Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The top 10 biggest storms based on snowcounts in Boston:
1. The President's Day Blizzard of 2003 (February 16-17): 27.6 inches
2. The Blizzard of ‘78 II (Feb. 6-7): 27.1 inches
3. The Blizzard of 1969 (Feb. 24-27, 1969) 26.3 inches
4. April Fool’s Day Blizzard (Mar. 31-April 1, 1997) 25.4 inches
5. Blizzard of 2013, commonly known as Nemo (Feb. 8-9, 2013) 24.9 inches
6. Blizzard of 2005 (Jan. 22-23, 2005) 22.5 inches
7. Blizzard of 1978 I (Jan. 20-21, 1978) 21.4 inches
8. Blizzard of 1960 (March 3-5, 1960) 19.8 inches
9. President's Day Blizzard of 1958 (Feb. 16-17, 1958) 19.4 inches
10. Blizzard of 1994 (Feb. 8-10, 1994) 18.7 inches
I am 7 miles from the center of Boston and I got more than 20 inches. Friends of mine a little further out (but still within 20 or 30 miles) got over 30 inches. Some towns in eastern and central Mass got as much as 35 inches! The official snow total for the Boston airport is 24 inches, putting this storm easily in the top 10, though slightly out of the top 5 for Boston. Perhaps it's in the top 5 for Worcester.
Just because New York and Philadelphia fell short of predictions doesn't mean that's true for everyone. Cape Cod and the islands lived up to the highest snowfall predictions.
Total in Boson was 24.6 inches, missed the top 5 by .3 inches, and missed the all time record by 3 inches. It was 34 inches in Worcester, which was an all time record.
MacArthur Airport in Islip, on Long Island (about 40 miles east of Manhattan) received 24.9 inches, almost identical to the average snowfall over an entire winter (24.8 inches)
The top 10 biggest storms based on snowcounts in Boston:
2. The Blizzard of ‘78 II (Feb. 6-7): 27.1 inches
I was there visiting some friends for that blizzard and shoveled a few cars and a driveway. It felt like a lot more inches than that and I was a fit 24 year old at that time.
In this storm we got around 2 feet where I live in Long Island. At least it was light snow.
The point is that the computer models are very inaccurate even with 12 hours. The best they could do is show that there would be a storm, and that Boston would get it the worst. They also made various false predictions about snow elsewhere.
Global tempatures are more constant and more predictable than a storm. Nice attempt to pretend you know something about atomospheric science when you don't though .
Global tempatures are more constant and more predictable than a storm. Nice attempt to pretend you know something about atomospheric science when you don't though .
If that is so, then why have the predictions of the warmists been so routinely and spectacularly wrong?
And if you deny that is the case, then you are clearly the denier here.
Over the last 40 years or so I have actively noted the local climate warming. My primary evidence is locals commercially farming warmer climate plants such as wine grapes and peaches instead of cold resistant apple varieties.
You talk as if meteorology is the same as climatology. It's not. There's where you go wrong.
And you talk as if you can:
1. Predict what the temperature will be across the entire globe fifty years from now and
2. Think that you can do something to alter those temperatures.
And that's where you go way wrong.
Every time I ask for actual studies or evidence of global warming or man made climate change or global climate disruption or global energy change or whatever they are calling it this week I am assured that "computer models" are all in agreement and support global warming. Well, those same computer models were all in agreement 24 hours ago that we would have a blizzard with three feet of snow and they couldn't have been more wrong. How are we supposed to trust their 100 year doomsday predictions?
But, but... but... pleeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasssssssssseeeeee, the blizzard thought they said hurricane - 'don't djuno' - and then froze up when it got to NYC ....cause global warming or something
Quote:
Originally Posted by Last1Out
The problem with computer models is they can only input so many variables. A good example of this is the "spaghetti models" of hurricanes, they'll give you dozen possible courses and in the end they're all wrong.
Well, thank the magnificient gawdz NASA doesn't use the same modeling algorithms as the weather bureau. Couldn't you just see all that spaghetti floating around the space station?
If that is so, then why have the predictions of the warmists been so routinely and spectacularly wrong?
And if you deny that is the case, then you are clearly the denier here.
Actually predictions of climatologists on global warming have been very accurate. The distortions of their predictions that you hear on FOX NEWS don't pan out, because that's the fun-house mirror version of what scientists are actually saying (like that right-wing urban legend that 1970's scientists all thought the earth would freeze).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
