Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog

Historic blizzard pounds NYC
Posted by: Dr. Jeff Masters, 03:51 PM GMT on Februar 12, 2006 +1
The blizzard of 2006 has dropped the most snow ever on New York City, a record 26.9 inches as of 4:10 pm at Central Park. The previous biggest snowstorm of all time was 26.4", set Dec 26-27 1947. What appeared to be a rather ordinary Nor'easter on the computer model forecasts yesterday--one that I thought would turn out to be a Category 2 snowstorm on the newly-launched NESIS storm scale for Northeast U.S. snowstorms--has intensified dramatically this morning, and will probably end up ranked as a Category 4 storm on the NESIS scale. As of 7am, Central Park recorded 12 inches of new snow--before an intense mesoscale band of snow with snowfall rates of 2 to 4 inches per hour swept through the city, bringing visibility to zero at LaGuardia Airport. Eleven inches of snow fell in three hours at Central Park between 7am and 10am. This intense band of snow, called a "snowburst", is a result of very unstable air that has organized into thunderstorms. Reports of lightning and thunder have been common today all across the Northeast in association with these snowbursts. Check out this 3-hour radar animation from the New York City radar this morning. You can see a narrow band of extremely heavy snow that stretches from northern New Jersey through New York City and northeastward to Hartford Connecticut. This band has echo intensities of 40 dBZ, which are commmon in warm-season thunderstorms, but seldom observed in winter storms. This narrow band of snow is gradually progressing eastward, and will bring exceptionally heavy snows to Long Island, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts today. Snow amounts of 16-24 inches will be common across New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Eastern Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Rhode Island today.

Over in Massachusetts, the Blizzard of 2006 is expected to cause moderate flooding problems, but nowhere near the scale of the famous Blizzard of 1978. While the blizzard of 2006 is a prodigious snow-producer, its central pressure is not as low as the Blizzard of 1978, and thus its winds are much weaker. The Blizzard of 1978 had sustained winds of 65 mph, while the Blizzard of 2006 can only boast sustained 45 mph winds. The combination of storm tides of 12 feet at Boston Harbor combined with seas between 16 and 22 feet at the time of high tide may produce some structural damage to roads, sea walls, and vulnerable coastal structures around the time of high tide late this morning and early afternoon along the Massachusetts coast.

Down in Florida, the Arctic air mass associated with the Blizzard of 2006 has pushed a strong cold front through the state, bringing the threat of a hard freeze to Florida's citrus groves tonight. Snow flurries are not out of the question in northern Florida tonight and early Monday morning as a weak upper-level disturbance moves through the area. After a long holiday in January, winter has stormed back with a vengance across the eastern half of the U.S.!

Jeff Masters
"Blizzard of '06" (funkywombat)
Snow piled up in a hurry overnight in west central New Jersey with up to 18 inches reported. This picture was taken through my open kitchen window looking towards the back yard; Hunterdon County, NJ.
Here Birdie, Birdie, Birdie! (leiphasw)
5:30 AM and still snowing. I think the 7 - 12 inch estimate was a bit conservative. This was a 2 second exposure with the side deck lights on.
Here Birdie, Birdie, Birdie!
Now for the Fun Part (goldie)
time to dig out and play!!!
Now for the Fun Part
Categories: Winter Weather
  Permalink | A A A
Reader Comments
Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted
Viewing: 101 - 123

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 — Blog Index

102. HurricaneMyles 03:55 AM GMT on Februar 13, 2006    
Well atleast you didnt say yes, I was expecting you to. But I would say wind shear is just as, if not more, important then SST, at least during the height of the season. You can have 100 degree water everywhere, but if wind shear is too high you wont see any hurricanes.
Member Since: Januar 12, 2006 Posts: 5 Comments: 827
103. louastu 03:59 AM GMT on Februar 13, 2006    
You forgot to take into account the species that will not breed without a certain water temperature. Without baby fish, the species in time becomes extinct.
106. TheSnowman 04:09 AM GMT on Februar 13, 2006    
that's what I'm all about really Global Warming Effecting and Increasing Snowfalla nd Snowstorms in NE
107. HurricaneMyles 04:15 AM GMT on Februar 13, 2006    
It's possible Snowman. We could have winters that are 100% mild like parts of this winter. Who knows what the true effects of global warming will be. I can say they will differ all across the world. We have had no ice caps before, and we wont have them at all some time in the future; that's about the truest statement anyone has said.
Member Since: Januar 12, 2006 Posts: 5 Comments: 827
108. louastu 04:30 AM GMT on Februar 13, 2006    
It would still take several weeks for water temperature to return to normal, followed by several more weeks of waiting for eggs to hatch, followed by several more weeks of growing, followed by several more weeks of gradual cooling so you don't stun and kill the fish. My best estimate for total time needed would be about 2 months, in which time there could easily be a hurricane, or some other severe storm event.
109. haydn 04:33 AM GMT on Februar 13, 2006    
On a funny note

I'm going to build a tunnel to the arctic and be completely evil. I'm going to destroy the Gulf stream so that no hurricanes will ever reach the caost. It will be renamed the Cold Stream. I will be called the master of the storm. I repeat "No more hurricanes."

Seriously

We can talk about tunnels till the atomic clock at Denver stops and nothing is accomplished. Cyclonebuster, have you thought about experiments of your hypothesis? I know I'm being funny on purpose. I'm trying to make a point. Please experiment. All jokes aside, until disproven your idea is possible. We on this board would like to see some experimentation to back or disprove your hypothesis. I am not trying be offensive with these statements. I am curious to see if the idea works. Interloper conducted one. I do not consider one experiment disproving your hypothesis to be conclusive. Will you consider doing some experimemts and reporting your results?
111. haydn 04:45 AM GMT on Februar 13, 2006    
Why the idea for tunnels? Are you in an area that is near the coast? Have gone through a hurricane?
112. Skyepony (Mod) 04:49 AM GMT on Februar 13, 2006    
Wow, Hayden~ Just a moment ago from "no more hurricanes" down was up there in Master's blog under the pick(highlighted in the link to the snow picture's blog). I thought buster had a reply. Totally agree, work on proving it.

Buster ya did nothing with all the different sst, currents & salinity info at the different depths. Looking at that seemed to disqualify some of the locations do to tunnel length to find cool water. & the different current rates from top to bottom? the affect?
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 144 Comments: 29348
114. haydn 05:04 AM GMT on Februar 13, 2006    
One last comment,

The only tunnels I've built have been snow tunnels. That was in '78 in KY. Rough year for snow. Not enough snow here in SC to do the same thing. I can't imagine 26 inches in one storm. Heat up the hot chocolate and enjoy. Tonight the temp is suposed to be around 22. brrrrr Yes, I'm a wimp at cold temps. I am going to finish off my glass of green tea and be back tomorrow.

Anyone interested in discussing dome houses and hurricanes?

Goodnight.
115. Skyepony (Mod) 05:05 AM GMT on Februar 13, 2006    
Now the last 1/2 of my last message is stuck in Dr Master's Blog...lol
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 144 Comments: 29348
116. haydn 05:08 AM GMT on Februar 13, 2006    
Cyclonebuster,

I posted before I read your last comment. I have some questions. I'll catch up later.
118. HurricaneMyles 05:20 AM GMT on Februar 13, 2006    
The problem is the way you are going about it, cyclone. You say and act like these things already work and that they will end all bad things. If you want to the get support you want you have to present your idea in a different way. You cant present new and unual ideas as if is some sure thing. Then when people present real evidence to the contrary shrug it off, while showing hardly any proof to back yourself up.

It obvious no one can, or will help you right now on this board. It would be polite, and appropriate, to chime in now and then with something like "still looking for people to help me with my tunnel idea to weaken hurricanes. e-mail me to..." you get it. Instead you say that "my tunnels with stop hurricanes and tonrnadoes, increase rain but stop flooding rain, and stop global warming." Thats where you lose people. You dont add an "I think" or "they might" or something like that, or else you lose people right there.

You will get much easier acceptance and more constructive conversation if you come into it with a little more humility. Dont say you're sure they will work, as that doesnt convince anyone else since it's obvious you're no Met or Physics major. Say you have a great idea and need help proving it will work. I'm sure someone will contact you if they really believe in the idea and want to help.
Member Since: Januar 12, 2006 Posts: 5 Comments: 827
120. HurricaneMyles 05:41 AM GMT on Februar 13, 2006    
Not to be offensive, but you dont portray yourself as a blackhole of knowledge. But like I was saying, unless you bring some substantial proof, like completed formulas something like that, you're probably not going to convince many people. Since you apparently need help doing this, stop trying to convince us and look for them. You just cant do it by going around saying it will do this or that, expecially saying it will stop global warming. Indirectly help lower greenhouse gasses yes; HELP stop the proposed human induced global warming, yes; but when you say "it will stop global warming" you look like a crackpot since you dont elaborate at all. Again, not trying to be offensive, simply giving the point of view of the rest of the world.
Member Since: Januar 12, 2006 Posts: 5 Comments: 827
122. Fshhead 09:20 AM GMT on Februar 13, 2006    
Sorry for your loss....................



cherish every moment the good lord has given me thus far.
Amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Member Since: November 19, 2005 Posts: 9 Comments: 9960
123. TampaSteve 07:44 PM GMT on Februar 13, 2006    
And the LORD spake unto cyclonebuster, "Buildest thou the great tunnels in the oceans, and thou shalt have long life and shall multiply your number. So let it be written...so let it be done!"

Viewing: 101 - 123

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 — Blog Index

New Comment
Community Standards Policy Comments will take a few seconds to appear.
Post Your Comments
Please sign in to post comments.
Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.
About JeffMasters
Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.

Local Weather
Overcast
45 ° F
Overskyet
Community Activity