OT: Boston breaks all-time snowfall record (108.6" and counting)

[RU848789]

I know we have a few folks from Beantown on the board. Congratulations. I think, lol. 2.9" have fallen today to break the old record of 107.6" set in 95-96. My cousin, who lives just outside Boston, is ready to move back to MD (most of our family is from the Baltimore area). Could be some snow next weekend, even around here...

 

[Scarlet Knut]

Better there then here! Congrats on your record Boston!

 

[RUMike410]

Originally posted by Scarlet Knut:
Better there then here! Congrats on your record Boston!

Don't care. One, it's Boston. Two, winter is over.

 

[bac2therac]

wrong board

 

[MozRU]

Agreed back, but I will chime in. I wanted to cry yesterday afternoon. This past week the temps hit 45 and all the snow melted off roofs, sidewalks, roads and driveways. It gave hope.

Everything is blanketed in the white fluffy stuff right now. Ugh.

 

[RU4Real]

I think the OP should clarify that the snowfall record is only since official records started being kept, sometime around 1869ish.

It's also likely that the winters around 100,000 BC saw much higher snowfall totals.

 

[Scarlet16E]

Originally posted by RU4Real:
I think the OP should clarify that the snowfall record is only since official records started being kept, sometime around 1869ish.

It's also likely that the winters around 100,000 BC saw much higher snowfall totals.

My roof has had a glacier on it since January. Damn water always fins a way into the house.

 

[RUChoppin]

Originally posted by RU4Real:
I think the OP should clarify that the snowfall record is only since official records started being kept, sometime around 1869ish.

It's also likely that the winters around 100,000 BC saw much higher snowfall totals.

Pretty sure there was no snowfall for Boston around 100,000 BC... as Boston didn't exist. So, there's a gap between 1630-1872 (when Boston started keeping records) where there may have been higher totals.

 

[derleider]

Good point RU4Real. In fact you probably dont even have to go back that far. The late 1700s and early 1800s were pretty cold in the Northeast US (among other places.) Although it might have been so cold overall that the ocean temps wouldnt have supported massive snows (so it would be more like Pittsburgh or Chicago - cold with snow on the ground, but not alot of 12"+ events.)

The real amazing thing is that they were on pace for a record LOW snowfall year up until the pattern changed in mid-January and really, they basically havent gotten any in March either. They got nearly 100 inches in about 5-6 weeks, and have only gotten about 7 inches since February 25, and only about 5 inches before January 15 - they more or less didnt get any snow from Thanksgiving until near years, and only a couple inches from then until MLK Day.

For comparison, the previous record year had over two feet by mid-December, and received almost two more feet in March/April.

 

[brgRC90]

Meanwhile in california a 90+ degree heat wave enters another day and the state has a year of water left in lakes and reservoirs...

 

[RU848789]

Originally posted by derleider:
Good point RU4Real. In fact you probably dont even have to go back that far. The late 1700s and early 1800s were pretty cold in the Northeast US (among other places.) Although it might have been so cold overall that the ocean temps wouldnt have supported massive snows (so it would be more like Pittsburgh or Chicago - cold with snow on the ground, but not alot of 12"+ events.)

The real amazing thing is that they were on pace for a record LOW snowfall year up until the pattern changed in mid-January and really, they basically havent gotten any in March either. They got nearly 100 inches in about 5-6 weeks, and have only gotten about 7 inches since February 25, and only about 5 inches before January 15 - they more or less didnt get any snow from Thanksgiving until near years, and only a couple inches from then until MLK Day.

For comparison, the previous record year had over two feet by mid-December, and received almost two more feet in March/April.

Yep, 140-150 years isn't that long, but that's all we have for weather records in most locations in the US. I'm sure there had to have been more snow in many places in the northern hemisphere during the "Little Ice Age" (1400-1850 more or less), as per the link. My favorite observation was the winter of 1780, when NY Harbor froze, allowing people to walk from Manhattan to Staten Island. Also, we don't have to go back 100,000 years to encounter ice age glaciation - ~20,000 years ago glacial ice sheets covered much of the midwest, Rockies and northeast, as far south as Manhattan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

der - did you see the unusual stat about this being the 2nd winter in 60+ years to feature over 40" in NYC snowfall (welll above average) during an AO+ (Arctic Oscillation) regime? And that the other winter (04-05) was barely positive and had most of its snowfall when the AO was negative that winter, as opposed to this winter, when almost all of the snow fell when the AO was positive. I'm not that knowledgable about these short/medium term climate teleconnections and their use in predicting future weather based on comparison to past analogs, but it's all the day 10-15 people talk about.

http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/topic/45967-mar-10-31-modelthreat-discussion-thread/page-15

 

[BeantownKnight]

Yes, we had about an inch or so at my house. However, over at Logan airport, they received almost 3 inches (which is how they broke the record). Usually, as you get further west of the city, the accumulations increase. Thus, this was pretty unusual.

Frankly, I'm ready for Spring. Enough of winter. I wouldn't care if, next winter, it didn't snow at all. I'll keep my snowblower in the shed all season.

 

[Source]

" I think the OP should clarify that the snowfall record is only since official records started being kept, sometime around 1869ish. It's also likely that the winters around 100,000 BC saw much higher snowfall totals."

Oh, don't get me started! Back around 102,000 BC, I couldn't start my dinosaur. I'd club it and club it but nothing. There were cars tipped over at the rib place. The snows completely filled up the slate pit. It was like an ice age. Uh, wait a second. Now that I think about it, it WAS an ice age.

 

[Purple-Ed]

Originally posted by RUChoppin:

Originally posted by RU4Real:
I think the OP should clarify that the snowfall record is only since official records started being kept, sometime around 1869ish.

It's also likely that the winters around 100,000 BC saw much higher snowfall totals.

Pretty sure there was no snowfall for Boston around 100,000 BC... as Boston didn't exist. So, there's a gap between 1630-1872 (when Boston started keeping records) where there may have been higher totals.

Good point.

 

[RU848789]

Originally posted by bac2therac:

wrong board

Huh? Don't tell me you're about to go anti-OT on us and never post another OT thread on weatherchickenfingersconcessionsplowingfavoritecandyfavoriteChristmassongfavoriteTgivingsidedish.

 

[rume]

Bangor Maine 130".