Is it possible for DCA to get 40'' of snow and its inner suburbs to approach 48''?

[Ian]

It's not the measurement technique, it's the fact that DCA is just a piece of turd of a spot to measure snow. The Knickerbocker storm happened before DCA existed and that was measured in the city, in a more "normal" spot that didn't have zero elevation in the middle of a river.

And I think Feb 2010 would've been similar, after all, American University reported 26" and was just a few miles from DCA

 

From what I've seen, the old city location was actually warmer than DCA when they were running concurrently. I'm not sure that means the old location would get the same measurements but I doubt they'd be as different as DCA to the NW DC hills. The heat island has grown and matured significantly since Knickerbocker either way.. so I doubt it would be a 28" storm today in the city.

[Ian]

AU is in upper NW, among the highest spots in DC, and definitely higher in elevation than the old measuring spot. Take Matt's total for 2/5/10 for what is more representative for the city-- he got 22-23" IIRC.

We've all complained about DCA's location.

 

I'm not sure our totals are "more representative" per se. A lot of people live within the "downtown" and in SE etc. DC has some of the most diverse topography you'll find in a big city that gets snow in the US.

 

DCA is fine for comparing to itself which is all that really matters. Anyone who follows snowstorms knows the limitations and issues.

[gymengineer]

I'm not sure our totals are "more representative" per se. A lot of people live within the "downtown" and in SE etc. DC has some of the most diverse topography you'll find in a big city that gets snow in the US.

DCA is fine for comparing to itself which is all that really matters. Anyone who follows snowstorms knows the limitations and issues.

You're right about topography.. The 21" from Anacostia, though, makes me feel more confident that most places in the city did reach 20".

[winterymix]

It's not the measurement technique, it's the fact that DCA is just a piece of turd of a spot to measure snow. The Knickerbocker storm happened before DCA existed and that was measured in the city, in a more "normal" spot that didn't have zero elevation in the middle of a river.

And I think Feb 2010 would've been similar, after all, American University reported 26" and was just a few miles from DCA

 

Why don't they measure at Rock Creek Park or U.S. National Arboretum?

Taking snow measurements at DCA is destined to deliver the lightest accumulations

possible for the city unless of course they want to put a snow board over the railroad tracks

at the Union Station.

[real]

Before I would consider it possible for DCA to break 40, I would like to see Boston, New York,  break 30.  I think Philly is the only big East Coast City to have an all-time record that exceeds 30.  With that said, I wouldn't rule out  DC someday experiencing a storm of around 3 feet. It does seem storms are getting juicer and juicer along the East Coast as of late.

[Subtropics]

Before I would consider it possible for DCA to break 40, I would like to see Boston, New York,  break 30.  I think Philly is the only big East Coast City to have an all-time record that exceeds 30.  With that said, I wouldn't rule out  DC someday experiencing a storm of around 3 feet. It does seem storms are getting juicer and juicer along the East Coast as of late.

Product of a warmer atmosphere leading to more total precipitable water?

[Terpeast]

Can't quote on iphone, but I've seen some stats showing that global water vapor content has increased by 4% in recent decades. This seems to be fueling more mid-lat storms with higher intensities.

[Subtropics]

Wow. 4% is pretty significant.

 

I read something on the main forum that seemed to argue the opposite, however. Someone was saying that a warming climate is going to lead to less severe storms in the northeast since the thermal gradiant will not be as severe and the storms need this gradiant for fuel.

 

Any thoughts? I appreciate your insight Terpeast.

 

Btw are you a Maryland guy?

[Terpeast]

Wow. 4% is pretty significant.

 

I read something on the main forum that seemed to argue the opposite, however. Someone was saying that a warming climate is going to lead to less severe storms in the northeast since the thermal gradiant will not be as severe and the storms need this gradiant for fuel.

 

Any thoughts? I appreciate your insight Terpeast.

 

Btw are you a Maryland guy?

 

That's a good question.  I think the jury is still out on this one.  I'm thinking that a less severe thermal gradient would result in a more convoluted mid-upper troposphere, with more amplified troughs / ridges, and more closed lows.  Since the subtropics are already warm and moist, if there's enough cold air in the lower levels under a convoluted atmosphere, we could still have strong mid-latitude baroclinic zones despite a warmer arctic, that would still fuel strong storms, as seems to be the case in the last several years.  Think of -AO ridging and blocking in the higher latitudes.  

 

Conversely, if the arctic was cooling under a global cooling scenario (opposite of what we have), then AO would be mostly positive and it would be a faster, more streamlined, and less convoluted westerlies in the mid latitudes. 

 

What will happen in 20-40-100 years, though... if/when the arctic goes completely ice free, cold air genesis and/or early season snow cover could take a hit and then there might not be enough cold air to generate strong mid-latitude baroclinic zones anymore.  I don't know, I don't think really anybody knows.  

 

BTW, yes I went to UMD at College Park.  I live in Houston now, though.

[Chris L]

Yes. February 6 2010/January 7, 1996, just get it to loop and spin (vertically stacked) snow until the sfc low dies out.

 

Or....

 

Blizz of '83, a slower version of that.... Combine with the intense rates? yes, DC Area would have gotten 40+.

[Terpeast]

Yes. February 6 2010/January 7, 1996, just get it to loop and spin (vertically stacked) snow until the sfc low dies out.

 

Or....

 

Blizz of '83, a slower version of that.... Combine with the intense rates? yes, DC Area would have gotten 40+.

 

Yeah, except that DCA torch spot... gonna have a hard time reaching 25" despite everything. 

 

I'll add to the above the 1993 Superstorm with a further SE track, far enough SE that DC area doesn't get mixing or dry slotted.  I think that definitely will do it, too.

[Chris L]

Yeah, except that DCA torch spot... gonna have a hard time reaching 25" despite everything. 

 

I'll add to the above the 1993 Superstorm with a further SE track, far enough SE that DC area doesn't get mixing or dry slotted.  I think that definitely will do it, too.

 

 

I fully agree about March 1993, rather easily. Every Big city would have gotten 3'+ from that.

 

Like you said, Jan '96 without the lull (I still think to this day, it was undermeasured in many locations in the Northeast) would have been close to 3 feet or more.

[ORH_wxman]

Its certianly possible...its possible DCA gets 5 feet...but highly inprobable. Its like any 6-8 SD event...it will happen at some point. Those events are so rare that they are really not worth contemplating the odds. I'm sure its happened at some point in the last 1000-2000 years....but probably won't happen again for just as long or longer depending on climate change. Same with a 8F high....which happened in 1994 well into the urbanization period. Those things might happen, but are so unlikely.