donsutherland1

25 degrees in January 1937.

According to the PNS, that measurement was taken at 7 pm. More snow had fallen since that time at BDR. Unfortunately, the snow is about to come to an end there.

I'm happy to see that Long Island got into some of the accumulating snow. My sister had 1.5" in Suffolk County. Others on the the North Shore had more.

037 NOUS41 KOKX 190102 PNSOKX CTZ005>012-NJZ002-004-006-103>108-NYZ067>075-078>081-176>179-191302- Public Information Statement Spotter Reports National Weather Service New York NY 802 PM EST Sat Jan 18 2020 The following are unofficial observations taken during the past 8 hours for the storm that has been affecting our region. Appreciation is extended to highway departments, cooperative observers, Skywarn spotters and media for these reports. This summary also is available on our home page at weather.gov/nyc ********************STORM TOTAL SNOWFALL******************** LOCATION STORM TOTAL TIME/DATE COMMENTS SNOWFALL OF /INCHES/ MEASUREMENT CONNECTICUT ...Fairfield County... Greenwich 3.0 736 PM 1/18 Trained Spotter Weston 2.8 612 PM 1/18 Broadcast Media Bridgeport Airport 2.5 700 PM 1/18 Co-Op Observer ...New Haven County... Seymour 2.0 709 PM 1/18 Trained Spotter Guilford 2.0 623 PM 1/18 Co-Op Observer ...New London County... Ledyard Center 0.8 500 PM 1/18 Trained Spotter NEW JERSEY ...Bergen County... Ridgewood 2.3 700 PM 1/18 Trained Spotter East Rutherford 2.2 713 PM 1/18 Trained Spotter Westwood 0.8 315 PM 1/18 Trained Spotter ...Essex County... Cedar Grove 2.2 715 PM 1/18 Public ...Hudson County... Hoboken 1.8 700 PM 1/18 Trained Spotter Harrison 1.0 415 PM 1/18 Co-Op Observer ...Union County... Newark Airport 1.8 700 PM 1/18 FAA Observer NEW YORK ...Bronx County... 1 NE Riverdale 2.5 745 PM 1/18 CoCoRaHS Eastchester 0.8 400 PM 1/18 NYC Dept of Sanitation ...Kings County... Adelphi 2.0 700 PM 1/18 Trained Spotter Brooklyn 2.0 400 PM 1/18 NYC OEM CERT Midwood 1.6 615 PM 1/18 News Media ...Nassau County... Wantagh 2.6 730 PM 1/18 Trained Spotter Franklin Square 2.5 609 PM 1/18 Trained Spotter New Hyde Park 2.5 714 PM 1/18 Trained Spotter East Meadow 2.4 650 PM 1/18 Public East Williston 2.3 530 PM 1/18 Public Locust Valley 2.0 504 PM 1/18 Broadcast Media Merrick 2.0 700 PM 1/18 Trained Spotter Farmingdale 1.2 400 PM 1/18 NWS Employee ...New York County... Central Park 2.1 700 PM 1/18 Park/Forest Srvc Inwood 0.8 400 PM 1/18 NYC Dept of Sanitation ...Orange County... Gardnertown 4.0 756 PM 1/18 Trained Spotter West Point 2.3 615 PM 1/18 Trained Spotter Monroe 2.0 535 PM 1/18 Trained Spotter Hamptonburgh 2.0 428 PM 1/18 Trained Spotter ...Putnam County... Putnam Valley 1.9 535 PM 1/18 News Media ...Queens County... Whitestone 2.6 730 PM 1/18 Public Fresh Meadows 2.5 704 PM 1/18 Trained Spotter NYC/LaGuardia Airpor 1.9 700 PM 1/18 FAA Observer Elmhurst 1.8 720 PM 1/18 Trained Spotter NYC/JFK Airport 1.6 700 PM 1/18 FAA Observer Rego Park 1.5 625 PM 1/18 Trained Spotter ...Rockland County... New City 2.8 739 PM 1/18 Trained Spotter Stony Point 2.5 700 PM 1/18 Trained Spotter ...Suffolk County... Wheatley Heights 3.5 755 PM 1/18 Trained Spotter Commack 2.9 650 PM 1/18 Public Upton 2.0 700 PM 1/18 NWS Office Islip Airport 1.9 700 PM 1/18 FAA Observer Riverhead 1.9 700 PM 1/18 NWS Employee Patchogue 1.5 710 PM 1/18 Trained Spotter Sayville 1.5 632 PM 1/18 NWS Employee Cedar Beach 1.0 413 PM 1/18 Trained Spotter ...Westchester County... Armonk 2.7 735 PM 1/18 Public &&

Central Park's latest and probably final measurement is 2.1".

A fast-moving storm brought accumulating snow, sleet, and later rain to parts of the region. As of 4 pm, snowfall amounts included: Albany: 0.6" Bridgeport: 1.0" Islip: 1.0" New York City: 1.3" Newark: 0.8" Philadelphia: Trace A second round of snow moved into the area and continued into the early part of the evening leading to additional accumulations. Overnight and tomorrow, the system will pull away from the region, leading to clearing skies. In its wake, another shot of cold air will follow. However, the cold will likely be short-lived. Warmer conditions will likely develop during the middle of next week. Cold could return during the closing days of January, but the risk that January could end on a mild note has increased, particularly on the EPS. A mild finish would represent a big change from the previous scenario where Pacific-driven changes would lead to the development of a colder pattern to continue into the start of February. Meanwhile, in Europe where winter has largely been absent, no late-month changes are in order. The warmth appears poised to roll on through the end of the month and into the start February. More record high temperatures could be challenged or broken there during the last 10 days of January. The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was +0.2°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was +0.5°C for the week centered around January 8. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged +0.27°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged +0.50°C. The remainder of winter 2019-2020 will likely feature neutral-warm to weak El Niño conditions. The SOI was -8.62 today. Today, the preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) figure was +1.380. No significant stratospheric warming event appears likely through January 26. Wave 2 activity will remain relatively suppressed. Overall, most of the stratosphere is forecast to remain cold on the EPS. On January 17, the MJO was in Phase 6 at an amplitude of 3.184 (RMM). The January 16-adjusted amplitude was 3.171. This was the 9th consecutive day during which the MJO had an amplitude of 3.000 or above. This is the longest such stretch since January 27-February 11, 2018 when the MJO had an amplitude of 3.000 or above for 16 consecutive days. There have been only 8 cases where the MJO had an amplitude of 3.000 or above for 7 or more consecutive days. The shortest period from the start of that stretch that saw the MJO's amplitude fall below 1.000 was 20 days. The mean period was 36 days. The longest period was 55 days. Based on this historic experience, the MJO likely won't reach low amplitude until near or after the end of January. Since 1974, there were 8 prior cases where the MJO reached Phase 4 at an amplitude of 1.500 or above in the January 5-20 period. In 7 or 88% of those cases, the MJO progressed into Phases 7 and 8. Further, the MJO was in Phase 4 at an amplitude of 2.273 on January 7 with an AO of +4.048. Since 1974, there were three January cases when the MJO was in Phase 4 at an amplitude of 2.000 or above and an AO of +3.000 or above. In all three cases the Week 3-4 period was colder than the Week 1-2 period (smallest change: 2.7° in 1993; largest change 16.8° in 2007). The change in 14-day average temperatures from the above three cases would imply a January 22-February 3 mean temperature of 10°-12° below the January 8-21 mean temperature in New York City. This data implies that the latter two week period as a whole would be colder than normal overall. However, uncertainty about the extended range has increased and a warmer than normal outcome now appears more likely than not (perhaps something closer to the January 1993 outcome even as the week 3-4 outcome will be colder than the week 1-2 period). A very warm first and second half of January does not necessarily mean that February will be warmer than normal. There were five such cases following a January 1-15 mean temperature of 40.0° or above. 1932 and 1998 were warmer than normal in February. 2006 was near normal. 1937 and 1950 were colder than normal. Overall, for New York City, the coefficient of determination between the January and February temperature is just 0.07 (1869-2019). Based on sensitivity analysis applied to the latest guidance, New York City has an implied 98% probability of a warmer than normal January. The monthly mean temperature could finish near 37.5° in New York City.

I have 2.3" in Larchmont, NY as of a few minutes before 7 pm. Fairly large flakes are still falling, but the changeover is likely approaching.

I hope so.

1.3" as of 4 pm.

Some photos from today’s ongoing snowfall. P.S. While some complain, others find the real joy that can be discovered in every snowfall by all who are willing to seek it.

It has just commenced snowing in Larchmont, NY.

At 8:40 am, an area of snow was pushing eastward across central Pennsylvania. Recently, Bradford was reporting heavy snow with a temperature of 18°. As the morning progresses, the snow will move into eastern Pennsylvania. During the early afternoon, snow will begin to break out in the greater New York Metro area. For now, the storm remains on track to bring a general 2"-4" snow to such locations as Newark, New York City, and Bridgeport. Scranton, Binghamton, and Albany still appear to be in line for 3"-6" snow.

Both were part of the same study.

Tomorrow, a quick-moving system could bring New York City and Newark its first measurable snowfall since January 6. Philadelphia, where just 0.1" snow has fallen this winter, could receive its first measurable snowfall since December 11. Snowfall estimates for select locations are: Albany: 3"-6" Binghamton: 3"-6" Boston: 2"-4" Bridgeport: 2"-4" Islip: 1"-3" New York City: 2"-4" Newark: 2"-4" Philadelphia: 2" or less Poughkeepsie: 3"-6" Scranton: 3"-6" The last time New York City had a snowfall of 2.0" or more was March 3-4, 2019 when 5.0" snow fell. The last time Philadelphia picked up 2.0" or more snow was March 1, 2019 when 3.0" snow accumulated. Ahead of the storm, the temperature will likely fall near 20° in New York City tomorrow morning. Outside the City, many locations will see minimum temperatures in the teens. Following this weekend, warmer conditions will likely develop. Nevertheless, at least some colder air will likely return during the closing week of the month. At that point, the cold could become sustained and it could continue into at least the first week of February. With a mean temperature of 42.7° during January 1-15, 2020 ranked as the 6th warmest such period on record in New York City. Since 1869, just 2/13 (15%) cases (2000 and 2005) that saw the temperature average 40.0° or above during January 1-15 went on to have a colder than normal January. The mean monthly temperature for those 13 cases was 37.2°. The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was +0.2°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was +0.5°C for the week centered around January 8. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged +0.27°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged +0.50°C. The remainder of winter 2019-2020 will likely feature neutral-warm to weak El Niño conditions. The SOI was -16.62 today. Today, the preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) figure was +1.950. No significant stratospheric warming event appears likely through January 25. Wave 2 activity will remain relatively suppressed. Overall, most of the stratosphere is forecast to remain cold on the EPS. On January 16, the MJO was in Phase 6 at an amplitude of 3.178 (RMM). The January 15-adjusted amplitude was 3.041. This was the 8th consecutive day during which the MJO had an amplitude of 3.000 or above. This is the longest such stretch since January 27-February 11, 2018 when the MJO had an amplitude of 3.000 or above for 16 consecutive days. There have been only 8 cases where the MJO had an amplitude of 3.000 or above for 7 or more consecutive days. The shortest period from the start of that stretch that saw the MJO's amplitude fall below 1.000 was 20 days. The mean period was 36 days. The longest period was 55 days. Based on this historic experience, the MJO likely won't reach low amplitude until near or after the end of January. Since 1974, there were 8 prior cases where the MJO reached Phase 4 at an amplitude of 1.500 or above in the January 5-20 period. In 7 or 88% of those cases, the MJO progressed into Phases 7 and 8. Further, the MJO was in Phase 4 at an amplitude of 2.273 on January 7 with an AO of +4.048. Since 1974, there were three January cases when the MJO was in Phase 4 at an amplitude of 2.000 or above and an AO of +3.000 or above. In all three cases the Week 3-4 period was colder than the Week 1-2 period (smallest change: 2.7° in 1993; largest change 16.8° in 2007). The change in 14-day average temperatures from the above three cases would imply a January 22-February 3 mean temperature of 10°-12° below the January 8-21 mean temperature in New York City. This data implies that the latter two week period as a whole would be colder than normal overall. However, uncertainty about the extended range has increased. Moreover, an MJO in Phase 7 at an amplitude of 2.000 or above typically sees measurable snowfall consistent with overall January 16-31 climatology. That would imply approximately 2 measurable snow events for Philadelphia to New York City and 2-3 such events for Boston during the closing two weeks of January. The first such event should occur tomorrow. Based on sensitivity analysis applied to the latest guidance, New York City has an implied 94% probability of a warmer than normal January. The monthly mean temperature could finish near 36.5° in New York City.

The McKinsey Global Institute's report on climate change and its impacts: https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Business Functions/Sustainability/Our Insights/Climate risk and response Physical hazards and socioeconomic impacts/MGI-Climate-risk-and-response-vF.ashx

Perhaps this is one reason climate change deniers have stepped up their attacks on climate scientists, as well as the volume of their disinformation on Social Media and other outlets that still disseminate their position. From the Yale University Climate Change Communication Program: Our latest survey (November 2019) finds that the Alarmed segment is at an all-time high (31%). The Alarmed segment has nearly tripled in size since October 2014. Conversely, the Dismissive (10%) and Doubtful (10%) segments have each decreased over the past five years. https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/for-the-first-time-the-alarmed-are-now-the-largest-of-global-warmings-six-americas/ In short, science is gaining ground when it comes to Americans' views of climate change. As that process continues to play out, public support for effective policies aimed at making a credible start to addressing the challenge of climate change could reach critical mass. At that point, the defense of the status quo could disintegrate, as support of the status quo could hinder electoral success.

Some of the recent model runs have grown a little snowier in the NYC Metro area and surrounding region. The exception was the 12z GGEM, which had little or no measurable snow in this area. As it is an outlier, the GGEM was discounted. My final snowfall estimates are: Albany: 3"-6" Binghamton: 3"-6" Boston: 2"-4" Bridgeport: 2"-4" Islip: 1"-3" New York City: 2"-4" Newark: 2"-4" Philadelphia: 2" or less Poughkeepsie: 3"-6" Scranton: 3"-6"

The definitions are universal. If, for example, a scientist/group of scientists discovers or identifies a new natural mechanism that can credibly explain at least some of the ongoing observed warming that cannot currently be attributed to natural forcings, then of course it would need to be given due consideration. Science is an iterative process. Areas of uncertainty e.g., especially with respect to some feedbacks, remain to be resolved.

The use of "climate denial movement" was deliberate. It was intended to differentiate between honest skeptics (in general people who seek more evidence and then will allow the evidence to guide them) and deniers (for lack of a better term) who will essentially reject any or all evidence that does not confirm their preferred views. There is a difference and that difference is critical.

The attack on Dr. Michael E. Mann, one of the world's most-cited and visible climate scientists, provides just another illustration of the intellectual, scientific, and moral bankruptcy of the shrinking climate denial movement. That movement's success rests on total rejection of science, complete repudiation of evidence, and wholesale perversion of truth. Its arguments have nothing to do with science, evidence, or truth. Its arguments are nothing more than unsubstantiated (and more often, repeatedly discredited) public relations talking points aimed at confusing the public and raising doubt. The shrinking climate denial movement is currently engaged in an all-out noisy "Battle of Bulge" disinformation campaign. Its propaganda has largely recycled the discredited arguments made by the tobacco industry in the 1960s to counter unequivocal and irrefutable evidence of the link between smoking and, among other adverse health impacts, lung cancer. In this case, it seeks to evade the overwhelming and still growing body of scientific understanding of anthropogenic climate change, its causes, and its consequences. The climate denial movement does not seek to advance arguments through scientific peer review. Doing so would be futile, because its arguments could not survive rigorous scientific examination. In addition, doing so would not serve its purposes, because that movement is not interested in productive endeavors such as knowledge creation, along with the enormous positive spillovers that arise from new knowledge translated into innovation. That movement has a single goal: Sustain an indefensible status quo at all costs. Thus, its target audience is the general public, not the scientific community or others who have expertise in the field. The climate denial movement understands that as long as it can raise doubts among the general public, not all of whom are scientifically literate and many of whom are not connected to the scientific community, it is well-positioned to thwart effective public policy responses to the severe challenge of climate change. So long as the public policy landscape remains frozen in time, that movement can reap additional profits made possible from the status quo, while remorselessly shifting the burden of the costs of those destructive activities to future generations. The climate denial movement is nothing more than the 21st century version of the "tobacco prophets" who tilted against the windmills of scientific and medical understanding. The climate denial movement is not scientific. It is not noble. Its intentions are not good. Just as those who knowingly and tenaciously fought to deprive the public of knowledge of the devastating health-related risks of smoking, the climate denial movement knowingly aims to imprison society in a status quo that is hazardous to the economic, financial, and social well being of humanity, not to mention biodiversity. That movement has no concern whatsoever for the future generations who will be left to bear the full consequences of that movement's ruinous efforts.

Hopefully, things will change at some point in February in terms of snowfall.

The general idea that most of the New York City Metro Area, including adjacent sections of New Jersey, will receive 1"-3" snow tomorrow (lesser amounts on Long Island, especially Suffolk County) has remained remarkably stable on the guidance. The RGEM remains a high outlier (showing > 4" in New York City). At 0z, the GGEM was a low outlier showing barely more than an inch. The 1/17 0z and 12z runs of the HREF ensemble system indicated 2"-4" across the area, including Nassau County. Locations such as Albany, Binghamton, Poughkeepsie, and Scranton remain in line for 3"-6" snow. Select seasonal snowfall through January 16 was: Albany: 32.1" (5.9" above normal) Allentown: 3.4" (7.4" below normal) Binghamton: 31.5" (4.7" below normal) Bridgeport: 5.7" (4.2" below normal) Islip: 4.7" (4.7" below normal) New York City: 2.7" (5.9" below normal) Newark: 5.1" (4.7" below normal) Philadelphia: 0.1" (6.5" below normal) Scranton: 15.7" (2.2" below normal)

Why the "LOL?" Mann has been among the most prolific, influential, and widely-cited climate researchers, including in recent years. His work has been cited more than 35,000 times, including more than 12,000 times since 2015.

Yes, March 1992 was snowy (9.4” in NYC).

Below are the 500 mb maps (GEFS forecast and February 1-10, 1992): During February 1-10, 1992 the MJO was in Phase 1 (low amplitude by February 4). By February 12, it moved into Phase 4, quickly attaining an amplitude of 1.000 or above. For much of the rest of the month, it was locked between Phases 4 and 5. The February 1-15 mean temperature in New York City was 30.9° and in Philadelphia it was 32.5°. The February 16-29 mean temperature in New York City was 42.2° and in Philadelphia it was 42.9°. For now, this outcome should be seen as a potential alternative scenario should a colder pattern fail to take hold. The evolution of the teleconnections and progression of the MJO will provide insight.