Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    19,009
    Total Members
    49,013
    Most Online
    loganboehmewx
    Newest Member
    loganboehmewx
    Joined

The Allsnow Blizzard of 2026


Rjay
 Share

Recommended Posts

The final precipitation for NYC was 1.92". The NBM came closest while many of the global models, especially the ECMWF and UKMET badly underforecast the precipitation.

image.png.c2bf9bb97d865f5244b4e16d38592ad0.png

The QPF and snowfall amounts were trimmed further by 6z on February 22. Some of the social media "forecasters" chased the models into a dead-end and missed the much larger magnitude of snowfall. As noted previously, social media (and increasingly TV) isn't a good source of credible weather information. Anyone can play forecaster where meteorological knowledge is superficial, hype reigns and verification is non-existent.

A potent clue that the "low-balled" idea was a bad one rest in the storm's forecast dynamics. Explosively deepening and super intense storms have very efficient and powerful dynamics that maximize snowfall. One saw such a case during February 11-12, 2006. The blizzard's dynamics outran the models and the forecasts. What had been expected to be about a foot of snow in NYC wound up being 26.9". Forecast amounts were increased several times when the blizzard was underway.  

The region experienced a top-tier blizzard.

image.thumb.png.49850acdae8d798cfb917b09e14ba915.png

Newark experienced its first-ever case of two consecutive days with 10.0" or above snowfall: February 22: 10.1"; February 23: 17.1". Records go back to May 1843.

In terms of verification, I had several large errors (4" or more outside of the forecast range), as the snowfall was far more intense in Islip and Providence than I had forecast. That intense banding was likely somewhere on Long Island and Rhode Island/southeast Massachusetts was not the issue. Placement of the banding was the issue for me. Even with today's mesoscale guidance, the placement of banding often isn't possible until the storm is underway and the banding is developing/has developed.

image.png.1bfb556e9aadf79f9d2ba83fca7f167d.png

The NWS did a terrific job in its forecasting. Mount Holly's, Taunton's, and Upton's discussions and forecasts were outstanding in advance of the storm and throughout the storm.

Finally, the blizzard lifted winter 2025-2026 into a Top 25 place for New York City where records go back to Winter 1869-1870. Additional snowfall would lock in a Top 25-Top 30 ranking.

image.png.784705f34e0deda2f489aec192e7f83b.png

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 4
  • clap 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone please tell me what happened with the RGEM though? I was tracking it all Sunday into Sunday night. It busted dry everywhere, and we’re talking runs while the storm is happening. It almost looked like a glitch. Its hires version did better. Just for example here was the rgem/hires rgem 6z run for MA/RI. Ridiculous.

cafcb40499c466cc901c6070d1b5c67c.gif

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought my 16-18” measurements were off when I saw ISP’s almost 30” report, but I’m over here by ISP now and you can see the difference, the piles and drifts are generally much larger.

Very difficult storm to measure, my numbers could still be off, I’ve seen similar totals reported close by, but also higher totals nearby. Very high impact storm either way.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Cfa said:

I thought my 16-18” measurements were off when I saw ISP’s almost 30” report, but I’m over here by ISP now and you can see the difference, the piles and drifts are generally much larger.

Very difficult storm to measure, my numbers could still be off, even though I’ve seen similar totals reported close by. Very high impact storm either way.

Crazy how widespread the 20"+ was with this storm in Suffolk. 

You can also see of areas around ISP with similar totals.

 

0310 PM 02/23   Cocorahs

...Suffolk County...
Central Islip                31.0 in   0140 PM 02/23   Trained Spotter
1 NNW East Islip             30.0 in   0140 PM 02/23   Fire Dept/Rescue
North Patchogue              30.0 in   0135 PM 02/23   Public
1 SW Babylon                 29.5 in   1124 AM 02/23   Amateur Radio
Islip                        29.1 in   0100 PM 02/23   Official NWS Obs
1 WNW Holbrook               29.0 in   1200 PM 02/23   Public
1 W Nesconset                28.8 in   1243 PM 02/23
1 W Shirley Airport          28.5 in   0119 PM 02/23   Public
Bay Shore                    28.2 in   1200 PM 02/23   NWS Employee
Montauk                      28.1 in   1230 PM 02/23   Public
2 N Medford                  27.8 in   0300 PM 02/23   Trained Spotter
2 SE East Farmingdale        27.5 in   0330 PM 02/23   Trained Spotter
Remsenburg-Speonk            27.5 in   1013 AM 02/23   Public
Fort Salonga 1.5 SSE         27.2 in   0230 PM 02/23   COCORAHS
Orient Point                 26.5 in   0300 PM 02/23   COOP
1 SSE Quogue                 26.0 in   0934 AM 02/23   Public
1 NE Southampton             26.0 in   0250 PM 02/23   Public
2 NNW Islip                  25.3 in   0221 PM 02/23   Public
2 NNW Lindenhurst            25.0 in   1139 AM 02/23   Fire Dept/Rescue
2 ENE Shinnecock Hills       25.0 in   1114 AM 02/23
Bay Shore                    24.7 in   1230 PM 02/23   COCORAHS
Lindenhurst                  24.3 in   0300 PM 02/23   Public
4 WSW Davis Park             24.2 in   0200 PM 02/23   Public
Babylon                      24.0 in   1242 PM 02/23   Amateur Radio
2 NNW Ridge                  24.0 in   1000 AM 02/23   Trained Spotter
2 NW Southampton             24.0 in   0911 AM 02/23   Public
1 NNE Islandia               23.5 in   0100 PM 02/23   Public
Mattituck                    23.3 in   0130 PM 02/23   Trained Spotter
2 E Flanders                 23.0 in   0137 PM 02/23   Public
1 ESE Hauppauge              23.0 in   0330 PM 02/23   Public
1 S Islip Terrace            23.0 in   1130 AM 02/23   Trained Spotter
Islip Terrace 0.5 W          23.0 in   0900 AM 02/23   COCORAHS
1 NE Lake Ronkonkoma         23.0 in   1104 AM 02/23   NWS Employee
2 SW Middle Island           23.0 in   1014 AM 02/23
Selden 1.6 ESE               23.0 in   0130 PM 02/23   COCORAHS
West Islip                   22.8 in   0200 PM 02/23   Trained Spotter
Manorville                   22.0 in   0205 PM 02/23   Public
1 SW Shelter Island          21.1 in   1000 AM 02/23   Amateur Radio
1 SE East Northport          21.0 in   0200 PM 02/23   Public
2 ENE Ridge                  20.7 in   0124 PM 02/23   Trained Spotter
Oakdale                      20.5 in   0200 PM 02/23   Trained Spotter
3 WNW Riverhead              20.2 in   0630 PM 02/23   NWS Employee
1 ESE East Patchogue         20.0 in   0300 PM 02/23   NWS Employee
Nesconset                    20.0 in   0940 AM 02/23   COCORAHS

 

  • Like 1
  • 100% 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Stormlover74 said:

Already down to 10 to 12" snowpack. Amazing how the February sun and content of the snow is so different this time around

since my dogs got used to walking on top of the other snow pack, they thought they could do the same this time, with disastrous results....poodle hair is like velcro for snow....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

The final precipitation for NYC was 1.88". The NBM came closest while many of the global models, especially the ECMWF and UKMET badly underforecast the precipitation.

image.png.c2bf9bb97d865f5244b4e16d38592ad0.png

The QPF and snowfall amounts were trimmed further by 6z on February 22. Some of the social media "forecasters" chased the models into a dead-end and missed the much larger magnitude of snowfall. As noted previously, social media (and increasingly TV) isn't a good source of credible weather information. Anyone can play forecaster where meteorological knowledge is superficial, hype reigns and verification is non-existent.

A potent clue that the "low-balled" idea was a bad one rest in the storm's forecast dynamics. Explosively deepening and super intense storms have very efficient and powerful dynamics that maximize snowfall. One saw such a case during February 11-12, 2006. The blizzard's dynamics outran the models and the forecasts. What had been expected to be about a foot of snow in NYC wound up being 26.9". Forecast amounts were increased several times when the blizzard was underway.  

The region experienced a top-tier blizzard.

image.thumb.png.88064dd7e918a3bedf0736ab445a006a.png

In terms of verification, I had several large errors (4" or more outside of the forecast range), as the snowfall was far more intense in Islip and Providence than I had forecast. That intense banding was likely somewhere on Long Island and Rhode Island/southeast Massachusetts was not the issue. Placement of the banding was the issue for me. Even with today's mesoscale guidance, the placement of banding often isn't possible until the storm is underway and the banding is developing/has developed.

image.png.1bfb556e9aadf79f9d2ba83fca7f167d.png

The NWS did a terrific job in its forecasting. Mount Holly's, Taunton's, and Upton's discussions and forecasts were outstanding in advance of the storm and throughout the storm.

Finally, the blizzard lifted winter 2025-2026 into a Top 25 place for New York City where records go back to Winter 1869-1870. Additional snowfall would lock in a Top 25-Top 30 ranking.

image.png.784705f34e0deda2f489aec192e7f83b.png

Don, since this winter in NYC has jumped into the top 25 rankings when you can would you mind posting the top 30 per your rankings. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2/22-3 NE Blizzard: indices

1. PNA -1.2

2. AO +0.2 (neutral)

3. NAO +1.1

4-5. EPO/WPO: strongly negative

6. MJO inside circle both days

2/22: phase 3 

2/23: phase 4

7. AAM: -0.9 (moderate La Niñaish)

8. SOI: +6

9. PDO: negative

10. QBO (30 mb): strongly negative

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

The final precipitation for NYC was 1.92". The NBM came closest while many of the global models, especially the ECMWF and UKMET badly underforecast the precipitation.

image.png.c2bf9bb97d865f5244b4e16d38592ad0.png

The QPF and snowfall amounts were trimmed further by 6z on February 22. Some of the social media "forecasters" chased the models into a dead-end and missed the much larger magnitude of snowfall. As noted previously, social media (and increasingly TV) isn't a good source of credible weather information. Anyone can play forecaster where meteorological knowledge is superficial, hype reigns and verification is non-existent.

A potent clue that the "low-balled" idea was a bad one rest in the storm's forecast dynamics. Explosively deepening and super intense storms have very efficient and powerful dynamics that maximize snowfall. One saw such a case during February 11-12, 2006. The blizzard's dynamics outran the models and the forecasts. What had been expected to be about a foot of snow in NYC wound up being 26.9". Forecast amounts were increased several times when the blizzard was underway.  

The region experienced a top-tier blizzard.

image.thumb.png.49850acdae8d798cfb917b09e14ba915.png

Newark experienced its first-ever case of two consecutive days with 10.0" or above snowfall: February 22: 10.1"; February 23: 17.1". Records go back to May 1843.

In terms of verification, I had several large errors (4" or more outside of the forecast range), as the snowfall was far more intense in Islip and Providence than I had forecast. That intense banding was likely somewhere on Long Island and Rhode Island/southeast Massachusetts was not the issue. Placement of the banding was the issue for me. Even with today's mesoscale guidance, the placement of banding often isn't possible until the storm is underway and the banding is developing/has developed.

image.png.1bfb556e9aadf79f9d2ba83fca7f167d.png

The NWS did a terrific job in its forecasting. Mount Holly's, Taunton's, and Upton's discussions and forecasts were outstanding in advance of the storm and throughout the storm.

Finally, the blizzard lifted winter 2025-2026 into a Top 25 place for New York City where records go back to Winter 1869-1870. Additional snowfall would lock in a Top 25-Top 30 ranking.

image.png.784705f34e0deda2f489aec192e7f83b.png

Don, you have 27.2" for EWR as the PNS was saying yesterday but the two daily climate reports and the CF6 total 25,2" (8.1 + 17.1) ... do you think the official data will change to the 27.2" value? It affects scoring in the contest to some extent. 

I tried 21.0 instead of 19.7 for NYC and that makes very little difference as I report in more detail in the contest thread. 

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Roger Smith said:

Don, you have 27.2" for EWR as the PNS was saying yesterday but the two daily climate reports and the CF6 total 25,2" (8.1 + 17.1) ... do you think the official data will change to the 27.2" value? It affects scoring in the contest to some extent. 

I tried 21.0 instead of 19.7 for NYC and that makes very little difference as I report in more detail in the contest thread. 

Thanks.

Roger,

NWS updated the NOWdata to show 27.2"

image.png.e5db047d0ceccbb72b9c379c970ffd5e.png

https://www.weather.gov/wrh/Climate?wfo=okx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, andyhb said:

So is Central Park just going to pretend that the 0.15" of liquid after their 1 PM observation of 19.7" didn't exist or...

I've emailed the NWS with the 2 pm PNS (showing the 1 pm measurement) and the additional precipitation that fell afterward. My concern is that by the time Central Park measured at 7 pm, the additional snowfall had melted as the temperature had risen above freezing. Therefore, Central Park measured no additional snowfall. They should take the final measurement once the snow stops falling. My guess is that they waited until 7 pm.

  • Like 4
  • 100% 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

I've emailed the NWS with the 2 pm PNS (showing the 1 pm measurement) and the additional precipitation that fell afterward. My concern is that by the time Central Park measured at 7 pm, the additional snowfall had melted as the temperature had risen above freezing. Therefore, Central Park measured no additional snowfall. They should take the final measurement once the snow stops falling. My guess is that they waited until 7 pm.

I sent an email too. It’s just unacceptable in my opinion but oh well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More on the PNA that was -1.2 for this blizzard:
 

20 NYC 5”+ snows for Feb -ENSO since 1950: PNA

2/1/57 -1.2

2/7/67 +0.7

2/19/72 -0.5

2/23-4/72 -0.5

2/8/74 -0.2

2/12/75 -0.8

2/7/79 -1.1

2/19/79 -0.1

2/5-6/85 -0.8

2/2-3/96 +0.7

2/16/96 -0.4

2/22/01 +0.4

2/12/06 +1.7

2/22/08 +0.7

2/8-9/13 +0.4

2/3/14 -1.1

2/13-14/14 -1.0

2/9/17 +0.7

2/1/21 0.0

2/22-23/26 -1.2

——————

Median -0.2

Mean -0.2


 -So, this latest one tied with 2/1/1957 for the lowest PNA for a Feb -ENSO NYC 5”+ snowstorm since 1950.

-Note that DC, which hasn’t done as well as NYC with a -PNA for a similar category of storms, didn’t reach the 3”+ criteria that I use for them.

@donsutherland1

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

We'll see what happens. Even a few tenths of an inch would have large ranking implications.

image.png.f0bc7c517854ba49b7717bd992a2b7bd.png

This is going to be another Jan 2016 situation isnt it. A month from now itll change to 20.X. 

They definitely got more accumulating snow after 1pm but won't change it?

  • 100% 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Stormlover74 said:

Already down to 10 to 12" snowpack. Amazing how the February sun and content of the snow is so different this time around

Jan + 1-2" of sleet on top of 10-12" snowpack + arctic temps afterwards = glacier. 

This storm was late Feb with snow only and temps 29-31F and now 30s and 40s for highs. 

The only time I can recall a snow pack holding strong like a glacier in late winter was 2015. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...