December 2025 OBS and Discussion

[SACRUS]

Dec 28 1990 :  NYC 7.2 inches of snow had fallen overnight into the morning.

EWR: 7.6
LGA: 7.3
JFK: 6.1

 

 

[Stormlover74]

19 minutes ago, SACRUS said:

Dec 28 1990 :  NYC 7.2 inches of snow had fallen overnight into the morning.

EWR: 7.6
LGA: 7.3
JFK: 6.1

 

 

Nice overperforming storm. Forecast that morning was 1 to 3. Then upgraded to 3 to 6 in the afternoon and ended up with close to 8. 

[MANDA]

17 hours ago, IrishRob17 said:

They were tougher back then IMO. I’d bet people just put more layers on and kept the heat lower in general. I work with people that remote start their car from their work desk at the end of the day so the car is the perfect temp for them before they even open the car door to drive home. 25 degrees now after a high of 26 under gray skies and a decent snowpack, what a winter day. 

I do that 

Gone are the days of getting into an ice cold car.  

[MANDA]

2 hours ago, ForestHillWx said:

18/13 currently; it remains very picturesque outside with the snow still clinging to the trees. 

Same here.  No melting yesterday.  Snow depth yesterday morning was 2.8" and this morning 2.6" from a little compaction.  100% coverage and roof tops and trees still snow covered.

[NorthShoreWx]

2 hours ago, PhiEaglesfan712 said:

A shame how the 2001 season ended. The March snow bust really drags that year down because that's the lasting moment everyone remembers from that winter. If the snow bust happened on December 30 (2000) and the major storm happened in early March 2001, no one would care about the snow bust, and everyone would be talking about how 2001 was a decent winter.

Fair enough and most people feel that way, but out here we had 12 - 15" of snow from the March 2001 storm, so less than was forecasted at the time, but not a disaster imby.

[hooralph]

2 hours ago, PhiEaglesfan712 said:

A shame how the 2001 season ended. The March snow bust really drags that year down because that's the lasting moment everyone remembers from that winter. If the snow bust happened on December 30 (2000) and the major storm happened in early March 2001, no one would care about the snow bust, and everyone would be talking about how 2001 was a decent winter.

In Boston (proper) the 12/30/2000 was a horrific Blutarski 0.0 bust, so paired with the March storm (which was still impactful but not the son of '78 we were promised) they were kick-in-the-nuts bookends to the season.

[Dark Star]

16 hours ago, qg_omega said:

Climate is dynamic and ever changing, 1840s is not relevant

I don't know.  I feel that all recordable history events are valid and relevant.  I am in the minority that average temperatures should factor in from whenever we first started recording.  We use maximum and minimum temperatures from inception...

[hooralph]

3 minutes ago, Dark Star said:

I don't know.  I feel that all recordable history events are valid and relevant.  I am in the minority that average temperatures should factor in from whenever we first started recording.  We use maximum and minimum temperatures from inception...

Was watching the Ken Burns Revolutionary War series last night and they got to the winter of 1779-80. Hudson so frozen over you could just walk to New Jersey. Can you even imagine?

[EastonSN+]

2 minutes ago, Dark Star said:

I don't know.  I feel that all recordable history events are valid and relevant.  I am in the minority that average temperatures should factor in from whenever we first started recording.  We use maximum and minimum temperatures from inception...

I get the post. If we were going to make a forecast, why would we leverage 1840? Anything beyond 30 years will not help us make a seasonal or event forecast. 

[EastonSN+]

1 minute ago, hooralph said:

Was watching the Ken Burns Revolutionary War series last night and they got to the winter of 1779-80. Hudson so frozen over you could just walk to New Jersey. Can you even imagine?

That would be an absolute nightmare lol.

[psv88]

15 this morning 

[Picard]

12 minutes ago, EastonSN+ said:

I get the post. If we were going to make a forecast, why would we leverage 1840? Anything beyond 30 years will not help us make a seasonal or event forecast. 

I agree with using the latest 30 years as a valid forecasting tool, and those data sets are vitally important.
I also think we should have readily available longer term data sets to fully understand climate shifts over the last couple of centuries, including how man made factors are contributing to the documented warmth.  It's a climate vs. meteorology debate, and both are important.

[EastonSN+]

1 minute ago, Picard said:

I agree with using the latest 30 years as a valid forecasting tool, and those data sets are vitally important.
I also think we should have readily available longer term data sets to fully understand climate shifts over the last couple of centuries, including how man made factors are contributing to the documented warmth.  It's a climate vs. meteorology debate, and both are important.

History in general is useful, however, I just do not see the benefit from a forecasting perspective where we are trying to understand the upcoming patterns (this forum). I would personally 50 years is ideal, as I am seeing a lot of the 1970s, 80s and 90s repeat since 2018 (actually lived through 80s onward). 

There is a separate climate change forum where past information is highly relevant and should be discussed, as it can help us prepare for continued change (unless it stops or reverts).