They should not be accepted at face value, especially in the absence of evidence. The absence of evidence reveals them for what they are, one variant in a range of conspiracy theories aimed at discrediting science and scientists.

On July 30, Arctic sea ice extent was 5.998 million square kilometers (JAXA). That broke the daily minimum record of 6.132 million square kilometers, which was set in 2012. It is also the earliest figure under 6.000 million square kilometers. The previous earliest figure occurred on August 3, 2012 when Arctic sea ice extent was 5.911 million square kilometers.

During the natural climate cycles of the past 2,000 years, the timing of peak cold and warm periods (top 51 years) during each cycle differed globally. This time, the ongoing current warm period is starkly different. Instead, the timing of the peak warming (so far, as the warming is continuing) is astonishingly uniform. This suggests an outcome (impact of growing greenhouse gas forcing) that has largely overwhelmed "regionally specific mechanisms." A newly published paper explains: In contrast to the spatial heterogeneity of the preindustrial era, the highest probability for peak warming over the entire Common Era (Fig. 3c) is found in the late twentieth century almost everywhere (98% of global surface area), except for Antarctica, where contemporary warming has not yet been observed over the entire continent. Thus, even though the recent warming rates are not entirely homogeneous over the globe, with isolated areas showing little warming or even cooling, the climate system is now in a state of global temperature coherence that is unprecedented over the Common Era... Against this regional framing, perhaps our most striking result is the exceptional spatiotemporal coherence during the warming of the twentieth century. This result provides further evidence of the unprecedented nature of anthropogenic global warming in the context of the past 2,000 years. The above chart is from the referenced paper. The complete paper can be found at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2.epdf

It should be noted that even if temperatures are measured in whole degrees, averaging over the entire global network over yearly periods can result in values that involve hundredths, thousandths, etc. In any case, the January-June 2019 vs. January-June 1998 average was nearly 0.3 degrees C.

Through June, 2019 is running well ahead of 1998 in terms of its global anomaly (just under 0.98°C above the baseline vs. 1998's 0.69°C above the baseline on GISS). Overall, through the first six months of the year, 2019 ranked 3rd warmest. 1998 ranked 10th warmest. https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/

I didn't say anything like that. Instead, I stated that recent changes in solar activity do not explain the ongoing observed warming. That is the point made by NASA, which I quoted. There has been a decoupling of the temperature trend (rising) from solar activity (relatively stable since the 1960s with some fluctuations).

In the wake of the historic heatwaves that rolled through Europe smashing all-time records (including setting 55% of the all-time record highs for France's 1,050 weather stations), it seems that the climate change deniers are in somewhat of a frenzy to redirect public attention from what happened and the underlying scientific basis. That scientific basis concerning the existence of climate change and its anthropogenic driver is now all but unequivocal overall, despite the existence of some residual uncertainties. Two recent examples from Social Media: Joe Bastardi: "Classic horribly biased reporting, BBC puts this out, but refuses to acknowledge that the planet is greener than ever in the satellite era. guess pictures of the greening earth won't lead to deception I dare the BBC to put that latter picture up, the reality of what is going on" Tom Nelson: "'Forward projections of solar cyclicity imply the next few decades may be marked by global cooling rather than warming, despite continuing CO2 emissions' #NIPCC" Reality is different. The denial that is underway has nothing to do with science. It is a rejection of science and the scientific method. A recent paper published in Nature Human Behavior distinguishes between scientific skepticism and the "science denialism" being advanced to mislead the public about climate change. Science denialism must not be confused with scepticism. Scepticism towards scientific propositions is a crucial element of science itself. In fact, it functions as a driving force of scientific debates and increases the quality of new propositions via mechanisms such as peer review and the replication of experimental research. The common ground of this functional scepticism is the scientific ethos that scientists use data to update their prior beliefs regardless of the outcome. However, in contrast to functional scepticism, science deniers accept evidence only if it confirms their prior beliefs--that usually contradict the scientific consensus. This dysfunctional scepticism is driven by how the denier would like things to be rather than what he has evidence for, making science denialism a motivated rejection of science. https://t.co/jysNBwsVA2 Bastardi's point ignores a key point about the "greening" that is underway: Arctic warming is leading to plant growth in a region that previously was too cold to support it. In other words, this plant growth provides confirmation of the climate change that Bastardi rejects. For more than 35 years, satellites circling the Arctic have detected a “greening” trend in Earth’s northernmost landscapes. Scientists have attributed this verdant flush to more vigorous plant growth and a longer growing season, propelled by higher temperatures that come with climate change. But recently, satellites have been picking up a decline in tundra greenness in some parts of the Arctic. Those areas appear to be “browning.” Like the salmonberry harvesters on the Kenai Peninsula, ecologists working on the ground have witnessed browning up close at field sites across the circumpolar Arctic, from Alaska to Greenland to northern Norway and Sweden. Yet the bushes bereft of berries and the tinder-dry heaths (low-growing shrubland) haven’t always been picked up by the satellites. The low-resolution sensors may have averaged out the mix of dead and living vegetation and failed to detect the browning. https://phys.org/news/2018-08-ecosystems-greener-arctic.html Nelson has cited solar activity to advance calls for global cooling to get underway. Yet, global temperatures continue to rise with little credible evidence of a decline and profound evidence of a decoupling from solar activity. http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/1880-1920base.png The global temperature trend has diverged from solar irradiance. NASA observed: One of the “smoking guns” that tells us the Sun is not causing global warming comes from looking at the amount of the Sun’s energy that hits the top of the atmosphere. Since 1978, scientists have been tracking this using sensors on satellites and what they tell us is that there has been no upward trend in the amount of the Sun’s energy reaching Earth. A second smoking gun is that if the Sun were responsible for global warming, we would expect to see warming throughout all layers of the atmosphere, from the surface all the way up to the upper atmosphere (stratosphere). But what we actually see is warming at the surface and cooling in the stratosphere. This is consistent with the warming being caused by a build-up of heat-trapping gases near the surface of the Earth, and not by the Sun getting “hotter.” https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/ It is imperative that the public be able to sort fact from fiction. The body of literature on climate change is large and growing. When it comes to the noisy movement to deny climate change, a good starting point is to ask why those who deny it have refused to put their ideas to peer review. It is easy to fire empty cannons from the sidelines. Peer review requires that one's ideas hold up to rigorous scrutiny that is a defining attribute of science. But, as noted above, science denialism is a rejection of science. Thus, the peer review channel is avoided.

In searching for forecasts for the minimum Arctic Sea Ice extent, I came across one source: https://www.arcus.org/sipn/sea-ice-outlook/2019/july The median figure from that source is 4.28 million square kilometers. The statistical mean that I posted was 3.89 million square kilometers. I will probably re-run the data when I get back from abroad around 8/20 or so. By then, it should be much clearer whether 2019 can make a run at the 2012 record. As I suspect Arctic sea ice data is not normally distributed, like others above, I believe the probabilities for extremely low minimum values are higher than what is shown statistically. I also expect this year to finish with a minimum extent below 4.00 million square kilometers.

Some great charts for changes in Greenland's surface mass balance: http://climato.be/cms/index.php?climato=the-2019-melt-season-over-greenland-as-simulated-by-marv3-9

I agree. That's part of the reason I provided a brief discussion of what could change things. I suspect that changes in ice minima may not be normally distributed.

On July 26, Arctic Sea Ice Extent was 6.385 million square kilometers (JAXA). That was below the previous minimum for the date of 6.512 million square kilometers, which was set in 2012. 2012 went on to have a record low minimum figure of 3.177 million square kilometers. At present, it appears likely that 2019 will become only the second year on record with a minimum Arctic sea ice extent figure below 4.000 million square kilometers. Ongoing climate change has been driving a long-term decline in Arctic sea ice extent, even as there have been yearly fluctuations due to internal variability. Since 2000, record low figures have occurred abruptly every few years followed by partial recovery. Since 2000, record figures below 6.000 million square kilometers were established as follows: 2002: 5.513 million square kilometers (peak prior to the next record: 5.934 million square kilometers, 2003) 2005: 5.179 million square kilometers (peak prior to the next record: 5.625 million square kilometers, 2006) 2007: 4.066 million square kilometers (peak prior to the next record: 5.054 million square kilometers, 2009) 2012: 3.177 million square kilometers (peak since then: 4.884 million square kilometers, 2014) Potential Minimum Extent Scenarios: Smallest decline from 7/25 to the minimum (2000-18): 4.810 million square kilometers Smallest decline from 7/25 to the minimum (2010-18): 4.323 million square kilometers Mean decline from 7/25 to the minimum (2010-18): 3.886 million square kilometers Median decline from 7/25 to the minimum (2010-18): 3.966 million square kilometers Maximum decline from 7/25 to the minimum (2010-18): 3.069 million square kilometers Statistical Minimum Extent Scenarios (2010-18 Data): 5.000 million square kilometers or below: 99.9% 4.500 million square kilometers or below: 95% 4.000 million square kilometers or below: 62% 3.750 million square kilometers or below: 36% 3.500 million square kilometers or below: 15% 3.000 million square kilometers or below: 1% New Record Low Minimum: 3% What could change things: These are statistical measures. Greater warmth and/or a more unfavorable pattern for preserving ice could lead to larger declines than implied statistically. A sustained period of cooler weather and/or a more favorable pattern for preserving ice could lead to higher figures than implied statistically. At least through the remainder of July, the balance of risks favors a greater decline than implied statistically. In part, the historic heat in Europe that is forecast to move into Iceland and Greenland in coming days may be partially the result of the warming Arctic via Arctic Amplification and the slowing of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), as well as induced changes to the jet stream that lead to greater pattern persistence.

On July 9, 2019, Arctic sea ice extent fell below 8 million square kilometers (JAXA) to 7,953,297 square kilometers. That is the earliest date on record for less than 8 million square kilometers of ice. The previous earliest such date was July 10. That record was set in 2011 and tied in 2012.

Previously, I noted that there was a single storm (March 9-10, 1999) where DCA picked up 8" or more snow, Philadelphia received < 3" and New York City had no snow. The accumulations for the most recent storm were 10.3" at DCA, 1.4" at PHL, and Trace at NYC. The trace tied the least snowfall at NYC when Washington received 10" or more snow, which was set during the February 4-7, 2010 snowstorm (since 1950). This storm brought the 2nd lowest figure at Philadelphia for any of Washington, DC's 10" or greater snowstorms. The record is 1.3" at PHL when 11.5" fell at DCA during the November 11-12, 1987 snowstorm.

It was nice to see DCA reach 10" for the first time since the January 22-23, 2016 mega snowstorm. Hopefully, all locations in the region will cash in with even larger amounts as the pattern continues to evolve toward a cold and potentially snowy one.

Distribution of Snowfall (January 12-14, 2019): Source: National Operational Hydrologic Remote Sensing Center

Latest PNS: 000 NOUS41 KLWX 140151 PNSLWX DCZ001-MDZ003>007-009>011-013-014-016>018-501-502-VAZ025>031- 036>040-042-050>057-501>504-WVZ050>053-055-501>506-141351- Public Information Statement Spotter Reports National Weather Service Baltimore MD/Washington DC 851 PM EST Sun Jan 13 2019 The following are unofficial observations taken during the past 6 hours for the storm that has been affecting our region. Appreciation is extended to cooperative and CoCoRaHS observers, Skywarn spotters and media for these reports. This summary also is available on our home page at weather.gov/baltimore ********************STORM TOTAL SNOWFALL******************** LOCATION STORM TOTAL TIME/DATE COMMENTS SNOWFALL OF /INCHES/ MEASUREMENT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ...District of Columbia... Somerset 1 SE 9.0 700 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter National Zoo 1 WSW 7.3 358 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter MARYLAND ...Allegany County... Frostburg 2 ENE 5.0 511 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Frostburg 4.0 533 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Wolfe Mill 2 NNE 3.4 755 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter ...Anne Arundel County... Annapolis 1 NW 7.7 750 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Chelsea Beach NNE 7.4 750 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Annapolis 1 S 7.1 630 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Bwi Airport 6.4 700 PM 1/13 Airport Green Haven 1 ESE 6.2 830 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Parole 2 NE 5.3 416 PM 1/13 Public ...Baltimore County... Daniels 1 ESE 4.5 410 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Brooklandville 2 NNW 4.2 715 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Bentley Springs 1 E 2.8 530 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter ...Baltimore City... Pimlico SE 5.0 530 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter ...Calvert County... Huntingtown 2 SW 6.5 300 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Dares Beach 2 NW 6.0 329 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter ...Carroll County... Westminster 2 SE 5.5 530 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Eldersburg 1 SE 5.1 600 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Oakland NE 4.6 515 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Manchester 1 SSW 3.0 300 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter ...Charles County... Waldorf 2 W 6.8 630 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter ...Frederick County... Point of Rocks 1 NE 10.2 815 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Adamstown 1 ESE 8.5 804 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Bloomfield 2 WSW 7.7 800 PM 1/13 NWS Employee Rosemont SSE 7.5 645 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Walkersville 1 E 6.2 746 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter New Market N 5.3 700 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Sabillasville 2 SSE 4.5 800 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter ...Howard County... Simpsonville 1 W 10.3 745 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Elkridge 2 WSW 9.8 820 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Savage 1 ESE 9.6 805 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Simpsonville 1 SSE 9.6 630 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Columbia 2 N 9.3 615 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Columbia W 9.0 745 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Elkridge 2 W 9.0 835 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Elkridge 3 WNW 8.2 830 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Columbia 2 NW 8.0 823 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Jessup 2 WSW 8.0 650 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Oella 1 WSW 7.5 715 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Hanover ENE 7.0 800 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter ...Montgomery County... Four Corners 1 N 11.2 615 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter White Oak 1 W 11.0 800 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Bethesda 1 NNW 10.5 715 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Washington Grove 1 N 10.5 720 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Damascus 3 SSW 10.3 800 PM 1/13 Co-Op Observer Laytonsville 1 NE 10.0 744 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Four Corners 1 NNW 10.0 640 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Germantown 9.5 716 PM 1/13 Private Company North Potomac 1 ESE 9.0 630 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Norbeck 1 ESE 9.0 700 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Fairland 1 NNE 8.5 735 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Takoma Park 8.0 403 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Garrett Park 1 N 7.1 420 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter North Potomac 1 SSE 6.8 715 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter ...Prince Georges County... Cheverly S 9.8 750 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Marlton 1 WSW 8.8 755 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter College Park 1 ENE 8.2 500 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter ...St. Marys County... Callaway 2 W 6.2 802 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter California 3 NW 1.6 830 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter ...Washington County... Boonsboro 3 NNE 6.6 630 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter VIRGINIA ...Albemarle County... Carrsbrook 3 WNW 5.0 530 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter ...Arlington County... Ballston 1 SW 10.0 800 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Westover 1 SE 9.6 812 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Reagan National Apt 9.0 700 PM 1/13 Airport Ballston 1 SSW 8.3 800 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Arlington N 4.7 800 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter ...City of Alexandria... Alexandria 1 W 7.1 500 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Alexandria 1 ESE 7.0 506 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter ...City of Fairfax... Fairfax 1 N 9.2 657 PM 1/13 NWS Employee ...City of Falls Church... Falls Church SE 2.0 835 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter ...City of Manassas... Manassas 3 SSE 7.0 515 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter ...Clarke County... Berryville 1 NNW 6.9 655 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Berryville 1 NE 6.0 715 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter ...Culpeper County... Culpeper 2 WNW 6.1 500 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter ...Fairfax County... Merrifield 1 SE 10.5 730 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Chantilly 2 N 10.2 717 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Reston 2 N 10.1 730 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Wolf Trap S 9.9 825 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Langley 1 SE 9.6 800 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Baileys Crossroads 1 9.5 745 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Chantilly 2 ESE 9.4 556 PM 1/13 NWS Employee McLean 2 SW 9.2 658 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Chantilly 3 NE 9.2 630 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Oakton 1 NE 9.0 525 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Vienna 1 WNW 9.0 750 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Chantilly 3 N 9.0 616 PM 1/13 NWS Employee Reston 2 SW 8.9 630 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Rose Hill ENE 8.6 800 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Herndon 1 NNE 8.6 645 PM 1/13 NWS Employee Herndon 2 ENE 8.5 745 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter West Springfield 1 W 8.5 600 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Oakton 1 WSW 8.5 805 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Annandale S 8.1 548 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Chantilly 2 NNE 8.0 430 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Vienna 8.0 524 PM 1/13 Co-Op Observer Annandale 1 E 7.8 545 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Centreville W 7.7 640 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Lincolnia 2 S 7.6 700 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Chantilly 3 SE 7.5 430 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Franconia 1 SSW 7.1 520 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Fairfax Station 1 N 7.0 600 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Franconia 1 N 6.5 538 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter ...Fauquier County... Morrisville 1 SSE 5.3 630 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter ...Frederick County... Whitacre 1 ESE 8.5 530 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Stephens City 2 E 6.5 445 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Winchester 2 S 6.5 503 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter ...Loudoun County... Leesburg 1 ESE 10.8 822 PM 1/13 NWS Office Leesburg 2 E 10.0 605 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Leesburg 1 NNW 10.0 750 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Dulles International 9.6 700 PM 1/13 Airport Arcola 1 NNE 9.5 625 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Bluemont ENE 9.0 545 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Leesburg 2 NW 9.0 706 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Purcellville 1 SW 9.0 513 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Purcellville 8.6 800 PM 1/13 NWS Employee Countryside 3 ESE 7.1 542 PM 1/13 Public Hughesville 1 ESE 6.5 315 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Leesburg 2 WNW 6.3 500 PM 1/13 NWS Employee Upperville 2 SSE 3.2 645 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter ...Nelson County... Elma 2 SW 3.3 419 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter ...Orange County... Flat Run 1 N 5.5 730 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter ...Page County... Panorama 2 WSW 6.0 800 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Honeyville 1 ESE 5.0 455 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter ...Prince William County... Gainesville 2 SSE 7.5 645 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Nokesville 7.3 700 PM 1/13 NWS Employee Woolsey 2 WSW 7.2 440 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Dumfries 1 ENE 7.0 745 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Independent Hill 3 N 6.5 600 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Dale City 1 W 6.4 640 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Manassas 6.0 445 PM 1/13 NWS Employee ...Somerset County... Smith Island 5460 E 9.0 725 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter ...Stafford County... Glendie 2 SSE 6.4 700 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Aquia 1 NNE 6.0 615 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Holly Corner 1 ENE 5.7 609 PM 1/13 NWS Employee White Oak 5 SSW 5.0 530 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Ramoth 1 W 4.9 546 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Glendie 1 S 0.9 610 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter WEST VIRGINIA ...Berkeley County... Martinsburg 2 E 9.8 827 PM 1/13 NWS Employee Bunker Hill SE 6.0 525 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter ...Hampshire County... Capon Bridge 3 WSW 10.0 730 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter ...Hardy County... Wardensville 3 E 8.1 600 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter ...Jefferson County... Halltown 2 N 6.8 705 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter Bloomery 3 SSE 3.9 700 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter ...Morgan County... Smith Crossroads 1 W 4.7 820 PM 1/13 Trained Spotter &&

At 7 am, Washington, DC had picked up 4.3" snow. That is Washington, DC's biggest snowstorm since January 22-23, 2016 when 17.8" fell. The 4.3" snowfall brings Washington's seasonal snowfall to 5.7". As a result, winter 2018-19 now ranks as Washington's 118th snowiest winter on record. Prior to the ongoing storm, winter 2018-19 was that city's 133rd snowiest winter. By the time the storm ends, Washington, DC will likely have its snowiest winter since 2015-16 when 22.2" snow fell. Last winter, only 7.8" snow was recorded and only 3.4" fell during winter 2016-17.

But not for this storm. It shows the strength of the confluence to the north. Typically, when Washington picks up 6" or more, PHL does much better than what the NAM showed. Hopefully, the NAM's idea will verify, as the DC region has not had much snowfall during the past two prior winters.

The 12z NAM shows an unusual distribution of snowfall centered around Washington, DC (where I believe 3"-6" is likely with locally higher amounts). The NAM shows 10" or more snow at DCA, less than 3" at Philadelphia, and no snow at New York City (where I believe no measurable snow will be reported). The only storm since 1950 that had 8" or more at DCA, <3" at PHL, and no snow at New York City occurred on March 9-10, 1999. Accumulations during that storm were: Baltimore: 4.6" New York City: None Philadelphia: 0.1" Richmond: 0.8" Salisbury: 5.4" Sterling: 8.9" Washington, DC: 8.4"

That's correct.

And if there's no more snow this winter (extremely unlikely), Winter 2018-19 would be Richmond's 59th snowiest on record.

Richmond picked up 11.5" snow. All of last winter saw 12.4" snow fall at Richmond. Since 2000-2001, only 6 winters have had more snowfall than winter 2018-19. Overall, winter 2018-19 now ranks as Richmond's 59th snowiest. Since snowfall measurements were commenced, 8/21 (7%) of winters saw 30" or more snow. However, 2/7 (29%) of winters that had 10" or more snow through December wound up with 30" or more snow. 4/7 (57%) picked up 20" or more vs. 26/121 (21%) overall. In short, Richmond may be on track for a very snowy winter.

It was a fantastic storm; the 2nd biggest December snowstorm on record.

With 1.01" precipitation through 6:40 pm, Richmond's total storm total snowfall is likely between 11.0" and 12.0" assuming similar ratios to what had been achieved through 5 pm. With the 9.0" as of 5 pm, winter 2018-19 is already Richmond's 71st snowiest on record (if it does not snow again). With 11.0", winter 2018-19 would rank as Richmond's 61st snowiest on record.

It was an exciting storm and it was great to see RIC get into the heavy snow.