17 years ago

[Momza]

78' Jan- Feb..,,,, the king, uncle will back me up

My vote by a nose

[Isotherm]

The portions of SE MA and MD that got 90"+ in those two different winters are snowier places than most of NYC metro and CP of NJ. The hills of NNJ and SE NY obviously average more, but they've already had seasons of 90"+ before...in '95-'96 and I believe some spots had that in '60-'61 in the hills.

 

 

BWI recorded 77" in the 2009-10 winter. Given their average of 20.8", they received 370% of their normal snowfall.

 

Taking a station in the metro area, like New Brunwick for example - their average is 29.0", so if we had a similar winter to BWI with 370% of normal snowfall, that would equate to 107" of snow on the season.

 

NYC's average with 370% of normal season would also surpass 100". Additionally I think NYC is in a better positioned spot than BWI to pick up late blooming coastals.

 

The MD average snowfall map shows about 31" to the north of BWI, where some of the 90-100" totals occurred. That's only a couple inches more than the bulk of the area, NB/EWR/NYC.

 

[Isotherm]

I definitely think Westchester could see 100" of snow in a season based on the 90" recorded in Dobbs Ferry in 60-61 and the fact that 10-11 had close to 60" after the Feb 1st storm. Had snow kept coming in February and early March, 100" would have been in reached. The models did back down from a much snowier impact from Groundhog's Day 2011 and lost a strong overrunning event they were showing after.

Unfortunately, this winter won't be the one to break records.

 

 

 

Easily. I think Dobbs ferry could see > 110" in a season.

[ORH_wxman]

BWI recorded 77" in the 2009-10 winter. Given their average of 20.8", they received 370% of their normal snowfall.

 

Taking a station in the metro area, like New Brunwick for example - their average is 29.0", so if we had a similar winter to BWI with 370% of normal snowfall, that would equate to 107" of snow on the season.

 

NYC's average with 370% of normal season would also surpass 100". Additionally I think NYC is in a better positioned spot than BWI to pick up late blooming coastals.

 

The MD average snowfall map shows about 31" to the north of BWI, where some of the 90-100" totals occurred. That's only a couple inches more than the bulk of the area, NB/EWR/NYC.

 

 

 

 

I agree NYC could see a bit more than '95-96...but using percentages doesn't work well as you rise in snowfall climo. Also their location makes it difficult to obtain a total like was seen in SE MA...i.e. their upside might be a bit lower.

 

Based on your 370% method, Boston should have seen a 160" season by now. They haven't come even close to that and that type of total for them is pretty unrealistic IMHO.

[Isotherm]

Ok you got me .  we only had 4 inches   the rest was blown over from Holmdel .

 

There were plenty of spotters in NJ that reported over 30 .The banding going on in and around the Ocean county border that nite was as intense a snowfall combined with its duration that i hav ever seen . I am telling you I witnessed both events 96 in Brooklyn and 2010 in CN .

2010 both were great . But i will argue with you all day long that 2010 we were closer to 30 in CN than 24 .

 

 

 

Most major snowfalls look bigger eyeballing than they actually are in reality. If I didn't measure, I'd agree that it looked like a 30" snowfall. But we just didn't have the intense bands for long enough to get those totals, which are extremely difficult to achieve. I can definitely believe a couple unreported spots in coastal Ocean County saw low 30s.

[Isotherm]

I agree NYC could see a bit more than '95-96...but using percentages doesn't work well as you rise in snowfall climo. Also their location makes it difficult to obtain a total like was seen in SE MA...i.e. their upside might be a bit lower.

 

Based on your 370% method, Boston should have seen a 160" season by now. They haven't come even close to that and that type of total for them is pretty unrealistic IMHO.

 

 

 

True, the maximum percentages over normal would decrease as the snowfall climo increases. So taking that into account, a more realistic top number is probably 90-100" for NYC. What's BOS's snowiest season, 110s right? They could probably max out around 120-30"

[famartin]

True, the maximum percentages over normal would decrease as the snowfall climo increases. So taking that into account, a more realistic top number is probably 90-100" for NYC. What's BOS's snowiest season, 110s right? They could probably max out around 120-30"

 

107.6 is what i see listed.

[gymengineer]

NYC legitimately should have had about an 80-85 inch winter in 09-10 but the 2/6 storm of course didn't make it. you figure even if we ended up on the low end in that storm we'd have had 12-16 inches which would have put us around 78.

 

Just checking-- didn't NYC get 51.4" in 09/10 (Central Park)? So, wouldn't you have needed about 30" more to hit the 80-85" range?

[Isotherm]

Just checking-- didn't NYC get 51.4" in 09/10 (Central Park)? So, wouldn't you have needed about 30" more to hit the 80-85" range?

 

 

 

I think he meant 95-96.

[famartin]

I think he meant 95-96.

 

Actually I think he meant 10-11.

[ace0927]

I agree NYC could see a bit more than '95-96...but using percentages doesn't work well as you rise in snowfall climo. Also their location makes it difficult to obtain a total like was seen in SE MA...i.e. their upside might be a bit lower.

 

Based on your 370% method, Boston should have seen a 160" season by now. They haven't come even close to that and that type of total for them is pretty unrealistic IMHO.

 

of course, the smaller the base number the easier it is to gain a large % increase...

[ace0927]

Actually I think he meant 10-11.

 

no he meant 09-10...the Feb 6 storm was the one that crushed the MA and we got nada north of monmouth cty.

[Stormlover74]

no he meant 09-10...the Feb 6 storm was the one that crushed the MA and we got nada north of monmouth cty.

 

Right, that winter had the chance to produce alot more snow in NYC and surrounding areas. Of course one could argue that we made up for it with 12/26/10, which largely missed most of the other big cities and 2/26/10 which was a fluke event.

[famartin]

no he meant 09-10...the Feb 6 storm was the one that crushed the MA and we got nada north of monmouth cty.

 

Yeah, but as already mentioned, they needed a lot more than 12-16" more in that season to reach 80-85".  On the other hand, 16" more would've put NYC at 78" total for 2010-11.

[uncle W]

in 1996 NYC would have gotten 100" if all the events were all snow...The three December storms had some rain or ice mixed in...if it was all snow add another 5" bor so...January had a storm with sleet and ice mixed before the blizzard...It had a storm with snow to rain after it...Add another 10" if all snow...February storms were all snow events...March had a storm around the eight with rain and ice before changing to snow...It had a wet snow and rain storm on the 29th...Add another 10" if it was all snow...April had two wet events...Add another 5-10" if it was a little colder...1995-96 could have been the first 100" year with colder temperatures...

[bluewave]

in 1996 NYC would have gotten 100" if all the events were all snow...The three December storms had some rain or ice mixed in...if it was all snow add another 5" bor so...January had a storm with sleet and ice mixed before the blizzard...It had a storm with snow to rain after it...Add another 10" if all snow...February storms were all snow events...March had a storm around the eight with rain and ice before changing to snow...It had a wet snow and rain storm on the 29th...Add another 10" if it was all snow...April had two wet events...Add another 5-10" if it was a little colder...1995-96 could have been the first 100" year with colder temperatures...

 

I was wondering how some of the legendary winters  from colonial times up to 1870 may have compared

to 1995-1996? I have heard about frequent snows during the 1779-1780 winter, but you would have to

think suppression may have been a factor with how cold it was like 1917-1918 and 1976-1977. But on the

other hand, February 1934 combined brutal cold with great snowfall so who knows.

[uncle W]

I was wondering how some of the legendary winters  from colonial times up to 1870 may have compared

to 1995-1996? I have heard about frequent snows during the 1779-1780 winter, but you would have to

think suppression may have been a factor with how cold it was like 1917-1918 and 1976-1977. But on the

other hand, February 1934 combined brutal cold with great snowfall so who knows.

as cold as those two winters were after the greatest cold wave in history ended in 1918 a storm brought rain to the area...January 1977 was the second coldest on record but the juicy storm around the tenth went west of us and it rained after a little snow...

[Isotherm]

as cold as those two winters were after the greatest cold wave in history ended in 1918 a storm brought rain to the area...January 1977 was the second coldest on record but the juicy storm around the tenth went west of us and it rained after a little snow...

 

 

 

Wow, great info Unc. Would have never thought it rained that month. Must have been a quick 12 hr warm pulse followed by -20c 850s.

[ORH_wxman]

107.6 is what i see listed.

 

Yes. Top 5 for BOS is:

 

107.6 ('95-'96)

96.3 ('93-'94)

89.2 ('47-'48)

86.6 ('04-'05)

85.1 ('77-'78)

 

#3 through #5 is close to double the climo. The top number is about 240-250% of climo. There's places in SE MA that might average a bit less but seem to have a higher upside. Its a difficult thing to measure, but there might something to it. Perhaps the variance is much more wild in certain spots.

 

 

LI seems to have a wild variance too.

[Guest Pamela]

Yes. Top 5 for BOS is:

 

107.6 ('95-'96)

96.3 ('93-'94)

89.2 ('47-'48)

86.6 ('04-'05)

85.1 ('77-'78)

 

#3 through #5 is close to double the climo. The top number is about 240-250% of climo. There's places in SE MA that might average a bit less but seem to have a higher upside. Its a difficult thing to measure, but there might something to it. Perhaps the variance is much more wild in certain spots.

 

 

LI seems to have a wild variance too.

 

As for 300% snowfall potential, Caribou, with a mean of 110"...does not appear to have made too many runs at 330"...lol.

[Guest Pamela]

True, the maximum percentages over normal would decrease as the snowfall climo increases. So taking that into account, a more realistic top number is probably 90-100" for NYC. What's BOS's snowiest season, 110s right? They could probably max out around 120-30"

 

In the current climate regime the best I could imagine for NYC would be 80"...which basically means that assuming normal precip....three times as much as usual must fall when the column is below freezing...a very tall order indeed. 

[ORH_wxman]

In the current climate regime the best I could imagine for NYC would be 80"...which basically means that assuming normal precip....three times as much as usual must fall when the column is below freezing...a very tall order indeed. 

 

I could envision a bit more than 80", didnt they get like 75.6" or something in '95-'96?...but that's a very tough task admittedly. '95-'96 with one more good storm going right. Its always speculation though....even in the best winters, there's many rainstorms so you can always play the game that those could have been snow when its not that realistic to expect it.

 

Great winters are usually very active, which means you risk rainstorms. That risk just comes with the territory of very wet winters that produce a lot of snow.

[Guest Pamela]

I could envision a bit more than 80", didnt they get like 75.6" or something in '95-'96?...but that's a very tough task admittedly. '95-'96 with one more good storm going right. Its always speculation though....even in the best winters, there's many rainstorms so you can always play the game that those could have been snow when its not that realistic to expect it.

 

Great winters are usually very active, which means you risk rainstorms. That risk just comes with the territory of very wet winters that produce a lot of snow.

 

Yep most of the time...some exceptions...In the first three months of 2009 Upton measured 32.1 inches of snow on 4.80" liquid equivalent.  2005 was similar (will check stats). 

[Isotherm]

In the current climate regime the best I could imagine for NYC would be 80"...which basically means that assuming normal precip....three times as much as usual must fall when the column is below freezing...a very tall order indeed. 

 

 

We had low-mid 80s in 95-96 in CNJ, and I think there was room for improvement that year, so I'd say 90", conservatively.

 

I've often wondered about the snow totals in the 1700s/1800s LIA period.

[Guest Pamela]

Yep most of the time...some exceptions...In the first three months of 2009 Upton measured 32.1 inches of snow on 4.80" liquid equivalent.  2005 was similar (will check stats). 

 

...and Upton measured 78.0 inches of snow December 2004  through March 2005 on just 9.85" liquid equivalent!

[ORH_wxman]

We had low-mid 80s in 95-96 in CNJ, and I think there was room for improvement that year, so I'd say 90", conservatively.

 

I've often wondered about the snow totals in the 1700s/1800s LIA period.

 

They probably had a good chance of breaking 100" at least once in that period. You figure their climate was closer to PVD or something during the LIA. NYC is currently about 1.5C warmer than PVD, at the height of the LIA, they might have been about as cold current day PVD....but probably a bit warmer. PVD has 1 season >100" and another almost (95.1") that much.

[Guest Pamela]

We had low-mid 80s in 95-96 in CNJ, and I think there was room for improvement that year, so I'd say 90", conservatively.

 

I've often wondered about the snow totals in the 1700s/1800s LIA period.

 

The records at the park go back 147 years...if 75.6" is the best they can do (and no other + 70 inch total besides 1995-96)...maybe there is something of an upper limit in the current regime. 

[Guest Pamela]

They probably had a good chance of breaking 100" at least once in that period. You figure their climate was closer to PVD or something during the LIA. NYC is currently about 1.5C warmer than PVD, at the height of the LIA, they might have been about as cold current day PVD....but probably a bit warmer. PVD has 1 season >100" and another almost (95.1") that much.

 

Other factors as well...just because we cool off NYC does not automatically make it snowier...though a higher percentage of annual precip would certainly be snow...have to account for potentially making it drier as well...and during the LIA...who knows for certain if the general storm track is a spot on match for today's. 

[ORH_wxman]

The records at the park go back 147 years...if 75.6" is the best they can do (and no other + 70 inch total besides 1995-96)...maybe there is something of an upper limit in the current regime. 

 

Geography could be an issue too. I was just looking at temps and BOS isn't colder than PVD for average temp which actually surprised me, but their snowfall is more. Though their upper limits are similar...both have a season between 100-110" and a seaosn just below 100"...BOS just gets a lot more seasons in the 60-90" than PVD. Though PVD radiates much better than BOS, so that might be the issue. Indeed the BOS average highs are colder than PVD, but their mins are warmer. Radiational cooling has no effect on snowfall from what we know.

 

Kind of an interesting topic to look at. Geography def plays a role, but its difficult to quantify.

[Guest Pamela]

Geography could be an issue too. I was just looking at temps and BOS isn't colder than PVD for average temp which actually surprised me, but their snowfall is more. Though their upper limits are similar...both have a season between 100-110" and a seaosn just below 100"...BOS just gets a lot more seasons in the 60-90" than PVD. Though PVD radiates much better than BOS, so that might be the issue. Indeed the BOS average highs are colder than PVD, but their mins are warmer. Radiational cooling has no effect on snowfall from what we know.

 

Kind of an interesting topic to look at. Geography def plays a role, but its difficult to quantify.

 

Of course...FOK is likely the coldest spot on the Island with regards to morning minima...and since there isn't a huge spread Island wide in maxima....one of the coldest overall...but one of the worst spots for snowfall.