February 2024

[LibertyBell]

28 minutes ago, CPcantmeasuresnow said:

If what you say about a latitude inland based winter that season is true than it would make sense that LGA would be even lower than NYC yet it's 5 inches higher that season. Central Parks latitude 40.7826N is a actually north of Newark 40.6895N and the same as LGA 40.7733N . They are 5 air miles from LGA and 10 from Newark at similar elevations. Snowfall amounts will vary even in such short distances but over an active season they will usually even out as 95-96 showed, there is less than a 3 inch difference between the three from highest to lowest. You can believe what you want but 93-94 they did not do a good job, there were several under measurements. They are usually an inch or two but do that on several events and that' how you end up with 53.4 when actually closer to 60 fell.

Forget about JFK when using comparisons to the Park, they are not similar at all, and JFK actually does a nice job measuring as most of the airports do regarding snowfall. The benefit of course for the airports is having someone on site to actually measure before snow melts and compresses. That is by far the biggest problem with the PARK measurements, and continues to be. Taking measurements as they often do 4-5 hours after snow ends will always be a low measurement no matter where you take it. Until they fix that simple thing it's never going to change.

Yes, the park can't be trusted for anything anymore-- not temperatures, wind speeds or snowfall measurements.

JFK has had issues over the years too (mostly on extremely windy snowstorms where they undermeasure.)

I thought the 93-94 snowfall totals were decent because it's the first time in my life I had seen a 50"+ winter.  Back in the mid 90s no one ever told us what the other totals were, I only found those out a decade later.

[NEG NAO]

2 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Yes, the park can't be trusted for anything anymore-- not temperatures, wind speeds or snowfall measurements.

JFK has had issues over the years too (mostly on extremely windy snowstorms where they undermeasure.)

I thought the 93-94 snowfall totals were decent because it's the first time in my life I had seen a 50"+ winter.  Back in the mid 90s no one ever told us what the other totals were, I only found those out a decade later.

You can add Newark to that list they seem to always be warmer then every other location sometimes.......

[donsutherland1]

38 minutes ago, NEG NAO said:

Do you think they were saying that back in the early 1950's and the 1980's ?

monthlyseasonalsnowfall.pdf (weather.gov)

No. There was  a colder more stable temperature regime. A natural cycle and increasing background warming are involved this time around. Already, areas further south in the Mid-Atlantic region have seen a long-term decline in seasonal snowfall. NYC's winters are nearing thresholds where the transitions took place farther south.

In terms of winter warmth, nothing has compared to the 2000s. The current winter will likely see yet another mean temperature of 40 or above. Prior to the 2000s the only such winter occurred in 1931-32. There have been five winters with such warmth in the 2000s. Winters 2022-23 and 2023-24 will become the first case of two consecutive winters with a mean temperature of 40 or above. Such warmth typically results in fewer opportunities for snowfall. Absent big storms, snowfall totals wind up lower.

[NEG NAO]

3 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

No. There was  a colder more stable temperature regime. A natural cycle and increasing background warming are involved this time around. Already, areas further south in the Mid-Atlantic region have seen a long-term decline in seasonal snowfall. NYC's winters are nearing thresholds where the transitions took place farther south.

In terms of winter warmth, nothing has compared to the 2000s. The current winter will likely see yet another mean temperature of 40 or above. Prior to the 2000s the only such winter occurred in 1931-32. There have been five winters with such warmth in the 2000s. Winters 2022-23 and 2023-24 will become the first case of two consecutive winters with a mean temperature of 40 or above. Such warmth typically results in fewer opportunities for snowfall. Absent big storms, snowfall totals wind up lower.

Is this the main reason NYC has only 7.5 inches total snowfall this winter and surrounding metro areas have more and much more in other areas including mine with close to 2 feet so far this season  and we are south of the city?

[donsutherland1]

6 minutes ago, NEG NAO said:

Is this the main reason NYC has only 7.5 inches total snowfall this winter and surrounding metro areas have more and much more in other areas including mine with close to 2 feet so far this season  and we are south of the city?

The background warming is part of the longer term evolution of seasonal snowfall. Even there, there will continue to be some snowy winters.

Bad tracks and sustained warmth have all contributed to this year's outcome. Had the intense snow band from Saturday been 30-40 miles farther north, the current seasonal total would probably be around 15"-20".

[LibertyBell]

4 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

The background warming is part of the longer term evolution of seasonal snowfall. Even there, there will continue to be some snowy winters.

Bad tracks and sustained warmth have all contributed to this year's outcome. Had the intense snow band from Saturday been 30-40 miles farther north, the current seasonal total would probably be around 15"-20".

and had that been the case, Don, JFK would likely have been over 20" and have had its first double digit snowstorm in many years!

 

[SACRUS]

 

Very sunny day - bright sunshine further reducing whats left of the snow pack in the more north/shaded areas here up to 40

 

[North and West]

No. There was  a colder more stable temperature regime. A natural cycle and increasing background warming are involved this time around. Already, areas further south in the Mid-Atlantic region have seen a long-term decline in seasonal snowfall. NYC's winters are nearing thresholds where the transitions took place farther south.
In terms of winter warmth, nothing has compared to the 2000s. The current winter will likely see yet another mean temperature of 40 or above. Prior to the 2000s the only such winter occurred in 1931-32. There have been five winters with such warmth in the 2000s. Winters 2022-23 and 2023-24 will become the first case of two consecutive winters with a mean temperature of 40 or above. Such warmth typically results in fewer opportunities for snowfall. Absent big storms, snowfall totals wind up lower.

.

[the_other_guy]

51 minutes ago, NEG NAO said:

Is this the main reason NYC has only 7.5 inches total snowfall this winter and surrounding metro areas have more and much more in other areas including mine with close to 2 feet so far this season  and we are south of the city?

The Warming affects the urban heat is more. I think that is what is lost here. I would like to see the park compared to a place like corona Queens.

Based on my friends observations living in Manhattan, I think the parks measurements are on, or perhaps high

[CPcantmeasuresnow]

54 minutes ago, NEG NAO said:

Is this the main reason NYC has only 7.5 inches total snowfall this winter and surrounding metro areas have more and much more in other areas including mine with close to 2 feet so far this season  and we are south of the city?

Let's not forget the obvious, the Park has been worse than usual this year in measuring. Just look at the LE of every 1 inch or above snowfall vs the nearby airports EWR and LGA. Central parks ratios are 50% lower because they keep measuring well after compression and melting is taking place.

Just compare the three calendar days in January and February that the closest reporting stations to Central Park have seen over an inch of snow and this is what you get.

NYC 6.5 inches snow 1.23 inches liquid ratio 5.3

LGA  8.6 inches snow 1.19 inches liquid ratio 7.2

EWR 10.8 inches snow 1.15 inches liquid ratio 9.4

It's not a perfect science but if we're conservative and apply an 8.0 ratio to NYC, in between LGA and EWR ratios but closer to LGAs, their snowfall for those three days increases to 9.8 from 6.5 which from all accounts is much closer to what actually fell those calendar days. The 3.3 extra inches would make their seasonal total 10.8 right now which is actually in all likelihood their true total so far this season.

It's an old story and never seems to change.

[EastonSN+]

47 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

The background warming is part of the longer term evolution of seasonal snowfall. Even there, there will continue to be some snowy winters.

Bad tracks and sustained warmth have all contributed to this year's outcome. Had the intense snow band from Saturday been 30-40 miles farther north, the current seasonal total would probably be around 15"-20".

Thank Don. Also, during the larger storm the intense banding just missed CPK, a little west and perhaps up to 25 inches.

I agree with you on how warming is affecting our snowfall. I do not think we hit a snow wall after 2018 and we will struggle to hit 50% of current average moving forward, but rather a slow steady decline as a backdrop to normal cyclical patters. 

I am not as aggressive as you are however, as I believe the decline will be relatively slow due to volatility/potential for historic events. An example would be if NYC is the new Philly from 1996, where Philly was closer to the moisture and received over 30 inches during the blizzard while NYC started with virga due to the temps in the teens at the start and low dew points (resulting in 20.5 I believe). Our latitude and closer proximity to the water would fuel such extreme events similar to 2016.

I do have a question, if we were to have a repeat of 70 through 85, which was at times extremely cold and suppressed, wouldn't we see an increase of snowfall due to higher fees and less suppression from the PV? Just contemplating.

 

[EastonSN+]

3 hours ago, bluewave said:

It makes sense that the more southern areas have lost the most snow since they have passed warming thresholds faster for snowfall accumulation. The 50 year trend really shows what an outlier the 2010s was for the Northeast snowfall. So the seasonal snowfall declines have finally made it to our area with the record warmth during the 2020s.

 

 

What I find interesting is the fact that both coasts are the only locations to increase snowfall - even down to coastal North Carolina!!

I may be over simplifying, however, this must be due to higher moisture and proximity to events which are continually increasing in intensity. 

[the_other_guy]

4 minutes ago, EastonSN+ said:

What I find interesting is the fact that both coasts are the only locations to increase snowfall - even down to coastal North Carolina!!

I may be over simplifying, however, this must be due to higher moisture and proximity to events which are continually increasing in intensity. 

that was the theory in the 2010s. I’m sure it holds today. You do see a tipping point though. whether we’re at that point now or not is another discussion. we have plenty of moisture just no cold air.

[jm1220]

6 minutes ago, EastonSN+ said:

What I find interesting is the fact that both coasts are the only locations to increase snowfall - even down to coastal North Carolina!!

I may be over simplifying, however, this must be due to higher moisture and proximity to events which are continually increasing in intensity. 

Likely due to more big coastal storms that drop much more snow per event, helped by a warmer Atlantic. We've had a lot of miller B type systems that can blast places NE of Philly but screw over DC. It made for huge winters in the 2000s-2010s but it's a very feast or famine way to get your snow, and now that the Pacific is in a hostile phase we see cold dump into the West, and patterns that favor cutters or SWFE type events. The next map like this in 10-15 years will likely show a lot of blue in the Rockies and N Plains and yellow/orange here. The background warming also means less snow on the margins-like your event that can salvage 2-4" on the front end or to end it being just rain, and even more hostile patterns like a steeper SE ridge. 

[EastonSN+]

Check these temps out from the blizzard of 96. Wow. Courtesy of Rays winter Storm archive (I really wish it was still being updated).

[LibertyBell]

27 minutes ago, EastonSN+ said:

Thank Don. Also, during the larger storm the intense banding just missed CPK, a little west and perhaps up to 25 inches.

I agree with you on how warming is affecting our snowfall. I do not think we hit a snow wall after 2018 and we will struggle to hit 50% of current average moving forward, but rather a slow steady decline as a backdrop to normal cyclical patters. 

I am not as aggressive as you are however, as I believe the decline will be relatively slow due to volatility/potential for historic events. An example would be if NYC is the new Philly from 1996, where Philly was closer to the moisture and received over 30 inches during the blizzard while NYC started with virga due to the temps in the teens at the start and low dew points (resulting in 20.5 I believe). Our latitude and closer proximity to the water would fuel such extreme events similar to 2016.

I do have a question, if we were to have a repeat of 70 through 85, which was at times extremely cold and suppressed, wouldn't we see an increase of snowfall due to higher fees and less suppression from the PV? Just contemplating.

 

NYC undermeasured in January 1996 and Philadelphia overmeasured in that storm.

It might be more like January 2016, which had a strong component of extra moisture.

 

[LibertyBell]

13 minutes ago, jm1220 said:

Likely due to more big coastal storms that drop much more snow per event, helped by a warmer Atlantic. We've had a lot of miller B type systems that can blast places NE of Philly but screw over DC. It made for huge winters in the 2000s-2010s but it's a very feast or famine way to get your snow, and now that the Pacific is in a hostile phase we see cold dump into the West, and patterns that favor cutters or SWFE type events. The next map like this in 10-15 years will likely show a lot of blue in the Rockies and N Plains and yellow/orange here. The background warming also means less snow on the margins-like your event that can salvage 2-4" on the front end or to end it being just rain, and even more hostile patterns like a steeper SE ridge. 

We already had this in January 2016.

[LibertyBell]

44 minutes ago, CPcantmeasuresnow said:

Let's not forget the obvious, the Park has been worse than usual this year in measuring. Just look at the LE of every 1 inch or above snowfall vs the nearby airports EWR and LGA. Central parks ratios are 50% lower because they keep measuring well after compression and melting is taking place.

Just compare the three calendar days in January and February that the closest reporting stations to Central Park have seen over an inch of snow and this is what you get.

NYC 6.5 inches snow 1.23 inches liquid ratio 5.3

LGA  8.6 inches snow 1.19 inches liquid ratio 7.2

EWR 10.8 inches snow 1.15 inches liquid ratio 9.4

It's not a perfect science but if we're conservative and apply an 8.0 ratio to NYC, in between LGA and EWR ratios but closer to LGAs, their snowfall for those three days increases to 9.8 from 6.5 which from all accounts is much closer to what actually fell those calendar days. The 3.3 extra inches would make their seasonal total 10.8 right now which is actually in all likelihood their true total so far this season.

It's an old story and never seems to change.

It's why I like living near JFK, we measure better.  Even LGA is way too commercial and packed densely, we actually have wetlands around here which keep it more of a natural climate, as opposed to the other three, which are much more artificial and surrounded by concrete.

 

[jm1220]

5 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

We already had this in January 2016.

Probably not with such a hostile Pacific, but we’re due for a massive 30”+ storm area wide that can take in the increased moisture we see with storms and cold enough air. Could’ve been this year if we could tie in some cold air with one of the very moist STJ storms we had but still too much of a Nina influence and exceptional warmth in Canada. 

[LibertyBell]

1 minute ago, jm1220 said:

Probably not with such a hostile Pacific, but we’re due for a massive 30”+ storm area wide that can take in the increased moisture we see with storms and cold enough air. Could’ve been this year if we could tie in some cold air with one of the very moist STJ storms we had but still too much of a Nina influence and exceptional warmth in Canada. 

It makes me wonder what it will take to change the Pacific if a strong el nino couldn't do it.

 

[Stormlover74]

13 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

NYC undermeasured in January 1996 and Philadelphia overmeasured in that storm.

It might be more like January 2016, which had a strong component of extra moisture.

 

Why do you think they overmeasured?

[bluewave]

1 hour ago, NEG NAO said:

I don't think we have been experiencing the lower then normal seasonal snowfall region wide long enough to come to any decisive conclusions. I agree about "too warm". What happens with the snowfall theory when we get another 5 - 10 year period of above normal ? And as witnessed this season so far that might not include NYC Central Park because there are numerous factors affecting its ability to accumulate snow .............

The 50s and the 80s were much colder than the last 9 winter average temperatures. The years in that era with below average snowfall were mostly the result of drier winter patterns and unfavorable storm tracks. 72-73 was actually a colder than average winter by todays standards. But the storm tracks were very unfavorable for snow here. It was cold enough for portions of the Southeast into Mid-Atlantic to have one of their greatest snowstorms of all time that winter.

The increase in moisture and amazing storm tracks actually boosted our winter snowfall from 02-03 to 17-18. Those two factors were masking the warming process that was continuing. So the snowier winters made people pay less attention to winters like 01-02, the first half of January 2005, the record warm January 2006, and 70° warmth in January 2007. Then we had the 11-12 winter followed by the very warm start to 12-13 sandwiched in between the phenomenal 09-10, 10-11, 13-14, and 14-15 cold and snowy winters. Now that the warming picked up after the historic December 15 +13.3 departure, it has resulted in 5 out of the last 6 winters with below average snowfall. We have been seeing more frequent combinations of both unfavorable tracks and warmth cutting down on our snowfall potential. When we do get finally get a favorable track like last week, we lost a portion of the snow potential to lower ratios and melting due to the warmth. 

You are correct that it will take a while to finally determine if a longer term snowfall decline is underway. But my guess is that the 2010s will mark the peak decadal snowfall for our modern era. And that the beginning of a snowfall decline commenced during the 18-19 season. Now this doesn’t mean we still won’t have above normal snowfall along the way in future winters like in the 20-21 season. But that over time into the future decades the seasonal snowfall averages will be on a down trend from the 2010s peak. At some point the warming will probably result in our new 30 year averages dipping below 20”. Instead of just reverting to the long term mean around 25” which was common before the 2010s.

[LibertyBell]

8 minutes ago, Stormlover74 said:

Why do you think they overmeasured?

It's been talked about before, no one anywhere around Philly had 30 inches.

There was also an erroneous report of 35 inches at Whitehead, NJ (not sure if I got the name right), which was thought to be the new state record for NJ, but that was invalided and the record went back to Cape May (of all places, the southernmost point of the state!) in the historic February 1899 arctic blizzard.

[michsnowfreak]

1 hour ago, EastonSN+ said:

What I find interesting is the fact that both coasts are the only locations to increase snowfall - even down to coastal North Carolina!!

I may be over simplifying, however, this must be due to higher moisture and proximity to events which are continually increasing in intensity. 

I always wonder what goes into those maps. I mean, if they arent using the official data, what ARE they using? It shows a slight decrease in southern MI, but the official data says otherwise. A regression line at Detroit from 1973-74 to 2022-23 shows snowfall increase from 44.8" to 45.5" and Flint saw a big increase from 46.5" to 55.5". Saginaw saw an increase from 42.3" to 50.3". Grand Rapids saw an increase from 67.9" to 79.8". Increases across the board at 1st order stations.

NYC saw an increase from 22.2" to 30.7"., Boston saw an increase from 40.6" to 48.0". 

 

Using two places that have consistent data with no missing data...in the last 50 years

NYC saw snowfall increase from 22.2" to 30.7" but 1"+ snowcover days decrease from 22 to 19.

DTW saw snowfall increase from 44.8" to 45.5" but 1"+ snowcover days decrease from 53 to 46.

So its snowing more but also melting more.

[donsutherland1]

2 hours ago, EastonSN+ said:

Thank Don. Also, during the larger storm the intense banding just missed CPK, a little west and perhaps up to 25 inches.

I agree with you on how warming is affecting our snowfall. I do not think we hit a snow wall after 2018 and we will struggle to hit 50% of current average moving forward, but rather a slow steady decline as a backdrop to normal cyclical patters. 

I am not as aggressive as you are however, as I believe the decline will be relatively slow due to volatility/potential for historic events. An example would be if NYC is the new Philly from 1996, where Philly was closer to the moisture and received over 30 inches during the blizzard while NYC started with virga due to the temps in the teens at the start and low dew points (resulting in 20.5 I believe). Our latitude and closer proximity to the water would fuel such extreme events similar to 2016.

I do have a question, if we were to have a repeat of 70 through 85, which was at times extremely cold and suppressed, wouldn't we see an increase of snowfall due to higher fees and less suppression from the PV? Just contemplating.

 

My guess is that the seasonal average will fall to about 20” by the mid-2030s. The norm won’t fall to 10” anytime soon. There will still be big storms and snowy winters.

[snowman19]

Here comes the latest SSW non event. The stratospheric models have been about as reliable as the weeklies . The dumpster fire continues….

[jm1220]

5 minutes ago, snowman19 said:

Here comes the latest SSW non event. The stratospheric models have been about as reliable as the weeklies . The dumpster fire continues….
 

Would be totally fitting for the big stalled upper low to show up south of the Maritimes again for April. 

If the snow this week is it for us so be it, at least a half decent finish in a sea of trash. 

[MJO812]

7 minutes ago, jm1220 said:

Would be totally fitting for the big stalled upper low to show up south of the Maritimes again for April. 

If the snow this week is it for us so be it, at least a half decent finish in a sea of trash. 

You know it's going to happen and mess up Spring.

[MJO812]

We need a positive PDO 

[snowman19]

8 minutes ago, jm1220 said:

Would be totally fitting for the big stalled upper low to show up south of the Maritimes again for April. 

If the snow this week is it for us so be it, at least a half decent finish in a sea of trash. 

Would not surprise me if the tail end of February and March torch, then a huge -NAO block shows up in April and we keep getting backdoored for 30 days