Cold, Snow Records Broken, More Blizzard Pics

UPDATE: We just published an article which clarifies the "1982" comment:

"The last time a large swath of severely low temperatures struck the nation was in January 1985. That historic arctic outbreak had below-zero temperatures Fahrenheit stretching from Chicago eastward to New York City, and all the way south to Macon, Ga.... Bastardi says the upcoming days will bring cold not seen since 1985 or 1982."

During this weekend's New England Blizzard & Lake-Effect Snow event (see yesterday's blog for updated totals - over 40 inches!) Burlington Vermont broke their all-time daily snow record according to Chris Burt, Author of "Extreme Weather". Thus far the only statement released by the NWS is that they broke their record for January 3rd; hopefully they will update that. Chris says "the previous single-storm record of 29.8” on Dec. 25-28, 1969" and the NWS statement quotes 33.1" for this storm. NECN is also reporting on this record.

The cold air is breaking records too... but keep in mind that although this morning's temperatures seem cold, and -40 was achieved yesterday morning in Minnesota and International Falls broke their daily record and had the coldest 3-day opening to a new year ever, they are nowhere near the state extremes (try -60 in Minnesota!).

Of course, the "really" cold air is not here yet. Yes, Florida will see the 10's tonight but it could be even worse next week. Now, I heard some meteorologists this morning at AccuWeather throwing around the term "coldest since 1982". I assume they meant the coldest January average temperature - surely they didn't mean breaking last year's extreme cold here in PA or 1985's record cold outbreak that set North Carolina's all-time state minimum record? They are working on a story for AccuWeather.com, we'll know more soon. Joe Bastardi has more information on his "Long Ranger" video today, which is only available on our Pro site; he may do one that we put on AccuWeather.com later today.

By the way, our Facebook Fans keep coming up with more wonderful Blizzard pictures such as this one:

Comments (9): davepa:

Hi Jesse

Happy new year ... question for you. Is there a "sounding" tutorial anywhere on your site? (how to read the temps up thru the atmosphere)

Tank You,

Dave

Posted by davepa | January 5, 2010 9:16 AM Jamal:

Thanks Steve. I made what I felt was a very clear and articulate point to Jesse about his blog titled "New England Blizzard Record Snow Totals > 40 Inches."

To his credit, Jesse has changed that title so it is now archived as "New England Blizzard and Lake Effect > 40 Inches."

I'm satisfied with that, and with the assumption that my message was at least partially understood.

To his discredit, Jesse continues to interpret the argument that mountaintop snow totals are not accurately representative of regional mean totals as somehow a "demand to censor meteorological data."

I'm not quite sure exactly where this strinkingly paranoid dillusion stems from, that I am in some way in nefarious league with an "AGW" "warmist" conspiracy of left-wing kooks, but it is amusing. (I voted for Bush . . . once.) I welcome ALL "meteorological data" in all contexts. It's the accurate and informed representation of that CONTEXT which is at issue here. When confronted with conflicting data and opinion, what an odd knee-jerk response to fall back on "Censorship" as a defense. If I want to censor anything, it is inaccurate data representation and skewed repoting of results to hype for dramatic effect. BTW, ski resorts are notorious for vastly inflating their snowfall totals . . . for business reasons, of course.

I'm a retired chemical engineer and university physics professor who lives in central NH and an avid amateur weather enthusiast. I have a few decades worth of experience in collecting, analyzing and presenting scientific data for peer review. When I see misrepresentaion of the weather - particularly of the weather in my own back yard - it upsets me.

Given my ethnicity, I also have a lifetime of experience with small-minded bigotry and blatent discrimination. Pin-headed comments like those of "Aram" fail to register with me as anything more than infantilism. Unfortunately, there seems to be a great deal of it posted in these blogs. What can you do? Stop reading them I suppose .....

I appreciate your comments, Steve.

FROM JESSE: I just don't think that your argument that ski slopes are exaggerating their amounts holds water, or should I say snow, when they are 10-20 inches less than the lake-effect amounts. If you don't want to believe the ski slope reports then don't, but I'm not going to stop reporting them for you only. I thought* you'd appreciate that I am splitting them out and not mixing them in the same list as the NWS Spotter reports (which, by the way, are taken by average folks like myself and are therefore no less prone to exaggeration than ski slopes).

I personally think everyone is blowing this out of proportion and bringing in Global Warming or Racial arguments is way off-topic. Remember: It's only the weather!

Posted by Jamal | January 4, 2010 7:30 PM M.Ed McEntire:

Jesse, Thanks for the snowfall updates.

It seems the facts my create questions for some & answers for others.

Posted by M.Ed McEntire | January 4, 2010 5:48 PM steve04074:

Hi, Jesse-- Jamal was quite careful, I felt, to be precise in his language-- especially the phrase "wholly genuine or accurate."

I totally hear what you're saying, though-- KBTV's 33.1" is the new single-storm all-time record, and will stand as such, without any asterisk by its listing. The fact that possibly a good chunk of it was due to an unusually long-lived NNW wind-induced lake-effect off of Champlain (the result of the primary storm's very unusual retrograde movement in the Gulf of Maine) doesn't in any way diminish or invalidate the record.

But I'm saddened that you allowed the nasty post by "Aram"-- with his/her use of trademark politically snarky phrases like "AGW NEWSPEAK" and "Warmism devotees" to stand uncommented on by you.

I'm not even remotely suggesting that you should suppress his views or censor them, but the absence of any comment by you on them creates the appearance that you're OK with people using that sort of tone in your blog.

Do you really want your readers' comments to turn into just another of the unbelievably nasty and vicious forums that are all over many weather and news websites on the issue of climate change?

Posted by steve04074 | January 4, 2010 5:30 PM Aram:

"As I said last winter, I cannot respond to requests to censor meteorological data."

Ouch! Perfect response, Jesse. When I read that insolent demand that you conform to AGW NEWSPEAK, my mouth dropped open. Just shows how far some Warmism devotees will go to push their views.

Posted by Aram | January 4, 2010 2:49 PM Philip:

Echoing off the post above, it is a rare sight to see a phone booth...this snow drift makes the photo that much more unique. Very cool!

Posted by Philip | January 4, 2010 2:40 PM jb yul:

Jamal: any records for Burlington would tend to include lake effects. Given the relative small size of lake Champlain compared to the Great Lakes, it's surprising that lake effect amounts to much. But I suppose that the numbers tell the story.

Posted by jb yul | January 4, 2010 2:18 PM Jamal:

Jesse,

Burlington Vermont's impressive snowfall Saturday night was primarily the result of lake effect snow training from Lake Champlain. This fact is corroborated by the dramatically reduced totals of surrounding towns not influenced by the lake effect. The NECN meterologist confims and rightly attributes this. To imply that the "New England Blizzard" left a record 3-feet of snow in Burlington Vermont is to attribute the snowfall solely to the storm itself rather than the lake effect, which is not wholly genuine or accurate. You might just as well attribute the lake-effect pile-up in Michigan, Indiana and Buffalo NY to the "Blizzard." Furthermore, to support the appearance of such an argument by quoting snowfalls at ski areas is likewise cherry-picking inflated data knowing full well that elevation enhances snow totals. No one "lives" at the top of Cannon Mountain or Bretton Woods, but an awful lot of snow falls there at 4,500 feet.

The "New England Blizzard" left anywhere from 6 to 18 inches of snow across the high country of Northern New England over a prolonged 3-day period. Hopefully you will acknowledge this and update your blog.

FROM JESSE: Actually I said yesterday in my blog "these amounts may include lake-effect" but I will repeat that above... I don't think there's a good way to tell the two apart.. how can you be sure that the 18" was blizzard and 19" was lake-effect? P.S.: There is nothing meteorologically incorrect with quoting snow fall totals from ski resorts, especially considering they are in line with the Vermont record. As I said last winter, I cannot respond to requests to censor meteorological data.

Posted by Jamal | January 4, 2010 1:00 PM LEinCLE:

I'm not sure which sight is more rare: the snow drift or the pay phone.

Posted by LEinCLE | January 4, 2010 11:14 AM