"Don’t do it" 2026 Blizzard obs, updates and pictures.

[Greg]

I don't mean to be or sound like a jackass, but Corey does make a fairly good point here. Not to mention he went around several towns and did a measurement himself. That snow down there was more dense than fluffy. The compaction would not go down that fast even after about 12 hours, trust me. But it appears that because of the wind and also what Corey showed us as he approached Warwick Airport with that big drift to one side of the road which we could all clearly see, I believe the errors may have been due to the drifting and measuring old snow depth included. (Snow on the ground before the storm) Even Corey showed us that when he stuck the ruler into a drift it came out to 30" where he is located in his town which is pretty close to the 32"officially reported. That really leads me to believe many may have measured the drifts vs the flatter/settled snowfall. This also doesn't have to do with any 6-hour measurements of wiping off the board which I'm personally not a fan of but that's another story.

[dendrite]

PVD had a 37” depth gain and reported “only” 37.9” new

[WxWatcher007]

Is this like when Cranky thought Hurricane Michael was a cat 2?  

I’m laughing but I honestly don’t know. 

[ChangeofSeasonsWX]

1 hour ago, Greg said:

I don't mean to be or sound like a jackass, but Corey does make a fairly good point here. Not to mention he went around several towns and did a measurement himself. That snow down there was more dense than fluffy. The compaction would not go down that fast even after about 12 hours, trust me. But it appears that because of the wind and also what Corey showed us as he approached Warwick Airport with that big drift to one side of the road which we could all clearly see, I believe the errors may have been due to the drifting and measuring old snow depth included. (Snow on the ground before the storm) Even Corey showed us that when he stuck the ruler into a drift it came out to 30" where he is located in his town which is pretty close to the 32"officially reported. That really leads me to believe many may have measured the drifts vs the flatter/settled snowfall. This also doesn't have to do with any 6-hour measurements of wiping off the board which I'm personally not a fan of but that's another story.

Keep in mind also that even the day after the storm we had a lot of direct sun and it was also very warm. It nearly cracked 40 degrees around here! So you have to take into account not only natural compaction but also the relatively warm temperatures and bright sunshine the next day.

Is it possible that some people measured drifts and/or old snow? Of course. But I feel like the people who do the official measurements at TF Green know how to avoid those issues? Considering the fact that their measurements affect the official records you would think that they know what they're doing. 

For what's its worth, I measured a relatively flat area on my sidewalks with no drifts and no old snow and it was 31", and I wasn't even in the area of the absolute heaviest snow! That was from like Providence to the Fall River area. So I could see people getting around 36" since they were in that band of very heavy snow for longer than me.

[ChangeofSeasonsWX]

16 minutes ago, WxWatcher007 said:

Is this like when Cranky thought Hurricane Michael was a cat 2?  

I’m laughing but I honestly don’t know. 

I think that a lot of people are still sore over the fact that they had the rug pulled on them at the last minute and they can't accept the outcome. I get it...it sucks and I would've been disappointed too if I missed out on a 1978 redux. But trying to invalidate the official measurements just to make yourself feel like you didn't miss out on it is not the solution either.

[Cobalt]

2 hours ago, tunafish said:

What a tremendous narcissist OP is. Wow.

The self-listing of accolades under the Youtube bio tells the whole story

by the way, those 4 "TED Talks" are a subset called TedX talks. Basically anyone can apply for one of those so long as they have an interesting story, no accolades or anything required. Someone could probably do one on the ups and downs of being on this board lmao

[tunafish]

I wasn't even talking about his theory, I just think he is a gigantic turd.  

But now that we're talking about it... am I supposed to believe that all those observers conspired together to inflate their totals, via selective drift measurements, and that almost all of them reporting damn close to double what dipstick is saying?

And the other guy in here thinks it's people were trying make the storm live up to the hype after the 'rug pull', just so they dont feel like they missed out on a generational storm?  Wut?

Do I think those measurements are 100% accurate, definitely not, but I'm talking within 15-25% of reality. You could convince me of the higher end, but not broadly.  But dozens of people reporting 100% more than "what really fell" is ridiculous to me.

Also highly doubt the NWS tried earnestly to convince him he had a higher total.  Impressive display of narcissistic personality disorder, really.

I think this is a guy who has a history of overreaction when it comes to jackpots and him missing out.  He was having epic meltdowns leading up to this event.  I dont think he can handle missing the earlier event this season and the jack on this.  If I can't have it nobody can'd.

[vortex95]

8 hours ago, MJO812 said:

 

Really tired of these kind of statements from various media outlets and organizations (not upset at you MJO812 ), as if it is AK vs. the rest of U.S. for cold/snow, and anything in the CONUS for cold/snow that "outdoes" AK means it is significant.  These kind of statements are more for content and engagement bait that drives the social media algorithm than anything else.

Anchorages avg winter snowfall is 76.4" and so far this season, they have 65.6" as shown above.  However, what they conveniently leave out on the infographic is that avg season-to-date snowfall for Anchorage is 61.4".  So nothing unusual going on in Anchorage for snowfall this snow season.  And Anchorage for a location in AK for snow is relatively "low" for the state as a whole, so not a good comparison location.

Bu the general public doesn't know that.  They think AK is all cold/snow to the extreme.  See what's going on here?  Make more out of what it really is, or turning the ordinary into the extraordinary for wx (all too often done these days by the MSM).

It's the same for temps, and this created hype has already happened this winter.  Well, we all know that when it CONUS is very cold, AK is often very mild, so temps warmer in AK in the winter than say in the Deep South are not uncommon.

Why don't they compare Fairbanks for snowfall?  That's b/c they have had 89" so far this winter.  Well, that won't work for hype, will it?  Must be nice to cherry-pick locations to "force" significance.

And there have been a significant number of winter seasons where locations in southern New England have outdone the larger cities in AK, so again, how is this a big deal in the large pix?

 

[vortex95]

22 hours ago, ChangeofSeasonsWX said:

Yeah I feel bad for areas north and west of us that got the rug pulled last minute. It really is a shame considering what the models were showing at first. This was a 1 in 200 year event for this area and I would've been extremely disappointed if I had the rug pulled on my area as well.

The worst part about experiencing a storm like this is knowing that nothing else will ever top it. I got 31" IMBY which is the most I've ever seen and nothing else comes close. I mean, PVD broke its all-time record by 9.3" which is beyond insane. The odds of us seeing something like this again around here is like zero. ORH saw over 30" in 1992, 1997 and 2015. You guys have a better shot at seeing 30" again.

Several meteorologists talked about how this storm hit the “Goldilocks situation" of just the right temperature for wet heavy snow and claim that if it tracked any farther inland that it would've lost a lot of its moisture and not dropped as much snow. I'm not sure how valid it is but this article was an interesting read: https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/blizzard-snow-storm-science/3905033/%3f

You have to wonder if climate change keeps increasing the amount of moisture in these storms, maybe someday we will see more mega QPF bombs like this one. It just has to take the perfect track to crush everyone.

The below is a bit of a rant, but I know the snow weenies of this forum will appreciate detailed and proper meteorology when it comes to snowstorms!   And I cannot emphasize this enough, when you know wx history so you can quote examples to support your position/argument, it makes a huge difference (see "one size does not fit all" statement below). 

Concerning the link in the quoted post.

 "Goldilocks situation" -- first I have heard of this label concerning a snowstorm, at least for track.  The Blizzard of '78 tracked farther NW, and look what the did, snowfall heavier both in absolute totals and areal coverage. 
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/monitoring-content/snow-and-ice/rsi/nesis/19780205-19780207-5.78.jpg

There are other cases, of course.

There is no studies or literature I am aware of that say, "if a low pressure takes X track, that means the max amount of snow will be Y" or "X temps present, then Y snow."  Actually, when you think about it meteorologically, these statements are ridiculous IMHO.  Low pressure track is one of *many* factors for total snowfall, and can't be treated in a vacuum.  The list is long, and I know the weenies here know the below, but worthy laying out anyways!

1) High pressure - Its position, NW, N, or NE?  How strong/expansive?  Is there even a high? (there are a few KU cases where *no* high existed).
2)  UA jet structure/features -  Is it just the PJ involved (northern stream), or the STJ (southern stream), or both?  Is it a full phase of both jets (or s/w trofs)?  Position of entrance/exit regions of the jets? When/where does this phase occur relative to the location of interest?
3) Antecedent air mass - How cold is it pre-storm?  Low-level cold only or deep layer cold?  Is there any cold at all pre-storm? (we know about that -- look at the Blizzard of '97!).
4) Size - How large is the storm, both sfc and aloft?  Is it just a little "dent" at 500 (Feb 1983), or a massive 5 contour 500 cut-off (May 1977)?
5) RI - At what lat/lon does the RI take place, if any RI at all?  RI is not required, neither is an intense sfc low - see the big snowstorm last month.
6) Speed/direction - Does the storm stall/slow/loop or move along?  And slow movement for a blockbuster is not required.  Look at the Bliz of '93.  As typical w/ Gulf waves, it *flew* NE!

And then you get the weird outliers, like March 8-9, 2013 (a CoastalWx fav).  Low pressure 600 mi SE of ACK and yet 1-2 ft in parts of SNE.  MQE gets 29.8" for a top 5 snowstorm (up to the time).  So how does the work for a track correlation?

The point is there is no "one size fits all" for snowstorms, and wx in general.  Oh, we try to force things into such categories/classes, but nature doesn't give a hoot about what we try to do or think!

And the article linked, in general, it has some glaring generalizations and glosses over important details, as to dilute things down for general public consumption?  But it not just about things being diluted, some things are factually wrong or overstated/exaggerated.

"The nor'easter quickly intensified to easily qualify as a “bomb cyclone" and featured thundersnow and lightning, two things rarely seen in snowstorms."

First, "thundersnow and lightning" treated as two things?  Well, you can't have one w/ the other.  Saying "lightning" in this case is superfluous.  If you have thunder, you *have* to have lightning, so just say "thundersnow."  Second, thundersnow is not rare in snowstorms, or not as rare as claimed to be.  Sure, at any *one* location it is rare, but when you include the entire areal coverage of the snow and the existence of the storm itself?

"An unusual combination of winter and summer weather — thundersnow and lightning — flashed at times with this storm, thrilling meteorologists on air. That's because “you only see it in the most intense winter storms,”

Where does it say thundersnow is only seen in the most intense winter storms?  The famous Dec 1996 Cantore ORH video, that nor'easter was pretty avg for a winter storm for intensity.  And based on what?  Central pressure?, max winds?, total snowfall?  You don't need an intense storm to get CSI and thus slantwise convection for thundersnow.

The article mentions it if were any colder there would not been as much moisture in the air to feed that snowfall.  Really?  Anyone ever hear of the fluff factor and snow ratios?  How about what happened in Jan-Feb 2015 in SNE, for that snowblitz, it was unusually *cold* for so much snow, and all-time records were set.  So absolute total moisture availability is not always a deciding factor, neither are temps!

 "A little farther inland and its would have lost its ocean energy" 

Huh?  Are we talking about tropical cyclones or baroclinic winter storms?  And since when is "ocean energy" required for intense blizzards and snowfalls?  See the OH Valley Jan 1978 blizzard (957 mb) or November 1950 Appalachia monster (62" in WV).

I could go on and on, but you get the idea!
 

[vortex95]

On 2/24/2026 at 9:38 PM, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said:

Yes, we all would have. Someday again, it will happen…

Talking about low track, this storm was a bit odd.  It tracked just outside the benchmark, yet you look at the SNE snowfall plot (attached), things stand out.

To have ptype issues or lacking big snowfalls on the Outer Cape, and yet heavy snow lacking once you get to the NH border and in the Berks, and monster totals "wedged" in-between, is atypical for a New England snowstorm.

Typically, if the S+ does not make it into NH or Berks, there are *no* ptype issues in SNE or any issues are corrected quickly due to the ageostrophic flow/backing winds as the low wraps up well to the S and SE, so even the Outer Cape will do just fine, at least later in the winter season.

Sure, PVD gets an all-time snowfall smashed, but BOS/ORH/CEF/BDL not even top 10, in fact, not even *close* for any of these cities?  That's quite a disparity, probably the biggest one on record for a New England snowstorm.

So in some ways, this was *not* a classic snowstorm for SNE or New England.  The storm's big S+ area was rather confined and small N and NW of the low center, and the models overdid the big amounts in Berks and srn VT/NH until the last minute.  I was confident 15-25" would make it into these areas, why not?, based on the track of the sfc low, that's what you'd expect! 

Do I sound pedantic?  Well, the details count here, as they do in all sciences.  Subtle differences not so obvious can and are *huge* as to sensible wx for an event.  I go back to my previous (long) post on this thread, "one size does not fit all" and thus you can't gloss over any event calling it "perfect" or "classic" or "what it should be."  That's not how the wx, climate, and atmosphere work.

One explanation I think for the odd snowfall pattern/gradient is the cut-off 500 low stayed well offshore.  For the best expansive comma head S+, you want sfc low right near the benchmark, but the 500 low to pass right over or very close to the BOS-ORH-BDL-PVD zone.  You get the biggest height falls and max dynamic cooling aloft, so "part 2" of the storm (no mdt-hvy snow break though) is solid fluffier, more convectively-driven snow.

In this case, the 500 low as it passed SNE was almost co-located w/ the sfc low.  That's not common for a classic blockbuster for New England.  Why was that?  Well, no blocking over NAMR for one.  In fact, deep 500 low near Greenland!  Second, no polar jet at all.  Just one big solid jet across the cntrl/srn CONUS.  Hard pressed to call it a STJ though!  And remember, some posts I saw elsewhere on this, the CONUS pattern 2 before the storm, it was pointed out, "does this look like a 500 flow over the CONUS and a blizzard on the E Coast 2 days later???  (attached is the 2/20 12z 500 analysis).  Where is your cold confluence over the NEUS?  No Hudson Bay vortex!  See what I mean, non-standard not just in the smaller-scale for the event itself, but the larger-scale across NAMR!!!  Third, the 500 low itself, going by its last closed contour, was rather small.  Look at 18z 2/23 GFS 500 analysis below.  The last closed contour extended only from central ME to about RIC's latitude.  Also, the elongated of the trough as a whole to the SW?, again, not something you see typical for a KU!

Comments?
 

[ChangeofSeasonsWX]

6 hours ago, tunafish said:

And the other guy in here thinks it's people were trying make the storm live up to the hype after the 'rug pull', just so they dont feel like they missed out on a generational storm?  Wut?

You misunderstood what I said. You should read my posts again. I said nothing about people trying to make the storm live up to the hype after the rug pull. Actually the opposite. I think that people are trying to "downgrade" the storm after the rug pull and convince themselves and other people that the totals down south were erroneous and inflated, because it makes them feel better like they didn't miss out on a generational event.

[TauntonBlizzard2013]

Mentioned to Bob and Matt yesterday. No mail, amazon, fedex, ups, etc around here: everything had just stopped 

[CoastalWx]

10 minutes ago, TauntonBlizzard2013 said:

Mentioned to Bob and Matt yesterday. No mail, amazon, fedex, ups, etc around here: everything had just stopped 

Don’t you live on a private road in the swamp?

[CoastalWx]

Some of the stories I heard about plows stopping in the middle of the road and then front end loaders needed is exactly what I experienced on 4/1/97. Where I was had a massive plow just stop because he could not push the snow anymore. Waited two days for a front end loader to come. 

[dendrite]

Fake news. CPez said it didn’t happen.

[Cold Miser]

Well, You have to hand it to @TheSnowman, he talked the talk and walked the walk and did his post blizzard tour.  It is interesting that not one 30" measurement, or even 24" measurement is seen, 12 and 24 hours later.  No one thinks there's some crazy conspiracy theory, but measuring through old crusty snow or in drifts may have happened at some of the locations.  

Side note, It must be nice to have that kind of time to take those snow measuring tours. 

He's lucky this storm didn't happen on Grammy Award weekend.   

[dendrite]

Those rates were large enough that there was a period where they were racking up high ratio snows. Compaction is real especially with big totals like that. I think it’s a little insulting to assume everyone in that 30”+ zone doesn’t know how to measure new snowfall…especially paid, trained observers at PVD. 

[dendrite]

PVD depth is 31” this morning…so they’ve lost 11” since near the end of the peak of the storm.

[ORH_wxman]

5 minutes ago, dendrite said:

Those rates were large enough that there was a period where they were racking up high ratio snows. Compaction is real especially with big totals like that. I think it’s a little insulting to assume everyone in that 30”+ zone doesn’t know how to measure new snowfall…especially paid, trained observers at PVD. 

Correct...when you are ripping 4" per hour, you are gonna have to some fluff factor even if there are winds. Sometimes the extreme rates can stabilize the winds a little in the heart of the banding....the snow itself acts a drag on it....which also helps ratios. 

 

[powderfreak]

8 minutes ago, dendrite said:

Those rates were large enough that there was a period where they were racking up high ratio snows. Compaction is real especially with big totals like that. I think it’s a little insulting to assume everyone in that 30”+ zone doesn’t know how to measure new snowfall…especially paid, trained observers at PVD. 

There’s a lot to dive into about that video of him driving around but some is best not said, especially when you don’t know where to start.  Not sure what the point was… to validate your own disappointment or to say no one knows how to measure snow…

[Ginx snewx]

1 hour ago, TauntonBlizzard2013 said:

Mentioned to Bob and Matt yesterday. No mail, amazon, fedex, ups, etc around here: everything had just stopped 

 No mail last 3 days. My daughter works for prime shutdown for 3 days 

[Cold Miser]

2 hours ago, dendrite said:

PVD depth is 31” this morning…so they’ve lost 11” since near the end of the peak of the storm.

Interesting.  Why is Cory not seeing this depth on his grand tour?   He is claiming so much less at the spots in Providence that he measured.  
 

Since he is so invested in this is there some way for him to contact the person who measured the 31 and go to that spot and see for himself?
 

He needs this ultimate proof to set his mind at ease. 

 

[dendrite]

6 minutes ago, Cold Miser said:

He needs this ultimate proof to set his mind at ease. 

It’s more fun when he’s paranoid

[tamarack]

8 hours ago, vortex95 said:

 "Goldilocks situation" -- first I have heard of this label concerning a snowstorm, at least for track.  The Blizzard of '78 tracked farther NW, and look what the did, snowfall heavier both in absolute totals and areal coverage. 
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/monitoring-content/snow-and-ice/rsi/nesis/19780205-19780207-5.78.jpg

Huh?  Are we talking about tropical cyclones or baroclinic winter storms?  And since when is "ocean energy" required for intense blizzards and snowfalls?  See the OH Valley Jan 1978 blizzard (957 mb) or November 1950 Appalachia monster (62" in WV).
 

Couple of cherrypicked comments, last addressed first:

I thought the OV blizzard had pressure down close to 950 mb, the lowest on record for a non-tropical storm in the eastern US.  957 would tie CAR's mark in the 2/2/76 southeast gale.

1978 appears to have a significantly larger footprint.  PHL had 14.1" and NYC 17.7", in the same range as 2/26 though some NNJ points did get a lot more in 2026.  To the north, the Farmington (Maine) co-op recorded 22.0" from the 1978 storm.  That co-op ended reports in 2022 but a cocorahs observer had 0.5" in the recent blizzard and my site 6 miles to the east of there had only 0.2".

[butterfish55]

Mentioned to Bob and Matt yesterday. No mail, amazon, fedex, ups, etc around here: everything had just stopped 

I got mail today. But I'd say that only about 25% of the mailboxes I have seen are cleared and accessible

[Baroclinic Zone]

Corey

Sorry you got boned but the measurements are legit. The snow was not wet as I said many many pages ago. It was more dense. You must have been just north and west of that main band by mere miles. I was getting 3-4”/hr from like 4am-midday. 

[ScituateMA]

They live among us. Thats all I have to say. 

 

Congrats on the blockbuster storm to all who received. 

 

I measured 28 to 30 here in north scituate MA. There was a spotter report of 32. The compaction was real with this one. I bet we lost 3 or 4 inches of depth within 10 to 15 hours. If you were taking measurements regularly I can easily see how you would get higher totals than what was on the ground the following day. Thats how measuring works. Compaction is not some new phenomenon.

 

That youtube video was a joke...in more ways than one. 

[Baroclinic Zone]

My coworkers street was finally plowed by noon Wednesday. Close to 2 full days post storm. In this day that takes a remarkable storm to accomplish.

this storm is #2 to 1978 for me only because i was in Foxboro for the epicenter of 40-50”

[tunafish]

1 hour ago, Cold Miser said:

Interesting.  Why is Cory not seeing this depth on his grand tour?   He is claiming so much less at the spots in Providence that he measured.  
 

Since he is so invested in this is there some way for him to contact the person who measured the 31 and go to that spot and see for himself?
 

He needs this ultimate proof to set his mind at ease. 

 

He's cherry-picking to fit his narrative.  Notice how all but one of his shots show only the yardstick and about a square foot around it?

[tunafish]

5 hours ago, ChangeofSeasonsWX said:

You misunderstood what I said. You should read my posts again. I said nothing about people trying to make the storm live up to the hype after the rug pull. Actually the opposite. I think that people are trying to "downgrade" the storm after the rug pull and convince themselves and other people that the totals down south were erroneous and inflated, because it makes them feel better like they didn't miss out on a generational event.

My bad.  Appreciate you clarifying.  I agree with what you're saying now that I understand.