According to The Winter of 95-96: A Season of Extremes, National Climatic Data Center, Hartford typically receives about 45 inches (114 cm) of snow in an average winter. The record seasonal snowfall was 115.2 inches (293 cm) during the winter of 1995–1996. Compare that to January 2011 which has so much snow that roof collapses are becoming a concern.
Seen above: New Haven, CT has declared a snow emergency.
WGN-TV’s Tom Skilling writes:
Hartford, Connecticut’s monthly snow approaching six feet!
The prolific snows which have hit the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast this winter–during January in particular–are without precedent. January tallies haven’t just surpassed previous snow records–they’ve obliterated them. In the New York City area, where an 8.1 inch total is considered normal to date, snow totals have reached 3 feet–at some locations, even more! Central Park’s 36.0 inch month to date tally has eclipsed the 86 year old previous record of 27.4 inches set in 1925. Records have also fallen at Newark (37.3 inches), La Guardia (32.4 inches), Bridgeport, Connecticut (41.8 inches) and Islip on Long Island (34.2 inches).
Among the most stunning of all the January snow totals close to the New York City area is the 56.9 inches which have hit Hartford, Connecticut. That’s four and a half times the city’s typical full-January total of 12.6 inches.
Word of the huge monthly snow amounts there comes just days after that area was hit by yet another snowstorm–a system which rode into New York on gusts as high as 49 mph. Snowfall at New York’s Central Park hit 19.0 inches as did tallies out of Clifton and Roselle, New Jersey.
The same lightning-laced snow system put down 15.1 inches in Philadelphia, 16 inches Jersey City, New Jersey and 11.5 inches at South Boston, Massachusetts. The Nation’s Capital measured 5 inches at Reagan National Airport.
LazyTeenager says:
January 29, 2011 at 8:38 pm
I am surprised I have to explain this on a weather climate blog.
=====================================================
Please continue….
…explaining and re-explaining just draws more attention to the fact that no one can predict the future….
…and the climate scientists got it wrong again
Caleb says:
January 30, 2011 at 1:51 am
In addition to the rain/snow line, the northern extent of a coastal storm can be surprisingly sharp. I work in Nashua NH on the southern end of the city and right next to Massachusetts, but live well north. During one major storm (I forget which one, but it’s likely on that Kocin/Uncinelli list), the radar loop showed Nashua was right on the edge and the edge wasn’t making northerly progress.
So I went into work. No snow until I got to the northernmost exit in Nashua, #8. Each exit I passed seemed to have an extra inch of snow, and getting into the parking lot at work was satisfying challenge.
I would be rather leery of any “based on observational data” statistic that purports to show an AGW water vapor increase. Water vapor is rather hard to quantify within a needed, small, standard error, let alone measure and quantify AGW trends outside of the error bars unrelated to weather pattern variations and oscillations.
http://www.cmsaf.eu/bvbw/generator/CMSAF/Content/Publication/vs__pdf/ANVADA,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/ANVADA.pdf
This leads me to suggest that statements related to AGW water vapor increases are based on models, not real-time data.
I live just outside of Danbury CT on the NY side, currently I have approx. 30-40 inches on the ground. During the 95-96 season Danbury recorded 120 inches for the season but although it snowed constantly it melted between storms. I have lived here since 1980 and have never seen this much snow on the ground at one time.
I continue to hope for the epicenter of snow storms and lack of thawing to be in Edward Markey’s district in MA. Dump on them.
Yep, it’s been a very wet couple of winters, and as the long term ice core data tell us:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.gif
The colder periods when the glaciers advanced saw LOWER snowfall rates, not higher. Colder periods are marked by summers when the snow doesn’t melt and that’s why the glaciers advance, not because of higher snowfall rates. The coldest period in the ice core data above (the Younger Dryas) when the glaciers started advancing was also the period with the lowest snowfall rates. Cold=Dry, at least that what hundreds of thousands of years of ice-core data tell us, and of couse, basic physics.
Berényi Péter says:
January 29, 2011 at 3:42 pm
>>
Mike says:
January 29, 2011 at 3:01 pm
Why this there so much water vapor in the atmosphere? What could cause that?
The real question is why the excess water vapor comes down as snow rather than rain. What could cause that?
>>
Well I guess it’s the cold weather , but it’s winter , there’s nothing “unprecedented” about it being cold enough to snow in winter. What is unusual is the quantity of snow , not the fact that it is snowing. So Mike’s comment makes sense.
Lots of snow does not mean it’s exceptionally cold, it means there’s lots of water vapour in the air. If anyone feels the need to guffaw about extreme cold let’s post temperatures not precipitation data.
Berényi Péter says:
>>
I guess as the heat is released at cloud tops, it is readily radiated out to space, as freeze-dried air above is pretty transparent to thermal IR, because the so called Arctic window on the other side of CO2 absorption band (at wavelengths longer than 16 μm) is also open.
In other words if the extra snow is caused by global warming indeed, we have the luck to identify just another strong negative feedback loop.
>>
There you’re making more sense. Both evaporation and precipitation add a significant amount of heat transfer away from the surface in addition the the T^4 Stephan-Boltzmann radiation at the surface.
This is a clear negative feedback and is one example of how it is H2O not CO2 that regulates climate on Earth.
P. Solar says:
January 30, 2011 at 12:51 pm
“This is a clear negative feedback and is one example of how it is H2O not CO2 that regulates climate on Earth.”
_______
You may want to read: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Lacis_etal.pdf
(scroll down to start of article)
P. Solar says:
January 30, 2011 at 12:51 pm
“Lots of snow does not mean it’s exceptionally cold, it means there’s lots of water vapour in the air. If anyone feels the need to guffaw about extreme cold let’s post temperatures not precipitation data.”
____
Ice core data covering hundreds of thousands of years would agree with you. Colder periods saw LOWER, not great snowfall accumulations as in general colder=more dry.
See: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.gif
To see how snowfall accumulation varied with temperatures in Greenland over the past 20,000 years. Colder=lower snowfall accumulations.
R. Gates says:
January 30, 2011 at 1:10 pm
P. Solar says:
January 30, 2011 at 12:51 pm
“This is a clear negative feedback and is one example of how it is H2O not CO2 that regulates climate on Earth.”
_______
You may want to read: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Lacis_etal.pdf
(scroll down to start of article)
LOL, Schmidt and Reudy are a joke. Lackies in Hansen’s nuclear proliferation team.
How these jokers don’t get sued for misrepresentation (of themselves as scientists) beats me.
These guys could watch a dog shake itself dry and conclude that there was a pre-emptive feedback mechanism by which the water flying off caused the dog to start shaking.
Hey, I’m in Rep. Malarky’s district! I don’t know as we’re in the ‘epicenter’ of the recent storms, but the snow piles and icicles are impressive. However, the good solon has a reputation for avoiding his district (except at election time). But with any luck, he will have gotten stuck in the amazing gridlock that paralyzed Washington, D.C. Thursday. That was the traffic kind, but long may he suffer from the Congressional kind, as well.
/Mr Lynn
latitude says on January 30, 2011 at 6:12 am
You attributed the comments to the wrong person. It was actually Berényi Péter.
R Gates:
>>
Ice core data covering hundreds of thousands of years would agree with you. Colder periods saw LOWER, not great snowfall accumulations as in general colder=more dry.
See: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.gif
To see how snowfall accumulation varied with temperatures in Greenland over the past 20,000 years. Colder=lower snowfall accumulations.
>>
Thanks for the link, interesting graph. I always wondered by that cold period was called “Younger Dryass”, all becomes clear.
I guess they call the last ice age the Older-Dryass period. 😉
“Ice Coverage
9 to 10 tenths of medium lake ice west of Long Point and near
Buffalo. Elsewhere 9 tenths of thin lake except 9 tenths of new lake
ice in Long Point Bay.”
http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/marine/iceConditions_e.html?mapID=11&siteID=07503
I’m up by Lake Ontario so don’t know snow conditions on Erie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lakes_Blizzard_of_1977#Winter_of_1976-1977_Prior_to_the_Storm
Skeptic Tank says:
January 29, 2011 at 1:40 pm
“In our record year of 1996, here on Long Island, we had over 90″ for the season – 3x the normal average. We had at least four storms over 14″ that year. But I don’t remember there ever being as much snow on the ground at one time as we have right now. We typically have substantial melting between major storms. Not this year.
If this keep up, I’m moving to Syracuse.”
I live in Texas but I’m temporarily in western NY about 180 miles southwest of Syracuse. I don’t think you’re going to get a break there except perhaps they’re far better prepared for harsh winters.
Wait until the damage is tallied up from all the ice dams. I grew up in this area and I’ve never seen them this bad. Chunks of ice as big as garbage cans are building up along eaves backing up water underneath shingles resulting in lots of yellow icicles (something rarely seen in the last 50 years) as the water penetrates attics and walls and picks up yellow coloring from the underlying wood. When these huge ice dams break off they rip off gutter pipes, roofing shingles, siding, furnace vent pipes, and anything else breakable in the vicinity. I expect there’ll be a fair amount of people getting hurt by falling ice too or falling off ladders while attempting to get rid of the dams.