Heavy snow, rain, and flooding for the Northeast U.S.
The winter of 2009-2010 continues its relentless onslaught over the U.S. today, as a powerful low pressure system intensifying along the East Coast brings heavy snow, flooding rains, and high winds to New England and the Mid-Atlantic. The storm has already dropped more than two feet of snow over Eastern New York near Albany, and surrounding regions of Western Massachusetts and Southern Vermont. These regions are now seeing rain mixed in with the snow, which will limit further accumulations to 1 - 3 inches. Farther east, flooding is a concern for most of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, southern New Hampshire, and portions of western Maine, where heavy rainfall of 1 - 3 inches on top of a snow pack with a high water content has created runoff that has already swollen many rivers to flood stage. Heavy snow is the main concern over southeast New York, northern New Jersey, and northeast Pennsylvania. The unusually slow-moving storm is expected to drop snow amounts of up to 18" in the Pocono Mountains of northeast Pennsylvania, and in northern New Jersey. New York City, whose 30.5" of snow so far this winter is 13" above average for this date, could get up to a foot of wet, heavy snow. Philadelphia's 73" of snow for the season will get an 8 - 12" boost from the storm, taking their record snowiest winter even further into record territory. Wind gusts of 30 - 40 mph in combination with the very wet, heavy snow will make power outages a problem over much of the region.
Figure 1. Visible satellite image at 9:30am EST Thursday, February 25, 2010 showing today's Northeast U.S. snowstorm. Image credit: NASA GSFC GOES project.
Some selected storm-total snowfall amounts, from Tuesday morning through 10am EST today, courtesy of the National Weather Service:
...CONNECTICUT...
BURLINGTON 10.0
NEW HARTFORD 3.8 W 9.0
...KENTUCKY...
OVEN FORK 1 NE 5.0
BLEDSOE 2 SE 4.0
...MASSACHUSETTS...
SAVOY 28.5
ROWE 25.0
CHESTERFIELD 24.0
ASHFIELD 23.6
HEATH 22.0
SHELBURNE 22.0
PLAINFIELD 21.5
PITTSFIELD 20.0
BECKET 19.8
CHESTER 19.5
BLANDFORD 19.0
ASHBURNHAM 16.8
LANESBOROUGH 16.0
NORTH OTIS 16.0
NEW ASHFORD 13.0
WORCESTER 10.7
...NEW HAMPSHIRE...
EAST LEMPSTER 20.0
WASHINGTON 18.5
PETERBOROUGH 18.0
RANDOLF 17.6
GREENFIELD 16.0
NEWPORT 15.3
WILTON 14.0
BENNINGTON 13.0
WAPOLE 12.9
WEST CHESTERFIELD 10.8
LEMPSTER 10.0
...NEW YORK...
ALTAMONT 26.5
WESTERLO 26.0
WILLARD MTN BASE 25.0
NORTH HEBRON 24.0
MEDUSA 23.0
MORIAH 22.5
TABORTON 22.0
DURHAM 20.0
PORTER CORNERS 20.0
ROXBURY 18.9
PHOENICIA 18.5
CHATHAM CENTER 18.0
SCHENECTADY 15.0
ALBANY 12.4
BINGHAMTON 10.5
...OHIO...
CARROLOTON 5.5
...PENNSYLVANIA...
PONOCO PEAK LAKE 13.0
HAWLEY 3.8 NE 11.0
WANTAGE 11.0
PLEASANT MOUNT 10.0
DINGMANS FERRY 3.9 WSW 9.2
MILANVILLE 1.5 SE 8.9
SAYLORSBURG 8.5
BEEMERVILLE 8.0
EAST STROUDSBURG 8.0
THOMPSON 8.0
...RHODE ISLAND...
BURRILLVILLE 6.5
WEST GLOCESTER 5.1
WOONSOCKET 0.3 W 3.4
...TENNESSEE...
APPALACHIA 3.0
ROAN MOUNTAIN 3.0
Update on this Saturday's major winter storm in Europe
Computer forecast models continue to forecast the development of a powerful winter storm that will rapidly intensify Saturday morning into a meteorological "bomb" that will bring high winds and flooding rains to Portugal, northern Spain, and possibly France. However, today's model runs are less aggressive in deepening the storm, and no longer call for the storm to be as intense as last year's Winter Storm Klaus. Klaus, which hit northern Spain and southwest France January 23 - 25, was Earth's most costly natural disaster of 2009, causing $5.1 billion in damage and killing 26. Klaus peaked in intensity at 967 mb, and brought wind gusts of 120 mph (193 km/hr) to Formiguères, France, 125 mph (200 km/hr) to Portbou, Spain, and 134 mph (216 km/hr) to Port d'Envalira, Andorra. Last night's 00Z (7pm EST) run of the ECMWF model and GFS model called for Saturday's storm to have 974 - 976 mb central pressure. Saturday's storm still has the potential to be plenty damaging, as winds of tropical storm force with gusts to hurricane force should affect a large swath of Portugal and northern Spain.
Figure 2. Forecast from the 1am EST 2/25/10 run of the GFS model for 18 GMT Saturday for surface winds. The GFS is predicting that Saturday's storm will peak in intensity at this time with a pressure of 974 mb. Sustained winds just below hurricane force of 60 - 75 mph (green colors) are expected offshore from Portugal. Image was generated using our wundermap for Spain with the "model" layer turned on.
Next post
My next post will be Friday.
Jeff Masters
this frozen drop was suspended on the thinnest filament of ice over our frozen brook..so very delicate and beautiful
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 — Blog Index
Hmm, I forgot about tornado season and microbursts. We had some intense tornadoes up here in S. Ontario last year and it looks like they're only going to get worse.
We don't need a supreme ruler to deal with global warming, but a loose world government is not worse than allowing global warming to continue. There wouldn't be an economy without an environment.
The Who? The What?
Ah, Come on, Stop Crying in the Rain!!!!
Yep, the truth is what we need, and will have, count on it!
Don't forget the Beach Boys :)
out>>
Link
This is becoming an epic storm for the northeast.
Very general rule is La Nina = more nadoes, El Nino = fewer nadoes
I thought El Ninos were forecasted to be more frequent and stronger (and deadly, of course)
ConusLoop
Wow. Major storm for S. Ontario?
What about 2004?
This inertia is what prevents science from moving forward.
could get some warning levels snow in the eastern most areas of ontario.
Latest models suggests that the low will retrograde all the way to NYC and possibly just north of Philadelphia.
here are the environmental Canada warnings:
Link
February 25, 2010 · 23 Comments
Two of the most prominent claims of global warming denialists have been proven wrong.
This raises two very serious issues. First, it’s certainly possible to “run the numbers” in order to check the truth or falsehood of their claims, but they didn’t bother to do so. I have. For them to make the claims they’ve made, without even doing the work require to find out, is fundamentally dishonest.
The second, and more serious issue, is that denialists — in particular, Joe D’Aleo and Anthony Watts — have unambiguously accused mainstream climate scientists of deliberate wrongdoing, in spite of the fact that D’Aleo and Watts didn’t analyze the available data in anything like sufficient detail to know. They were all too eager to accuse the climate science community of deceit. All they’ve really shown is that they’re willing to shoot from the hip with no real evidence, in a case where they’re provably wrong, but far too eager to make accusations against honest, hard-working climate scientists without finding out for themselves.
The claim that the station dropout is responsible for any, let alone most, of the modern warming trend, is utterly, demonstrably, provably false. The claim that adjustments introduced by analysis centers such as NASA GISS have introduced false warming is utterly, demonstrably, provably false.
Those who have made these claims, which most prominently include Joe D’Aleo and Anthony Watts, are not just wrong, they’re guilty of false accusations against the scientists who’ve created global temperature records. D’Aleo and Watts owe those scientists an apology. And they owe it to the world, especially their blog readers, to set the record straight in no uncertain terms. D’Aleo and Watts: it’s time to admit not only that you’re wrong, but that you were irresponsible in making such accusations without even undertaking proper investigation.
D’Aleo and Watts should publicly denounce the paper they authored for the Science and Public Policy Institute, should publicly apologize to the climate science community, and should withdraw from the online discussion of global warming in shame.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/shame/
Herman's Hermits
Gerry and the Pacemakers
Chad and Jeremy
Peter and Gordon ("the British Invasion's answer to the Everly Brothers"?)
The Troggs
The Zombies
The Kinks
Freddie and the Dreamers
The Animals
Plus, hotter oceans means there's more water vapor in the air, so a lot more fuel for wintery storms.
You assume the humidity would be evenly distributed? I don't think so. I think even with more water vapor in the air, it will still be concentrated in certain areas like it is today.
Way after my time. I was already to old to listen to them.
We gotta get out of this place
If it's the last thing we ever do.
(BTW, there's a house in New Orleans they call the rising sun.)
Why don't you read the article ?
False Claims Proven False
Two of the most prominent claims of global warming denialists have proven to be utterly false.
I’ve completed processing the GHCN data for the northern hemisphere. This project was undertaken to investigate two denialist claims: 1st, that the dramatic reduction in the number of reporting stations around 1990 introduced a false warming trend; 2nd, that the adjustments applied to station data also introduce a false warming trend.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/false-claims-proven-false/
Nothing new currently. I'll check the latest runs first thing tomorrow morning. The earlier runs I saw has a decent moisture field hugging the coast and inland to FL-AL and FL-GA border late tomorrow night into Saturday morning. Thermal profiles on those runs were marginal at best from about 4.a.m.- 10 a.m. Saturday morning. If there is a chance for a light wintry mix to happen on the north-northwestern fringes of the surface low that will form well south in the GOM early Saturday, this would be the time frame in my opinion.
The next runs will tell us a lot about this by the time we wake up tomorrow morning.
Meanwhile, GFS is really being an outlier with its handling of the potential big GOM storm for Tuesday - Wednesday of next week. I am really paying close attention to this and hopefully we will have a better idea from the models tomorrow on this developing system. This potentially will be a huge weather maker for next week in the Deep South. Stay tuned!
Of course it has. But that's irrelavent. Has it been warmer than what's expected in a few decades during human civilization? No. What about CO2 levels, or that of methane or nitrous oxides? No. It's the rate or warming more than the warming itself.
"You make me feel so young,
You make me feel there are songs to be sung..."
Hope it feels good to be home, Grothar!
Good one, Atmo.
Did our other Aggie get out of this place? I haven't seen Pearland in ages.
Oh my, I just found a Monkee's website! I've gone too far!
Like I said, is tenuous.
" A few studies have shown some loose associations between La Nina years and regional trends in tornado numbers from year to year; but that still doesn't prove cause and effect. Weak associations by year or season may be as close as the ENSO-to-tornado connection can get -- because there are so many things on the scales of states, counties and individual thunderstorms which can affect tornado formation."
From SPC: http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/#Climatology
Article or did you mean blog? I will look in the paper tomorrow or on the news perhaps :)
Please check out the Portlight blog this evening. Bill Rancic, of "The Apprentice" and Style Network's "Giuliana & Bill", made a brief visit to Haiti and volunteers of Portlight showed him around. E! Entertainment News aired the story tonight, with prominent mention of Portlight. In addition, Mr. Rancic blogged about his experience in Haiti, again with several references and a link to Portlight.
Rock on, Portlight and thanks, WUers, for all your help for Haiti!!!
Like this.
Funny you should have picked that song. It was written the year I was born. Let us leave the Monkee's website out of this one. LOL
Good!
see there's my point. you, in your heart feel it is man made along with so many other people. but in turn i could find just as many people that would feel just as strong as you do to state it is a cycle.
who is to determine who is right??
believe me i have children and i'm really scared to know what they will face when they are my age.
You should reread the last 200 post.
And it doesn't matter what you say because it has been debunked already. You have not a single evidence left to counter the science of climate. Get used to it.
Very interesting. And, the overall average from 1880-2009 is negative relative to 1900.
The True Temperature Record
Only need to read one, singular blog entry.
Nail, imo.
When 'epic' and 'storm' go together, one tends to pay attention.
That being said, I fully support furthering research in all scientific disciplines to better understand both local and global climate.
Clearly no mitigation is warranted, certainly not at the predicted costs.
Can't wait for the Bloom Box to get down to the targeted price-point of $3K. I'll leave the grid in a heartbeat. I'll need two, though.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up to provide evidence for this belief. They have published four major Reports which are widely considered to have proved it to be true. This paper examines the evidence in detail and shows that none of the evidence presented confirms a relationship between emissions of greenhouse gases and any harmful effect on the climate. It is the result of 18 years of scrutiny and comment on IPCC Reports and of a study of the scientific literature associated with it.
In order to establish a relationship between human emissions of greenhouse gases and any influence on the climate, it is necessary to solve three problems
- To determine the average temperature of the earth and show that it is increasing
- To measure the concentrations of greenhouse gases everywhere in the atmosphere
- To reliably predict changes in future climate
None of these problems has been solved
It is impossible to measure the average surface temperature of the earth, yet the IPCC scientists try to claim that it is possible to measure “anomalies” of this unknown quantity. An assessment of all the temperature data available, largely ignored by the IPCC, shows no evidence for overall warming, but the existence of cyclic behaviour. Recent warming was last recorded around 1950. An absence of warming for 10 years and a current downturn suggest that the cool part of the cycle is imminent.
The chief greenhouse gas, water vapour, is irregularly distributed, with most of it over the tropics and very little over the poles. Yet the IPCC tries to pretend it is uniformly distributed, so that its “anomalies” can be treated as “feedback” to the global temperature models.
Carbon dioxide is only measured in extremely restricted circumstances in order to pretend that it is “well-mixed”. No general measurements are reported and 90,000 early measurements which show great variability have been suppressed.
Methane is mostly recycled plant material, unrelated to fossil fuels, yet it is used to penalised farmers for animal recycling, when the larger emissions from wetlands are exempt.
Although weather cannot be predicted more than a week or so ahead, the claim is made that “climate” can be predicted 100 years ahead. The claim is based on the development of computer models based on the “flat earth” theory of the climate which assumes it is possible to model the climate from “balanced” average energy quantities This assumption is absurd since all the quantities have skewed distributions with no acceptable average. No resulting model has ever been tested for its ability to predict the future. This is even admitted as the model outputs are mere “projections”. Since the projections are far into the future, nobody living is able to check their validity.
Since no model has been validated, they are “evaluated” based on “simulations”, which are mere correlations, often obtained by adjusting the many poorly characterized parameters to give a “fudged fit”. Several such attempts fail to agree with observations. Future “projections”, which combine the untested models and exaggerated “scenarios” are graded for their “likelihood” from the unsupported opinion of those paid to produce the models. A spurious “probability” attached to these opinions is without mathematical or scientific justification
Humans affect climate by changes in urban development and land use, but there is no evidence that greenhouse gas emissions are involved, except in enhancing plant growth.
Link
+0.14C trend from 1880-2009. That is 0.01C per decade. IPCC? +0.2C per decade. 2000% off.
The True Temperature Record
Even if you go by raw GISS...
The True Temperature Record
Pat thats great.. did Paul ever get on NBC
youtube says:
No videos found for "portlight haiti"
WTH? Did no one capture video of any of it? (Where are you P451?)
Viewing: 351 - 401
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 — Blog Index