March 2025

[snowman19]

61 here. Warmest it’s felt in the sun since mid-November 

[IrishRob17]

After a low of 29, sitting at 64 now.

[LibertyBell]

32 minutes ago, winterwx21 said:

Beautiful day! It's 67 here right now. We should hit 70 tomorrow. After that the east winds cool us off, unfortunately. 

I thought today was supposed to be the warmest day?

Either way tomorrow should be close.

Lots of spring birds building nests now.

 

[ag3]

Hit 69 degrees here on my station.

Wow.

[bluewave]

Hard to believe that there people doubting the 70° potential this week.

[LibertyBell]

4 minutes ago, bluewave said:

Had to believe that there people doubting the 70° potential this week.

It usually hits 70 at least once every March.

I thought it was ridiculous that some people thought it wouldn't hit 70 in March when it was 67 on March 1st here.

 

[uofmiami]

13 minutes ago, bluewave said:

Hard to believe that there people doubting the 70° potential this week.

EWR is always good for the heat.

[bluewave]

3 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

It usually hits 70 at least once every March.

I thought it was ridiculous that some people thought it wouldn't hit 70 in March when it was 67 on March 1st here.

 

The cold bias with the models in recent years has been ridiculous. They just can’t handle this new climate. It doesn’t make any sense to bet against warm ups beating model forecasts. 

[jm1220]

Up to 66. Gorgeous. 

[LibertyBell]

1 minute ago, bluewave said:

The cold bias with the models in recent years has been ridiculous. They just can’t handle this new climate. It doesn’t make any sense to bet against warm ups beating model forecasts. 

it's also ridiculous to bet against warm temperatures with a downsloping wind.

Westerly winds always overperform modeling temperatures, I've seen this going back to the 80s.

 

[psv88]

8 minutes ago, jm1220 said:

Up to 66. Gorgeous. 

66 here as well

[the_other_guy]

47 minutes ago, bluewave said:

Hard to believe that there people doubting the 70° potential this week.

But it didnt hit 70.

And it wont this week.

And that is a big differentiator in March.

 

[winterwx21]

1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

I thought today was supposed to be the warmest day?

Either way tomorrow should be close.

Lots of spring birds building nests now.

 

I always figured Tuesday would be the warmest day, but yeah today overperformed. Not a surprise as these warmups usually overperform. It's 68 here right now. With a southwest wind tomorrow we shouldn't have a problem hitting 70 here. 

[Brian5671]

1 hour ago, bluewave said:

Hard to believe that there people doubting the 70° potential this week.

Easy to do in the spring with no leaves on trees and west winds.  It's dry this year so add another 1-2 degrees on guidance

[TheClimateChanger]

1 hour ago, bluewave said:

Hard to believe that there people doubting the 70° potential this week.

Looks like plenty of record-breaking warmth across the Midwest, so the airmass is certainly primed for it. I think these doubters probably weren't aware of that, because the media rarely makes a big deal out of record heat. But if there was record cold in these same spots, it would be 24/7 "polar vortex" hysteria from the media. It's funny some people act like the opposite is true...

[LibertyBell]

Just now, TheClimateChanger said:

Looks like plenty of record-breaking warmth across the Midwest, so the airmass is certainly primed for it. I think these doubters probably weren't aware of that, because the media rarely makes a big deal out of record heat. But if there was record cold in these same spots, it would be 24/7 "polar vortex" hysteria from the media.

Lets just hope we get these same westerly winds in the summer, instead of the regular old very warm and humid we could actually get some historic heat.

 

[bluewave]

49 minutes ago, the_other_guy said:

But it didnt hit 70.

And it wont this week.

And that is a big differentiator in March.

 

It made it to 69° at Newark and a few other sites in NJ which is well above what guidance was printing out. So it’s close enough even if there will be more opportunities over the next week. Well above that 60° max that the EPS mean was running with recently.

[Stormchaserchuck1]

1 hour ago, bluewave said:

The cold bias with the models in recent years has been ridiculous. They just can’t handle this new climate. It doesn’t make any sense to bet against warm ups beating model forecasts. 

When the Pacific is in -PNA/+EPO, we blow past forecasts.  When +PNA/-EPO, not so much (although this pattern has been more rare in the last 8 years).  NAO is in a 3-sigma block right now and it's 70 degrees... that has gone in an opposite correlation since about 2007 or 2013.. Pacific is just as unfavorable for cold, if not moreso, when the NAO is negative a lot lately.. Pacific trumps. 

[TheClimateChanger]

I was reading "Climatic Guide for New York City, New York and Nearby Areas" which was published by the United States Weather Bureau in 1958, and I was kind of surprised by how large of a discrepancy there was between the snowfall observed by the Weather Bureau at The Battery and the snowfall observed by the observer at Central Park in the 1880s and 1890s. I would consider the Weather Bureau numbers to be the "gold standard" since they were collected by actual meteorologists, and it makes me wonder if some of the old snowfall records at Central Park are underestimated. I wonder if any of the New York area climate gurus have any explanation for this? @LibertyBell@bluewave @donsutherland1 

Of particular note is that 77.6" observed at the Battery for the winter of 1892-1893 - that would be a seasonal record. It seems like the discrepancy was only in the early years, with later years showing the Park generally with more snowfall than the City Office...which, to be honest, would be my expectation given the City Office would be a heat island and very near the water, versus the park-like setting at one of the highest elevations on Manhattan Island.

Seasonal Snowfall at the New York City WB Office

 

Season	Snowfall (inches)
1884-1885	36.6
1885-1886	23.9
1886-1887	49.5
1887-1888	46.6
1888-1889	21.9
1889-1890	34.1
1890-1891	39.7
1891-1892	36.5
1892-1893	77.6
1893-1894	56.1
1894-1895	36.2
1895-1896	42.0
1896-1897	39.1
1897-1898	20.1
1898-1899	58.3
1899-1900	20.1
1900-1901	9.2
1901-1902	31.3
1902-1903	26.0
1903-1904	33.0
1904-1905	57.8
1905-1906	22.1
1906-1907	52.4
1907-1908	32.2
1908-1909	22.5
1909-1910	38.2
1910-1911	26.0
1911-1912	25.0
1912-1913	15.5
1913-1914	40.4

 

 

[bluewave]

13 minutes ago, Stormchaserchuck1 said:

When the Pacific is in -PNA/+EPO, we blow past forecasts.  When +PNA/-EPO, not so much (although this pattern has been more rare in the last 8 years).  NAO is in a 3-sigma block right now and it's 70 degrees... that has gone in an opposite correlation since about 2007 or 2013.. Pacific is just as unfavorable for cold, if not moreso, when the NAO is negative a lot lately.. Pacific trumps. 

We were warmer than forecasts this winter even when we had the +PNA -EPO since the cold air extent was at record lows for the Northern Hemisphere. 
 

 

 

[TheClimateChanger]

8 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

I was reading "Climatic Guide for New York City, New York and Nearby Areas" which was published by the United States Weather Bureau in 1958, and I was kind of surprised by how large of a discrepancy there was between the snowfall observed by the Weather Bureau at The Battery and the snowfall observed by the observer at Central Park in the 1880s and 1890s. I would consider the Weather Bureau numbers to be the "gold standard" since they were collected by actual meteorologists, and it makes me wonder if some of the old snowfall records at Central Park are underestimated. I wonder if any of the New York area climate gurus have any explanation for this? @LibertyBell@bluewave @donsutherland1 

Of particular note is that 77.6" observed at the Battery for the winter of 1892-1893 - that would be a seasonal record. It seems like the discrepancy was only in the early years, with later years showing the Park generally with more snowfall than the City Office...which, to be honest, would be my expectation given the City Office would be a heat island and very near the water, versus the park-like setting at one of the highest elevations on Manhattan Island.

Seasonal Snowfall at the New York City WB Office

 

Season	Snowfall (inches)
1884-1885	36.6
1885-1886	23.9
1886-1887	49.5
1887-1888	46.6
1888-1889	21.9
1889-1890	34.1
1890-1891	39.7
1891-1892	36.5
1892-1893	77.6
1893-1894	56.1
1894-1895	36.2
1895-1896	42.0
1896-1897	39.1
1897-1898	20.1
1898-1899	58.3
1899-1900	20.1
1900-1901	9.2
1901-1902	31.3
1902-1903	26.0
1903-1904	33.0
1904-1905	57.8
1905-1906	22.1
1906-1907	52.4
1907-1908	32.2
1908-1909	22.5
1909-1910	38.2
1910-1911	26.0
1911-1912	25.0
1912-1913	15.5
1913-1914	40.4

 

 

Here are some of those bigger months at the old City Office.

Climatological Data for World Trade Center, NY - March 1896

Date	Max Temp (°F)	Min Temp (°F)	Avg Temp (°F)	HDD	CDD	Precipitation (in)	Snowfall (in)	Snow Depth (in)
1896-03-01	46	34	40.0	25	0	0.13	0.0	0
1896-03-02	34	21	27.5	37	0	0.92	9.0	9
1896-03-03	29	19	24.0	41	0	0.00	0.0	7
1896-03-04	28	17	22.5	42	0	0.00	0.0	4
1896-03-05	39	14	26.5	38	0	0.00	0.0	2
1896-03-06	46	24	35.0	30	0	0.00	0.0	1
1896-03-07	51	33	42.0	23	0	0.12	0.0	T
1896-03-08	37	28	32.5	32	0	T	T	0
1896-03-09	37	26	31.5	33	0	0.00	0.0	0
1896-03-10	33	26	29.5	35	0	0.01	0.1	T
1896-03-11	34	24	29.0	36	0	0.56	5.0	5
1896-03-12	28	19	23.5	41	0	0.07	0.0	4
1896-03-13	28	13	20.5	44	0	0.00	0.0	4
1896-03-14	30	14	22.0	43	0	0.00	0.0	4
1896-03-15	30	21	25.5	39	0	0.20	2.2	6
1896-03-16	34	26	30.0	35	0	1.90	8.3	14
1896-03-17	37	27	32.0	33	0	0.26	0.0	12
1896-03-18	40	26	33.0	32	0	0.00	0.0	11
1896-03-19	53	33	43.0	22	0	0.54	0.0	3
1896-03-20	41	22	31.5	33	0	T	0.0	2
1896-03-21	39	20	29.5	35	0	0.00	0.0	1
1896-03-22	47	33	40.0	25	0	0.04	0.0	T
1896-03-23	33	19	26.0	39	0	0.25	2.3	2
1896-03-24	29	13	21.0	44	0	0.16	1.6	3
1896-03-25	40	21	30.5	34	0	0.00	0.0	1
1896-03-26	53	30	41.5	23	0	0.04	0.0	T
1896-03-27	32	22	27.0	38	0	0.02	0.0	0
1896-03-28	42	27	34.5	30	0	0.00	0.0	0
1896-03-29	53	35	44.0	21	0	0.87	0.0	0
1896-03-30	58	35	46.5	18	0	0.04	0.0	0
1896-03-31	62	44	53.0	12	0	0.00	0.0	0
Sum	1223	766	-	1013	0	6.13	28.5	-
Average	39.5	24.7	32.1	-	-	-	-	3.1
Normal	M	M	M	M	M	M	M	-

 

Climatological Data for World Trade Center, NY - February 1894

Date	Max Temp (°F)	Min Temp (°F)	Avg Temp (°F)	HDD	CDD	Precipitation (in)	Snowfall (in)	Snow Depth (in)
1894-02-01	34	27	30.5	34	0	0.06	0.6	1
1894-02-02	33	21	27.0	38	0	0.00	0.0	1
1894-02-03	44	30	37.0	28	0	0.00	0.0	1
1894-02-04	33	24	28.5	36	0	0.11	1.0	2
1894-02-05	25	7	16.0	49	0	0.00	0.0	2
1894-02-06	38	17	27.5	37	0	0.00	0.0	2
1894-02-07	45	30	37.5	27	0	0.00	0.0	1
1894-02-08	52	36	44.0	21	0	0.00	0.0	T
1894-02-09	39	33	36.0	29	0	0.76	0.0	0
1894-02-10	49	34	41.5	23	0	0.02	0.0	0
1894-02-11	42	30	36.0	29	0	0.00	0.0	0
1894-02-12	30	22	26.0	39	0	0.50	5.0	5
1894-02-13	22	18	20.0	45	0	0.64	9.0	12
1894-02-14	29	16	22.5	42	0	0.02	0.2	7
1894-02-15	37	25	31.0	34	0	0.79	6.8	6
1894-02-16	27	13	20.0	45	0	0.00	0.0	6
1894-02-17	44	11	27.5	37	0	0.00	0.0	5
1894-02-18	49	38	43.5	21	0	0.49	0.0	2
1894-02-19	42	35	38.5	26	0	0.04	0.0	1
1894-02-20	42	34	38.0	27	0	0.19	0.0	T
1894-02-21	41	30	35.5	29	0	0.00	0.0	0
1894-02-22	37	23	30.0	35	0	0.01	0.1	0
1894-02-23	29	11	20.0	45	0	0.00	0.0	0
1894-02-24	11	4	7.5	57	0	0.00	0.0	0
1894-02-25	21	1	11.0	54	0	0.01	0.1	T
1894-02-26	33	18	25.5	39	0	1.50	15.0	7
1894-02-27	38	21	29.5	35	0	0.01	0.1	5
1894-02-28	47	28	37.5	27	0	0.00	0.0	3
Sum	1013	637	-	988	0	5.15	37.9	-
Average	36.2	22.8	29.5	-	-	-	-	2.5
Normal	M	M	M	M	M	M	M	-

 

 

[Stormchaserchuck1]

1 minute ago, bluewave said:

We were warmer than forecasts this winter even when we had the +PNA -EPO since the cold air extent was at record lows for the Northern Hemisphere. 

I've just noticed -PNA/+EPO has a higher tendency to break it consistently, and it's usually by a lot. We've actually been doing this "busting through model forecasts" a lot over the last several years after the low yearly min temp happens on Jan 27, after that in February and March we have been going higher quite often. 

[Nibor]

 

Beautiful day. 

[LibertyBell]

1 hour ago, TheClimateChanger said:

I was reading "Climatic Guide for New York City, New York and Nearby Areas" which was published by the United States Weather Bureau in 1958, and I was kind of surprised by how large of a discrepancy there was between the snowfall observed by the Weather Bureau at The Battery and the snowfall observed by the observer at Central Park in the 1880s and 1890s. I would consider the Weather Bureau numbers to be the "gold standard" since they were collected by actual meteorologists, and it makes me wonder if some of the old snowfall records at Central Park are underestimated. I wonder if any of the New York area climate gurus have any explanation for this? @LibertyBell@bluewave @donsutherland1 

Of particular note is that 77.6" observed at the Battery for the winter of 1892-1893 - that would be a seasonal record. It seems like the discrepancy was only in the early years, with later years showing the Park generally with more snowfall than the City Office...which, to be honest, would be my expectation given the City Office would be a heat island and very near the water, versus the park-like setting at one of the highest elevations on Manhattan Island.

Seasonal Snowfall at the New York City WB Office

 

Season	Snowfall (inches)
1884-1885	36.6
1885-1886	23.9
1886-1887	49.5
1887-1888	46.6
1888-1889	21.9
1889-1890	34.1
1890-1891	39.7
1891-1892	36.5
1892-1893	77.6
1893-1894	56.1
1894-1895	36.2
1895-1896	42.0
1896-1897	39.1
1897-1898	20.1
1898-1899	58.3
1899-1900	20.1
1900-1901	9.2
1901-1902	31.3
1902-1903	26.0
1903-1904	33.0
1904-1905	57.8
1905-1906	22.1
1906-1907	52.4
1907-1908	32.2
1908-1909	22.5
1909-1910	38.2
1910-1911	26.0
1911-1912	25.0
1912-1913	15.5
1913-1914	40.4

 

 

Thanks, is this the earliest the records go back there? It would be interesting if we could find records that go further back than Central Park's.

[LibertyBell]

36 minutes ago, Nibor said:

 

Beautiful day. 

Love those clear blue skies!  We get it for one more day tomorrow....

[LibertyBell]

1 hour ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Here are some of those bigger months at the old City Office.

 

Climatological Data for World Trade Center, NY - March 1896

Date	Max Temp (°F)	Min Temp (°F)	Avg Temp (°F)	HDD	CDD	Precipitation (in)	Snowfall (in)	Snow Depth (in)
1896-03-01	46	34	40.0	25	0	0.13	0.0	0
1896-03-02	34	21	27.5	37	0	0.92	9.0	9
1896-03-03	29	19	24.0	41	0	0.00	0.0	7
1896-03-04	28	17	22.5	42	0	0.00	0.0	4
1896-03-05	39	14	26.5	38	0	0.00	0.0	2
1896-03-06	46	24	35.0	30	0	0.00	0.0	1
1896-03-07	51	33	42.0	23	0	0.12	0.0	T
1896-03-08	37	28	32.5	32	0	T	T	0
1896-03-09	37	26	31.5	33	0	0.00	0.0	0
1896-03-10	33	26	29.5	35	0	0.01	0.1	T
1896-03-11	34	24	29.0	36	0	0.56	5.0	5
1896-03-12	28	19	23.5	41	0	0.07	0.0	4
1896-03-13	28	13	20.5	44	0	0.00	0.0	4
1896-03-14	30	14	22.0	43	0	0.00	0.0	4
1896-03-15	30	21	25.5	39	0	0.20	2.2	6
1896-03-16	34	26	30.0	35	0	1.90	8.3	14
1896-03-17	37	27	32.0	33	0	0.26	0.0	12
1896-03-18	40	26	33.0	32	0	0.00	0.0	11
1896-03-19	53	33	43.0	22	0	0.54	0.0	3
1896-03-20	41	22	31.5	33	0	T	0.0	2
1896-03-21	39	20	29.5	35	0	0.00	0.0	1
1896-03-22	47	33	40.0	25	0	0.04	0.0	T
1896-03-23	33	19	26.0	39	0	0.25	2.3	2
1896-03-24	29	13	21.0	44	0	0.16	1.6	3
1896-03-25	40	21	30.5	34	0	0.00	0.0	1
1896-03-26	53	30	41.5	23	0	0.04	0.0	T
1896-03-27	32	22	27.0	38	0	0.02	0.0	0
1896-03-28	42	27	34.5	30	0	0.00	0.0	0
1896-03-29	53	35	44.0	21	0	0.87	0.0	0
1896-03-30	58	35	46.5	18	0	0.04	0.0	0
1896-03-31	62	44	53.0	12	0	0.00	0.0	0
Sum	1223	766	-	1013	0	6.13	28.5	-
Average	39.5	24.7	32.1	-	-	-	-	3.1
Normal	M	M	M	M	M	M	M	-

 

 

Climatological Data for World Trade Center, NY - February 1894

Date	Max Temp (°F)	Min Temp (°F)	Avg Temp (°F)	HDD	CDD	Precipitation (in)	Snowfall (in)	Snow Depth (in)
1894-02-01	34	27	30.5	34	0	0.06	0.6	1
1894-02-02	33	21	27.0	38	0	0.00	0.0	1
1894-02-03	44	30	37.0	28	0	0.00	0.0	1
1894-02-04	33	24	28.5	36	0	0.11	1.0	2
1894-02-05	25	7	16.0	49	0	0.00	0.0	2
1894-02-06	38	17	27.5	37	0	0.00	0.0	2
1894-02-07	45	30	37.5	27	0	0.00	0.0	1
1894-02-08	52	36	44.0	21	0	0.00	0.0	T
1894-02-09	39	33	36.0	29	0	0.76	0.0	0
1894-02-10	49	34	41.5	23	0	0.02	0.0	0
1894-02-11	42	30	36.0	29	0	0.00	0.0	0
1894-02-12	30	22	26.0	39	0	0.50	5.0	5
1894-02-13	22	18	20.0	45	0	0.64	9.0	12
1894-02-14	29	16	22.5	42	0	0.02	0.2	7
1894-02-15	37	25	31.0	34	0	0.79	6.8	6
1894-02-16	27	13	20.0	45	0	0.00	0.0	6
1894-02-17	44	11	27.5	37	0	0.00	0.0	5
1894-02-18	49	38	43.5	21	0	0.49	0.0	2
1894-02-19	42	35	38.5	26	0	0.04	0.0	1
1894-02-20	42	34	38.0	27	0	0.19	0.0	T
1894-02-21	41	30	35.5	29	0	0.00	0.0	0
1894-02-22	37	23	30.0	35	0	0.01	0.1	0
1894-02-23	29	11	20.0	45	0	0.00	0.0	0
1894-02-24	11	4	7.5	57	0	0.00	0.0	0
1894-02-25	21	1	11.0	54	0	0.01	0.1	T
1894-02-26	33	18	25.5	39	0	1.50	15.0	7
1894-02-27	38	21	29.5	35	0	0.01	0.1	5
1894-02-28	47	28	37.5	27	0	0.00	0.0	3
Sum	1013	637	-	988	0	5.15	37.9	-
Average	36.2	22.8	29.5	-	-	-	-	2.5
Normal	M	M	M	M	M	M	M	-

 

 

Interesting that 1896 is on this list, March 1896 was the snowiest month and the only month in NYC with 30 inches or more of snow until February 2010 and January 2011 came along.  1896 also had that superheatwave that killed over 1,500 people in NYC in August with 10 days over 90 degrees.

[LibertyBell]

2 hours ago, Stormchaserchuck1 said:

When the Pacific is in -PNA/+EPO, we blow past forecasts.  When +PNA/-EPO, not so much (although this pattern has been more rare in the last 8 years).  NAO is in a 3-sigma block right now and it's 70 degrees... that has gone in an opposite correlation since about 2007 or 2013.. Pacific is just as unfavorable for cold, if not moreso, when the NAO is negative a lot lately.. Pacific trumps. 

yes some of our hottest summers like 2010 have happened with a -NAO.

[donsutherland1]

Under bright sunshine, the temperature surged into the middle 60s across the New York City area. Through March 10th, New York City has a monthly mean temperature of 42.3°. Since 2000, there have been 11 cases with a March 1-10 mean temperature of 42.0° or above. In 10 (91%) of cases, March wound up with a warmer than normal monthly average. In six (55%) of cases, March had a monthly temperature anomaly of 3° or more above normal.

The generally unseasonably mild weather will likely continue through the remainder of the week even as Wednesday and Thursday will be briefly cooler days. The March 10-17 period will see temperatures average much above normal across the Middle Atlantic and southern New England regions. Parts of the region will likely experience their warmest weather so far this season during the warm spell. Rain could arrive on Sunday and continue into Monday.

The risk of a moderate (4" or more) in the New York City area remains low through at least the first three weeks of March. A significant or substantial snowfall in New York City is unlikely for the remainder of the 2024-2025 snow season. There is an increasing prospect that New York City has seen its last measurable snowfall of the 2024-2025 season.

The strong PNA ridge that predominated for most of the second half of February dissipated during the first week of March. However, the peak magnitude of that previous PNA ridge suggests that the New York City area likely won't experience any major snowfalls for the remainder of the 2024-2025 snow season. The historic experience hints that the rising warmth of spring becomes too great to overcome by the time an otherwise favorable pattern for such snowfalls develops.  

The PNA reached +1.500 on February 19th and remained at or above +1.500 through February 23rd and at or above +1.000 through February 28th. In all 12 years that saw the PNA reach +1.500 or above on February 15 or later since 1950, the remainder of winter saw no 10" or greater snowstorms. If historic experience holds true yet again, that would make the 2024-2025 snow season the fourth consecutive snow season without a 10" or above snowstorm in New York City. The last time that happened was during 2016-2017 through 2019-2020. Most of the 12 cases cited above went on to see some additional measurable snowfall with a few seeing a 6"+ storm.

The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was +1.6°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was 0.0°C for the week centered around March 5. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged +0.68°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged -0.37°C. Neutral ENSO conditions have developed. Neutral ENSO conditions will likely continue into at least late spring.

The SOI was +6.17 today.

The preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) was -0.850 today.

Based on sensitivity analysis applied to the latest guidance, there is an implied 81% probability that New York City will have a warmer than normal March (1991-2020 normal). March will likely finish with a mean temperature near 46.0° (3.2° above normal).

 

[donsutherland1]

2 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

I was reading "Climatic Guide for New York City, New York and Nearby Areas" which was published by the United States Weather Bureau in 1958, and I was kind of surprised by how large of a discrepancy there was between the snowfall observed by the Weather Bureau at The Battery and the snowfall observed by the observer at Central Park in the 1880s and 1890s. I would consider the Weather Bureau numbers to be the "gold standard" since they were collected by actual meteorologists, and it makes me wonder if some of the old snowfall records at Central Park are underestimated. I wonder if any of the New York area climate gurus have any explanation for this? @LibertyBell@bluewave @donsutherland1 

Of particular note is that 77.6" observed at the Battery for the winter of 1892-1893 - that would be a seasonal record. It seems like the discrepancy was only in the early years, with later years showing the Park generally with more snowfall than the City Office...which, to be honest, would be my expectation given the City Office would be a heat island and very near the water, versus the park-like setting at one of the highest elevations on Manhattan Island.

Seasonal Snowfall at the New York City WB Office

 

Season	Snowfall (inches)
1884-1885	36.6
1885-1886	23.9
1886-1887	49.5
1887-1888	46.6
1888-1889	21.9
1889-1890	34.1
1890-1891	39.7
1891-1892	36.5
1892-1893	77.6
1893-1894	56.1
1894-1895	36.2
1895-1896	42.0
1896-1897	39.1
1897-1898	20.1
1898-1899	58.3
1899-1900	20.1
1900-1901	9.2
1901-1902	31.3
1902-1903	26.0
1903-1904	33.0
1904-1905	57.8
1905-1906	22.1
1906-1907	52.4
1907-1908	32.2
1908-1909	22.5
1909-1910	38.2
1910-1911	26.0
1911-1912	25.0
1912-1913	15.5
1913-1914	40.4

 

 

I'm not sure what was going on to explain the differences. However, I had previously run a regression equation contrasting the amounts with snowfall at Philadelphia. The Central Park site had a stronger correlation and smaller error. My hypothesis is that the Battery Park measurements were inflated at times due to drifting (stronger winds coming in off New York Harbor).

[LibertyBell]

2 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

I'm not sure what was going on to explain the differences. However, I had previously run a regression equation contrasting the amounts with snowfall at Philadelphia. The Central Park site had a stronger correlation and smaller error. My hypothesis is that the Battery Park measurements were inflated at times due to drifting (stronger winds coming in off New York Harbor).

This makes me want to know The Battery's total for the March 1888 snowstorm, do we have numbers for individual snowstorms there and their list of the top 5 snowstorms there, Don?