“Cory’s in NYC! Let’s HECS!” Feb. 22-24 Disco

[moneypitmike]

I just passed one of the electronic highway message boards and it read “wicked big storm coming Sunday night prepare now”

[vortex95]

Given the big winds forecast for this upcoming storm, some points of reference for winds for the region's biggest non-tropical storms, at least in recent decades.  This is not all-inclusive, just what I recall off-hand.

One note on the data, standard wind measurements are typically taken w/ the anemometer 10 m (33 ft) above the ground.  That's how it is at airports for official NWS/FAA observations.  However, at many other wx stations, such as NWS/NOS/privately-run marine sites or personal wx stations, the heights can vary a lot.  Obviously, the higher the anemometer elevation from ground level, the higher the winds.

The highest recorded gust I know of in the last 50 years at an official NWS/FAA site is 108 mph at the Blue Hill Observatory (MQE) on 3/29/1984.  A gust of 97 mph was recorded on Martha's Vineyard in this storm.

Truro MA gusted to 113 mph on 10/21/2021.

110 mph gust at Scituate MA 2/6/1978.  Highest gust recorded at an NWS/FAA  location for this storm was 93 mph at Chatham MA (CHH).

Block Island gusted to 105 mph on 12/5/2005.  A gust to 101 mph occurred at Wellfleet MA from this same storm.

A gust to 97 mph at Falmouth MA (FMH) occurred on 4/19/1997.

Seabrook NH gusted to 94 mph 2/25/2010.  On this same day, Isles of Shoals (IOSN3) gusted to 91 mph.

For BOS, the highest gust recorded for any type of storm since 1954 is 81 mph on 3/13/1993.  BOS gusted to 79 mph on 2/6/1978 and 78 mph on 12/11/1992.

PWM highest gust on record (since 1940) was set on 2/25/2010 w/ 78 mph, but it may have been higher since there was a power failure.

Going back to the late 19th century, the greatest non-hurricane storm w/ the highest winds was "The Great Appalachian Storm" Nov 24-26, 1950.  This was an inside runner for New England, so extraordinarily strong southerly winds occurred.  What was most  remarkable was the gust to 110 mph at Concord NH.  Hartford CT had sustained winds of 70 mph w/ a peak gust of 100 mph.  Such high wind values are exceptional for inland locations that are not elevated!

 

 

[WalpoleJoe]

1 hour ago, weathafella said:

Just past midnight tonight.  Had to go through ATL with a 2 hour layover.  NAM is amazing and 3k even better!

Glad you are heading back Jerry. While it can't make up for you missing '78, hopefully it comes reasonably close for you, and us. After all these years, '78 is still the measuring stick, let's get close to it! 

[40/70 Benchmark]

19 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

Anyone SE of an ASH-HFD axis doesn’t have much to worry about unless youre being greedy and demand 2 feet. 

I agree...I'm stepping back from models a bit bc I'll only drive myself, and everyone else, nuts over whether I'm getting 12 or 24".

[Lucy Pull]

By hour 6 the difference in heights between the GFS and NAM is evident out in front. Heck they even look like they initialize substantially different.
 

[40/70 Benchmark]

14 minutes ago, NoCORH4L said:

The issue is they're all cutting back. Plus the closer in we get to go time, each model run is is more accurate than the last.  It's not like having a bad run 5 days before the storm. It's supposed to start snowing in 24 hrs. 

I mentioned last night, we don't know where the banding will set up yet....we think we know by looking at QPF charts, but we don't. March 2018 constantly had the big QPF near KPYM and I was near the gradient....31.5" later.....

If it keeps trending worse, okay issue...but this looks like wobbles to me...like John said, we've just maxed out on how far N this can get.

[40/70 Benchmark]

I will be shocked if 00z doesn't inch back N.

[weatherwiz]

33 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

Anyone SE of an ASH-HFD axis doesn’t have much to worry about unless youre being greedy and demand 2 feet. 

I'm greedy and want/hoping for 2 feet even though I'm not getting it. Getting 2 feet would get me ~40" from 100 and then hopefully cut that to 20" end of the week

[weatherwiz]

9 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I mentioned last night, we don't know where the banding will set up yet....we think we know by looking at QPF charts, but we don't. March 2018 constantly had the big QPF near KPYM and I was near the gradient....31.5" later.....

If it keeps trending worse, okay issue...but this looks like wobbles to me...like John said, we've just maxed out on how far N this can get.

This. 

Gotta be very careful with using QPF charts to diagnose banding. Intuitively it makes sense but this is where you have to look at mid-levels, how they're evolving, and how they're tracking. And with this that is part of why I think 18z GFS QPF is a bit underdone

[weathafella]

20 minutes ago, WalpoleJoe said:

Glad you are heading back Jerry. While it can't make up for you missing '78, hopefully it comes reasonably close for you, and us. After all these years, '78 is still the measuring stick, let's get close to it! 

Thanks man!  I’m excited and hope we’re not disappointed

[ineedsnow]

Euro much better at 18z

[RUNNAWAYICEBERG]

 

9 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I will be shocked if 00z doesn't inch back N.

yeah, and I’ll be shocked if the euro doesn’t tick northwest here soon.

[ineedsnow]

this was 12z

[bobbutts]

Hopefully the 2" or so I get on the 18z GFS is rock bottom here.  

[ineedsnow]

Just now, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said:

 

yeah, and I’ll be shocked if the euro doesn’t tick northwest here soon.

it just increased qpf a good amount

[dendrite]

AIFS a little SE

[dendrite]

Feels like we’re finally working toward a consensus 

[ChangeofSeasonsWX]

I've always said that at some point in my life I would like to see something IMBY that rivals 1978. I certainly don't expect every biggie to reach those numbers but someday it would be fun to experience that. For the Cape 2005 was bigger than 1978 and for CT I guess it would be Nemo or 1888. 1978 is still the benchmark in the PVD area and while I know that this one wont surpass it, maybe it would come close if these top tier solutions verified.

[FXWX]

21 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said:

Absolutely 

It does get to crazy in here... If folks think the modeling will stay stable run to run with the incredible multi-level dynamics in play, they are dreaming.  So the max snow zone shifts around a bit from run to run?  Has the big picture canvas changed?  Are the jet fields and orientation significantly different?  No, no and no!  Has the inflow potential changed to suggest lower qpf?  Has the potential for big meso banding features disappeared? Has the unstable look to the sounds changed?  Again, no, no and no.  Does that mean everyone gets a perfectly forecasted huge totals... No, because it rarely does.  Go study some of the snowfall totals from Kocin storms, including Feb 78... There is more varibility than most want to admit.  So relax and enjoy the storm whether you get 5" or 25"...  I see nothing uniquely different with this setup compared to other true biggies.  If it doesn't work out for your particular location, it's just the reality of a very complex atmosphere, not because of bad modeling.

 

 

 

[Damage In Tolland]

1 minute ago, FXWX said:

It does get to crazy in here... If folks think the modeling will stay stable run to run with the incredible multi-level dynamics in play, they are dreaming.  So the max snow zone shifts around a bit from run to run?  Has the big picture canvas changed?  Are the jet fields and orientation significantly different?  No, no and no!  Has the inflow potential changed to suggest lower qpf?  Has the potential for big meso banding features disappeared? Has the unstable look to the sounds changed?  Again, no, no and no.  Does that mean everyone gets a perfectly forecasted huge totals... No, because it rarely does.  Go study some of the snowfall totals from Kocin storms, including Feb 78... There is more varibility than most want to admit.  So relax and enjoy the storm whether you get 5" or 25"...  I see nothing uniquely different with this setup compared to other true biggies.  If it doesn't work out for your particular location, it's just the reality of a very complex atmosphere, not because of bad modeling.

 

 

 

Yup . There’s so much knee jerk reactions to qpf and never much analyzing deeper 

[Sey-Mour Snow]

1 minute ago, FXWX said:

It does get to crazy in here... If folks think the modeling will stay stable run to run with the incredible multi-level dynamics in play, they are dreaming.  So the max snow zone shifts around a bit from run to run?  Has the big picture canvas changed?  Are the jet fields and orientation significantly different?  No, no and no!  Has the inflow potential changed to suggest lower qpf?  Has the potential for big meso banding features disappeared? Has the unstable look to the sounds changed?  Again, no, no and no.  Does that mean everyone gets a perfectly forecasted huge totals... No, because it rarely does.  Go study some of the snowfall totals from Kocin storms, including Feb 78... There is more varibility than most want to admit.  So relax and enjoy the storm whether you get 5" or 25"...  I see nothing uniquely different with this setup compared to other true biggies.  If it doesn't work out for your particular location, it's just the reality of a very complex atmosphere, not because of bad modeling.

 

 

 

What your recollection of 1978 compared to this? There are surface maps floating around comparing this to the surface map of 78 with a 1049 high in the same exact spot in Canada and a stronger storm this go around in the same spot.

[Henry's Weather]

5 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said:

Yup . There’s so much knee jerk reactions to qpf and never much analyzing deeper 

When QPF gets better, we will rarely post upper-levels…

[dendrite]

1 minute ago, Damage In Tolland said:

Yup . There’s so much knee jerk reactions to qpf and never much analyzing deeper 

What’s up with the hyperbole today? We analyze model runs here…even the ones that aren’t the snowiest or the ones that tick SE. 

No one is saying the large scale features are changing. It’s just IMBY posts.

But I do get a kick out of latching onto the roided out mesos yet when they nuke into NNE they get tossed for being over done.

Never change weenies.

[SouthCoastMA]

Aside from the coastal effects, I think Feb 78 was a dud here, snowfall wise. My family lived in West Medford at the time, so I'm sure they got crushed there. 

It's going to be wild for a time here..and I'm going to have to rely on the ESandwich Coop for snow totals. 

[40/70 Benchmark]

8 minutes ago, FXWX said:

It does get to crazy in here... If folks think the modeling will stay stable run to run with the incredible multi-level dynamics in play, they are dreaming.  So the max snow zone shifts around a bit from run to run?  Has the big picture canvas changed?  Are the jet fields and orientation significantly different?  No, no and no!  Has the inflow potential changed to suggest lower qpf?  Has the potential for big meso banding features disappeared? Has the unstable look to the sounds changed?  Again, no, no and no.  Does that mean everyone gets a perfectly forecasted huge totals... No, because it rarely does.  Go study some of the snowfall totals from Kocin storms, including Feb 78... There is more varibility than most want to admit.  So relax and enjoy the storm whether you get 5" or 25"...  I see nothing uniquely different with this setup compared to other true biggies.  If it doesn't work out for your particular location, it's just the reality of a very complex atmosphere, not because of bad modeling.

 

 

 

I agree, but if I get 5", I'll break every single one of my kid's toys.

[Sey-Mour Snow]

1 minute ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I agree, but if I get 5", I'll break every single one of my kid's toys.

That was us in Juno 6-8" fell .. Forecast was 24-36" .. nws map had the 36-39" bullseye over my house still have the images on my phone for inspiration/rage when I need it.

[codfishsnowman]

5 minutes ago, FXWX said:

It does get to crazy in here... If folks think the modeling will stay stable run to run with the incredible multi-level dynamics in play, they are dreaming.  So the max snow zone shifts around a bit from run to run?  Has the big picture canvas changed?  Are the jet fields and orientation significantly different?  No, no and no!  Has the inflow potential changed to suggest lower qpf?  Has the potential for big meso banding features disappeared? Has the unstable look to the sounds changed?  Again, no, no and no.  Does that mean everyone gets a perfectly forecasted huge totals... No, because it rarely does.  Go study some of the snowfall totals from Kocin storms, including Feb 78... There is more varibility than most want to admit.  So relax and enjoy the storm whether you get 5" or 25"...  I see nothing uniquely different with this setup compared to other true biggies.  If it doesn't work out for your particular location, it's just the reality of a very complex atmosphere, not because of bad modeling.

 

 

 

1978 was nothing special in the Springfield area. The initial thump was solid but after that I am pretty sure the valley sucked exhaust for the next 24 hours before maybe a few parting storm snow showers. I think only 12 to 15 inches fell. BDL did a little better and my folks in Bristol CT swore it was close to two feet there. The big difference was all the blowing and drifting snow.

[Johnno]

Just now, Sey-Mour Snow said:

That was us in Juno 6-8" fell .. Forecast was 24-36" .. nws map had the 36-39" bullseye over my house still have the images on my phone for inspiration/rage when I need it.

Yea wasn’t that a Monday storm as well? Brutal day watching baking soda fall

[vortex95]

16 minutes ago, Sey-Mour Snow said:

What your recollection of 1978 compared to this? There are surface maps floating around comparing this to the surface map of 78 with a 1049 high in the same exact spot in Canada and a stronger storm this go around in the same spot.

The UA pattern is nothing even close to Feb 1978 for this event.  The 500 evolution for for the Blizzard of 78 was extraordinary, unlike any other in the KU cases.  You not only had a large cut-off low stall S of New England, but actually had a cut-off high at 500 form over western Canada at the same time.  No other E Coast snowstorm case has this kind of evolution.

And the Blizzard of 78 was a solid Miller B w/ a strong clipper system diving SE from the Great Lakes, and a secondary that formed N of the Bahamas.  This one is a hybrid A-B it seems w/ a complex 500 pattern.  No polar jet at all involved here.

Much more progressive pattern for this upcoming storm.  After the Blizzard of 78, that was it for the month for any sig precip in New England.  Pattern become blocked.

[ORH_wxman]

Just now, Sey-Mour Snow said:

That was us in Juno 6-8" fell .. Forecast was 24-36" .. nws map had the 36-39" bullseye over my house still have the images on my phone for inspiration/rage when I need it.

That was ridiculous and one of the worst busts in recent memory.
 

Though I’ll also say that those forecasts from OKX seemed a little crazy…I remember at the time we were all kind of wondering why so much faith in Euro…despite it being the best model. Lot of other mesos like the RGEM (which really nailed the death band) showed potential issues to the west. I don’t think any models showed 7” of snow there but some of them were more like 8-14” or so. Could’ve split the difference and went 1-2 feet and it wouldn’t have felt quite as bad.