ORH_wxman

Those are the NESIS maps....not ones done by Kocin like we see in his book. The Kocin maps in his book are much better.

I said he was near average, but if we got very specific, he was probably slightly above average snowfall that season....and yes, mostly on the strength of the Dec '09 storm. But they also got some decent snow in the Feb 9-10 bust...like 6-8".

No, you were pretty close to average snowfall....Ray's current area was well below average.

There is no way the min would be that early.

Similar in ORH....we had 17" of snow that was just powdery enough that it didn't cause huge power issues. But people from near here just lower down were all coming in and going to the stores since power was crippled in the lower towns just to the east.

That's a pretty good sized white faced hornets nest. Hopefully it's high enough up not to be a danger.

There were actually two events in October 2009. One on the 15-16th like you recall and another two days later on the 18th...the latter is what produced that crazy Patriots/Titans game in the snow in October. Foxborough was in a great spot for that one...a little extra elevation helped them.

Those crisp weekend days of Lab-yore

I was looking at JAXA when I made the comments about extent. I agree NSIDC extent looks a bit less likely to finish 2nd but it wouldn't surprise me either. It only needs to have slightly above average losses...though the shape of the ice pack doesn't look as favorable for losses compared to years like 2016 when there was a lot more vulnerable ice left.

Area is very likely to finish in 3rd place given the path of 2016 from here on out. Extent is still looking like 2nd place is the most likely but the recent stall has made 3rd or 4th place more possible than it was a week ago.

Its weird that someone who seems to be such a weather enthusiast would embrace such an obviously erroneous temperature reading. I mean, I get that it's fun to look at how extreme it is, but it's obviously wrong if we are going by standards set in station sitings.

That 540 thickness line intruding into southern Hudson Bay consistently is starting to remind us of the changing season:

I like the look of the EC ensembles toward the 2nd week of September. Looks pretty nice. We'll see if that sticks.

I wonder if the bottom of Pinkham notch there around 2k got a weenie freeze. Pretty decent chance.

Yeah pretty impressive for this type of setup in summer...not the typical +5C shot across the bow like we might see in late August that produces temps in the 40s

Even ORH is down to 52. Gonna be a lot of 40s tonight I think over the interior.

Ha, reminds me of reading about the blizzard of '77 in BUF. Epic winds from the southwest that buried BUF....the actual snow that fell in the storm was only like 12 inches but it blew a ton of snow from a mostly-frozen Lake Erie into the city and created like 30 foot drifts. Lol. It looked like something out of the day after tomorrow and it was because of the fetch of wind off a mostly frozen lake.

Ossipee lake off to the northeast. That's your spot if you want to be on water. Or you could just say screw it and go full weenie and get a place on Rangeley Lake or Mooselookmeguntic. But your swimming season would probably be cut by a month or two up there. Cant beat the winters though.

Attribution studies can help tell us what is more likely with AGW. Hurricanes aren't one of them. Flooding rains would be more likely but actual floods that occur from them are less damaging than they used to be due to flood control measures we have that are far superior to the early and middle 20th century. You may have seen my reference to the ORH 1955 floods and I made a comment how we'd never see that again due to the flood controls put in after that storm. Still, heavy flooding rains are more likely to occur so places that don't have better flood controls are going to see worse floods than they used to. So are heat waves...those are significantly more likely than prior to AGW. Heat waves are the highest confidence occurrence in the attribution studies for obvious reasons...higher temps = more heat waves for most. In New England and most of North America, drought has become less likely compared to the early and middle 20th century...but will it stay that way? The literature is mixed...it says southern parts of North America should see increased droughts in the future while further north will not. We cannot ever attribute a single event to AGW because as Tip said, climate doesn't control the weather. It just gives us guidelines for the probability of such events. The single most dangerous aspect of AGW is sea level rise. The other stuff is small potatoes compared to that. Sea level rise can make storms worse even if the storms themselves aren't more frequent or stronger...like hurricanes in my previous above example. The hurricanes aren't more frequent or stronger, but they produce a worse storm surge flood due to SLR (sea level rise). So what maybe a category 2 used to do for storm surge flooding, now it only takes a category 1 because sea level is higher. I do joke with people sometimes on how the media is pretty awful at parsing the differences though....like I will joke by saying "can you imagine the media storm if we had another period like 1938-1955 again?"....for those who don't know, that was the most prolific period for landfalling hurricanes on the east coast in our records. Of course, back then, you couldn't blame it on AGW, but I'm not convinced that wouldn't be the runaway story this time even though the literature doesn't support that narrative. But scary sells ratings...it doesn't need to be accurate. I tend to be less cynical than many on AGW only because most of the projections that are really scary assume what we call the "RCP 8.5" scenario which is continuing the emissions climb to extremely high values...and these values are pretty unrealistic IMHO. For example, it assumes the coal industry will be 7 times bigger by 2100 and assumes no major headway on green energy...something that is already happening. Solar is already becoming cheaper than coal. It is not likely that we will reverse this trend and decide to go back to more coal and less solar. Market forces will keep turning us toward solar and other green energy as it becomes cheaper. None of this means we shouldn't do anything to push it along quicker or that we should be totally complacent. It just means I find the worst case scenarios unrealistic from a scientific standpoint. All of this really doesn't belong in this thread anyway. We do have a climate change forum afterall. But I figured I would throw in my two cents given the discussion went on as long as it did in here.

Yeah you need a specific set of criteria for that type of progression to work out. If we exclude anafrontal storms like March 2005....it's usually massive bombs....like December 1992 and April 1997 (both changed over to snow in the CCB after 6-8 hours or more of heavy rain in eastern MA)....or super dynamic like December 9, 2005 flashing to heavy snow on the coast of MA after they had changed to heavy rain for several hours.

Your reference to the temp gradient in the '98 ice storm reminded me of the temp gradient on the morning of the 2008 ice storm down here. Never seen something so sharp in a storm here. Focus on eastern CT up into S MA....or even just east-central CT to far NE CT....talking about 25-30F over less than 10 miles. (much of the stations below 32F in central MA and SW NH were not online for obvious reasons)

FWIW, NJ did not get pounded in that storm. Too warm down there...they may have had some snow in the high terrain of NW NJ. Most of the dynamics were north of them....it wasn't as wrapped up as the Feb 2010 retrostorm.

I think it was a combo of going a bit too negative and also cutting off from the polar jet too much....just enough to turn it from wet snow into 34F rain. Apparently the models just didn't quite allow enough warm air to get pushed back into the interior. I think some of it too was there was a sense of hedging toward snowier as earlier that winter we had the epic positive bust of December 23, 1997 that dumped 18" (over 20" in Tip-land just tot he northeast) on a 1-3" forecast of marginal paste. That had caused mass outrage at weather forecasters and people stuck everywhere....it's a lot worse for traffic when everyone expects nothing and gets buried versus people expecting more and then being "pleasantly surprised" that not much fell and they can drive easier. Here's the renanalaysis of it: http://mp1.met.psu.edu/~fxg1/NARR/1998/us0224.php The reanalysis is't perfect because it shows ORH above zero at 850 the whole time, but it definitely was pounding heavy wet snow for hours in the early going. Probably the tough part about that one was they were upping the snow totals rapidly as it got closer. They were actually warmer with the forecast initially like 2 days earlier, but then they kept saying "things are coming in colder over the interior....we may have to up the amount in the Worcester hills"...and then by the night before, they were pretty gung ho and even moreso that mornign while the snow was pounding....they had no idea in real time that we were just an hour or two away from getting overwhelmed by the warmth aloft from the E and SE.

You talking the 3/2/18 storm? Was looking like maybe 5-10" eventually over interior but it took forever to change over. Only got an inch or two at the very end. Though Scooter loved the storm on the coast for the epic wind. The Feb 1998 storm was a bit different in that we weren't waiting to change over at the beginning. It was pounding and you don't expect to change to rain over ORH when you get a storm over the benchmark (both sfc and midlevels)