ORH_wxman

More radar images later in the storm: Some pics Jerry (weathafella) posted as the storm was winding down in the evening: Storm was slow to leave...still rotating snow down after midnight:

Was going back through this storm this evening. Pretty amazing how fast it snuck up on us. Here's some radar images...first from the afternoon of the 26th when the steady light snow was just overtaking the region....then going into late night and then early morning. This is a pic by Ginx of a flag like 30 feet from him...he claims it wasn't a blurry ginx pic and it was the snow intensity...impressive: RGEM model run...it looked similar to this for like the last 4-5 runs...it was a red flag for western areas...and how about kudos for nailing the band:

Most of them aren't regular posters on here. Even out of the regular posters, you'd be surprised at how many don't even know what mainstream consensus is for various climate change topics.

Your statement still doesn't hold true if you use the other thread. You have 29% of the respondents say the ice will never melt out and another 6% say after 2100....so if you include those insane responses as not in the scientific consensus, that is legit. But you said over half. That's incorrect. The scientific consensus on an ice free arctic is very broad. Basically anything from 2020 to late 21st century.

What is the scientific consensus for beating 2012? You haven't shown any data. Show us that the scientific consensus in the literature for beating 2012 is before 2020. And yes, if I believe your posts are not in good faith, I have no problem deleting them. Your posts have become increasingly antagonistic and have very little substance. Up your game and you have no worries.

This post doesn't add a thing to this thread...that's why it was getting deleted. What specifically in this thread "speaks volumes"? Up your game or pack it up and keep your garbage out of here.

I could see arguing either way. The envelope of outcomes at this point could be closer to 2013/2014 or the 2007-2012 years. You can argue that July was a pattern that we hadn't seen in sustained form like that since 2012. On the flip side, if August ends up cold and stormy and we finish the melt season with a wimper, then that would reflect more like 2013. If we have a 2007-2012 average melt from here on out, then we would finish with about 4.75 on NSIDC for the daily min. That is about halfway between the 2007-2012 mean of 4.52 and the 2014 min of 5.01 million sq km. So depending on what side of that melt figure we end up on, that will determine (at least numerically) what season this will resemble more. I think you have to take into account volume too. 2010 was much closer to 2013/2014 for extent numbers but volume wise it was far lower and suffered incredible volume losses that season. It remains to be seen how much volume loss 2015 incurs. It won't be nearly as much as 2010 but IMHO it doesn't need to be in order for this to resemble more of a 2007-2012 year. We also will want to see where CT SIA finishes.

You should really familirize yourself with the jargon before posting about it. Stopping emissions now wouldn't avoid an abrupt collapse of sea ice in the next few years. If it is going to melt out in the next few years, there is absolutely nothing we can do about it due to thermal inertia of the oceans. The good news is that there is no evidence for such a sudden tipping point collapse. If we melt out in the next few years, it will almost certainly be heavily aided by natural variability with several bad summer and winter patterns in a string of consecutive years....and if it does melt out one of those summers, it woul dbe unlikely to melt out again the next season given that winters are not yet warm enough to prevent thermodynamic thickening of ice comfortably above 1.5m.

I highly doubt it. I think it will simply just be partially offsetting the anthropogenic warming rather than aiding it like we saw from about 1990-2010.

Well, we will just respectively agree to disagree. To me, there has been a clear slowdown since most of the remaining older multi-year ice was eradicated in the mid-2000s...and I don't find my physical reasoning as outlandish. But again, we'll find out soon.

If you assume linear trend dominates, then yes. I don't assume that...I am more of a fan of a gompertz-esque shape to the decline given the negative volume feedback. The theory is...once we flushed a lot of the multi-year ice out through the mid-2000s, the icepack stabilizes to some extent because we re-enter each melt season with very similar thickness distribution because winter temps are not yet high enough to drastically affect thermodynamic thickening....and that becomes a more dominant driver of ice thickness as we lose multi-year ice. You'll notice how the thicknesses are closely clustered entering each season after the loss of much of the remaining multi-year ice in the mid-2000s. Here is ice growth rate by thickness: Ice growth is very slow once we reach about 1.5-2 meters. So we need to warm the winters to the point where ice is having trouble achieving >1.5 meters or so. Right now, we are easily cold enough in winters to get there, so I favor a much slower decline until that point is reached. In addition, I am also a believer that a significant portion of the arctic warming from the late 1980s/early 1990s to the mid/late 2000s was aided by natural variability. Given the drastic cooling of the N ATL the past 2-3 years, I think the warming rate will continue to be slower than that period for the next decade or two. So that is a summation of why I am not simply extracting the linear trend going forward. Of course, I could be wrong...we won't have to wait all that long to find out.

I voted for 2019-2020 for beating 2012...but 2017-2018 wouldn't surprise, nor would 2026-2030. I voted for beating 2013 again in 2021-2025...but that was more the range in which I still think it is viable to beat 2013...not that it will necessarily occur during those years. It could happen from '16-'20 too. The short term trends in the arctic can be very volatile and the more we learn about it, the more we keep realizing how much it can swing. The warming will take until the 2030s to really start overcoming the negative volume feedback, so at anytime we could have a coldish summer and put up another 2013....esp if we are retaining some multi-year ice in the winter....one of the things that failed to happen in the 2007-2012 period. The flushing of multi-year ice during that period was very strong.

Definitely...the lower elevation probably makes it a bear for downsloping on a NNE wind...you get the already larger scale shallow downslope wind from the ORH hills to the NNE and then a more severe local effect being in a relative low spot compared to east and northeast in the same town.

You might have been getting worse downsloping in Somers than BDL. It seems just eyeballing that Somers would still be downsloping on a NNE wind as the storm progressed and winds turned...more than BDL would be. Perhaps that difference was enough to overcome the slight elevation advantage....esp with the winds being stronger and marginal temps. It was a fascinating storm for mesoscale terrain effects.

That was the first storm that educated me on the CT Valley snow hole. I was young and ignorant back then, so I used to always think the further west you went, the more snow you got. Then we were out 2 days after the storm at the grocery store and this lady from Springfield made a comment on how they only got an inch or two of slush and I didn't believe her, but she insisted it was amazing driving from there to ORH and going from 1-2" to over 30".

Still the best storm I have ever experienced. Had about 35" in Holden. The fact that like half of it was wet snow and tons of wind really made it unique and quite destructive. It really did a number on the coast too not much more than a year after the 1991 perfect storm.

Nevermind, found the link.... I figured it is easier to watch the Bz than stare outside or take long exposure pics. edit: thanks for the response anyway

Eek, Do you have the link for that image that monitors the Bz/Bt index numbers? I used it last time, but can't find it now.

Yeah a lot of that is coincidental in this case...but the valley obviously doesn't get any help from terrain.

Euro still stalls...it keeps snows in E MA all day tomorrow.

Upton will have to cut total again I think...those are still probably too high.

Euro caves east...still much more impressive with the precip extent than the RGEM/GFS, but it def caved east.

Yeah the radar leads me to believe that this is tucking a bit more than the RGEM...but we'll find out soon enough. The precip the RGEM was spitting out through 06z and 09z just doesn't look far enough west with the good stuff based on the radar...just like the Euro looked wrong the other direction. It's going to be a fun system to track either way. At least for most of the people in this forum, the differences are more trivial than anything else. Maybe its 18" instead of 25"...still a massive storm. For those on the edges, it's a Heart Attack Special.

The stall aspect is a tough forecast. New 03z RAP stalls it now more like the NAM vs the more progressive solutions. I'm not quite sure what to make of the differing model solutions on the stall aspect for tomorrow afternoon. My gut says you are staying in good snow most of the tomorrow and into the evening.

I think the error affects NYC too in the end. They will end up getting what N NJ was going to get. LI still looks good to me for getting big totals (>16")...I still think NYC will get a good storm...just not those 18"+ amounts.