Chris L Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Easily 30+ inches of snow:http://newjerseyhills.com/the_progress/gallery/collection_85b005f6-3480-11e0-bf34-001cc4c002e0.html/?mode=gallery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpha5 Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 1888 still wins IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris L Posted February 13, 2011 Author Share Posted February 13, 2011 1888 had 30-40" in the same area, according to KU book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Analog96 Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Easily 30+ inches of snow:http://newjerseyhills.com/the_progress/gallery/collection_85b005f6-3480-11e0-bf34-001cc4c002e0.html/?mode=gallery Some of those trees actually look like there was some freezing rain involved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Analog96 Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 1888 still wins IMO Hard to tell, but based on those pics, it really looks like 1888 had a lot more snow than the publicized amount in NYC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthShoreWx Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Some of those trees actually look like there was some freezing rain involved? No way. They've got a couple mixed in from a different date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Analog96 Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 No way. They've got a couple mixed in from a different date. Those two pictures on the right definitely have a freezing rain look on the trees, especially the bottom one, which has downed branches. Perhaps they are from another storm and were labelled incorrectly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris L Posted February 13, 2011 Author Share Posted February 13, 2011 Those two pictures on the right definitely have a freezing rain look on the trees, especially the bottom one, which has downed branches. Perhaps they are from another storm and were labelled incorrectly. I saw them in the newspaper (The Progress of Caldwell) and it is likely heavy wet snow mixed with ZR at the end? They are for sure 1947. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Analog96 Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 I saw them in the newspaper (The Progress of Caldwell) and it is likely heavy wet snow mixed with ZR at the end? They are for sure 1947. That's odd. I can't see how 1947 could have been "heavy wet snow" or "freezing rain", because it dumped so much way down in Cape May. If there was freezing rain all the way into W Caldwell, there would have been a significant amount of plain rain in Cape May. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthShoreWx Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 That's odd. I can't see how 1947 could have been "heavy wet snow" or "freezing rain", because it dumped so much way down in Cape May. If there was freezing rain all the way into W Caldwell, there would have been a significant amount of plain rain in Cape May. Looking at old coop records from NJ, there may have been mixed precip / zr events on both 1/2/1948 and 1/13/1948. The snow cover in the zr photos could very well have been mainly leftover from 12/26/47, but the zr is from a different event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Analog96 Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Looking at old coop records from NJ, there may have been mixed precip / zr events on both 1/2/1948 and 1/13/1948. The snow cover in the zr photos could very well have been mainly leftover from 12/26/47, but the zr is from a different event. That makes more sense. The more I look at these two winters, the more similarities I keep finding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Per NJ Climatological Data for Jan., 1948, my guess would be that the glazing occurred on Jan. 1 and 2, based upon the following narrative in it: "Heavy glaze resulted from the rain and sleet on the 1st and 2nd, in all northern counties causing much damage to communication lines and trees of all kinds," and because Newark reported a total of 1.68" of precip. on those days (.90" on the 1st and .78" on the 2nd), with temps of 32/28 on the 1st and 35/30 on the 2nd. It looks like the 13th was primarily a rain event with Newark reporting 1.27" of precip. on that date with temps. of 35/33 (.09" also fell on the 12th with temps. of 37/18). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 That makes more sense. The more I look at these two winters, the more similarities I keep finding. In addition to HECS occurring on Dec. 26, and continuous snowcovers thereafter extending into mid. Feb., both winters were confronted with significant warm ups in mid Feb. Below were the temps. at Central Park in mid Feb., 1948: 12th--------13th-------14th---------15th---------16th----------17th--------18th---------19th--------20th 43/29......40/30.....53/31.......34/21........48/28........56/41.......56/39.......56/38.......56/24 Furthermore, at the end of Feb,, 1948, the total snowfall for the season at that point was 58.5," close to our present amount of 57.7." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle W Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 1947-78 snowfalls in Setauket Long island... 1.9" 12/4-5...0.19" 1.7" 12/11....0.17" 3.3" 12/23-24....0.33" 15.0" 12/26....1.31" 2.2" 1/1-3....0.98" 2.5" 1/7....0.13" 9.1" 1/13....1.97" 5.5" 1/18....0.55" 2.0" 1/21-22....0.83" 5.3" 1/24-25....0.53" 4.5" 2/4....0.28" 1.0" 2/6....0.05" 0.4" 2/8....0.04" 0.5" 2/12....0.26" 6.0" 2/22....0.28" 1.0" 2/28....0.60" 9.0" 3/2....0.97" 1.0" 3/4....0.05" 6.0" 3/10-11....1.00" 77.9"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 1947-78 snowfalls in Setauket Long island... 1.9" 12/4-5...0.19" 1.7" 12/11....0.17" 3.3" 12/23-24....0.33" 15.0" 12/26....1.31" 2.2" 1/1-3....0.98" 2.5" 1/7....0.13" 9.1" 1/13....1.97" 5.5" 1/18....0.55" 2.0" 1/21-22....0.83" 5.3" 1/24-25....0.53" 4.5" 2/4....0.28" 1.0" 2/6....0.05" 0.4" 2/8....0.04" 0.5" 2/12....0.26" 6.0" 2/22....0.28" 1.0" 2/28....0.60" 9.0" 3/2....0.97" 1.0" 3/4....0.05" 6.0" 3/10-11....1.00" 77.9"... Ok, so much for the similarities, if I think I understand the point of your post correctly, which is the amount of snowfall that Setauket received after the mid-Feb, warmup. And I would assume that you were referring to 1947/48. Btw, while Central Park did receive 13.6" in Feb., 1948 (I don't have the breakdown as to what portion of that occurred after the mid-Feb. warmup), it only received 4.7" in March, not the 16.0 that Setauket received. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle W Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Ok, so much for the similarities, if I think I understand the point of your post correctly, which is the amount of snowfall that Setauket received after the mid-Feb, warmup. And I would assume that you were referring to 1947/48. Btw, while Central Park did receive 13.6" in Feb., 1948 (I don't have the breakdown as to what portion of that occurred after the mid-Feb. warmup), it only received 4.7" in March, not the 16.0 that Setauket received. off the top of my head... 5.7" 2/22 0.7" 2/28 2.8" 3/2 1.3" 3/? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle W Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 NYC snow depth for 1947-48 and this year so far... 1947-48 and 2010-11 snow pack... date.....47-48....10-11 12/23.........2.........0 12/24.........2.........0 12/25.........1.........0 12/26.......26.......13 12/27.......25.......20 12/28.......24.......18 12/29.......22.......16 12/30.......20.......14 12/31.......17.......13 01/01.......15.......12 01/02.......15.......09 01/03.......15.......06 01/04.......14.......05 01/05.......13.......04 01/06.......14.......02 01/07.......15.......01 01/08.......13.......03 01/09.......10.......02 01/10.......10.......02 01/11.......09.......02 01/12.......08.......09 01/13.......08.......08 01/14.......07.......07 01/15.......07.......06 01/16.......07.......05 01/17.......07.......04 01/18.......09.......05 01/19.......09.......02 01/20.......08.......01 01/21.......09.......06 01/22.......10.......06 01/23.......10.......06 01/24.......13.......06 01/25.......13.......06 01/26.......12.......16 01/27.......12.......23 01/28.......11.......20 01/29.......10.......19 01/30.......10.......18 01/31.......09.......17 02/01.......08.......18 02/02.......08.......17 02/03.......08.......16 02/04.......12.......16 02/05.......13.......15 02/06.......13.......15 02/07.......13.......13 02/08.......12.......11 02/09.......12.......10 02/10.......11.......10 02/11.......12.......08 02/12.......09.......08 02/13.......08.......08 02/14.......07.......07 02/15.......06.......05 02/16.......05.......04 02/17.......03.......02 02/18.......02.......0 02/19.......T........0 02/20.......0.........0 02/21.......0.........03 02/22.......05 02/23.......03 02/24.......02 02/25.......T 02/26.......0 02/27.......0 02/28.......0 02/29.......0 03/01.......0 03/02.......02 03/03.......01 03/04.......01 03/05.......01 03/06.......T 03/07.......T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitchel Volk Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Amazing, seems like we are going down the same path. This pattern looks more like a typical LaNina. It was fun while it lasted; I was expecting an winter with above normal temps and below normal snow, so I am happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 off the top of my head... 5.7" 2/22 0.7" 2/28 2.8" 3/2 1.3" 3/? Maybe there's still hope, if you utilize these figures as an analog plus some potentially favorable model trends after the warmup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamarack Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Looking at old coop records from NJ, there may have been mixed precip / zr events on both 1/2/1948 and 1/13/1948. The snow cover in the zr photos could very well have been mainly leftover from 12/26/47, but the zr is from a different event. Sounds logical. Pics 1&4 have non-iced trees and huge snow and are probably from soon after the Dec event, while 2&3 show large snowbanks and icy trees. I'd guess 2&3 were from 1/3/48, when the sun came out following 1.5" or so of mixed precip. Most NNJ towns inland of EWR remained at/below 32 with only 1-3" snow recorded from all that 1/1-2 precip. (The 1/13 event had a bit less precip, slightly milder temps, and somewhat more snowfall.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.