Snow Starvation

The January "Snow Hole"

There's never enough frozen precipitation in Washington for the confirmed snow lovers, but they were up against a formidable obstacle for the latest rain event last night into this morning: the January 14 "snow hole". As hard as it is to get the right ingredients together on any winter day in the DC area, today's date is practically teflon-coated when it comes to the white stuff. The record snowfall for the date, 1.6" just over a half-century ago in 1957, is the lowest for any date in January. In fact, it's the only date in the month on which there has never at some point been a snowfall of at least 2". Except for Feb. 29, which of course has only a 25% chance of even appearing on the calendar, this is the lowest daily record until March 25, on which 1.5" fell over a century ago in 1906. For Dulles, which began operations in Nov. 1962, the record for this date is even more pathetic: a mere 0.3" in 1978. Dulles was similarly snow-starved on Jan. 27, with only 0.3" until 2004, when 0.6" was recorded.

By Steve Scolnik |  January 14, 2008; 7:00 PM ET Local Climate
Previous: CommuteCast: Brisk but Dry | Next: Forecast: Cold and Mostly Dry Next Two Days

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Steve:
Thanks for posting this bit of nostalgia. I plan to post some stats. tomorrow on D.C. snowfall for the 100 year period of the Twentieth Century, since this seems to be on everyones mind.

Posted by: Augusta Jim | January 14, 2008 7:11 PM

Does this site still have the weather model URLs? I'm having a hard time finding access to the NCEP's GFS and NAM images, which CapWX used to link to. I'd appreciate it if the webmasters could put those links back on ASAP.

(I think that sets a record for acronyms in a single post. LOL)

Posted by: mcleaNed | January 14, 2008 7:20 PM

I am now officially depressed.

Posted by: hobbes | January 14, 2008 7:24 PM

Sorry for the double post, but I couldn't resist:
http://www.nco.ncep.noaa.gov/pmb/nwpara/analysis/namer/gfs/18/images/gfs_pcp_240m.gif

Take a look at that thing. I call it the "Mid-Winter Whomp." If it can just stay alive for ten more days:

Posted by: mcleaNed | January 14, 2008 7:30 PM

I agree Mclean,

Latest 240 run appears pretty impressive "now" . it looks to cover a large area...Most of the historic storms like Superstorm of 93 and Blizzard of 1996 were also large storms.

Hope model trends continue to hold...

Posted by: skinsfn | January 14, 2008 8:02 PM

If the models r still showing a big storm 3 days out it might b time 2 get excited. Models more than 3 days out r as useful as a car without tires. Lets hope this one holds 2gether.

Posted by: VaTechBob. | January 14, 2008 8:09 PM

Sorry 4 the triple post, hit submit twice & nothing happened.

Posted by: mcleaNed | January 14, 2008 8:19 PM

Jason:
Too many posts, too much disconnect between the blogs, too many folks on one blog when perhaps they should be on another!

My opinion.

Posted by: Augusta Jim | January 14, 2008 8:25 PM

Talk about snow starvation... the Thursday night storm is looking too warm right now.

Posted by: Model Monkey | January 14, 2008 9:14 PM

Augusta: We're still try to figure out the right flow...but more shorter posts are easier to read and digest throughout the day than one or two BIG posts. We'll keep experimenting though and see what works best. The main thing is that we keep the blog fresh.

Posted by: Jason, Capital Weather Gang | January 14, 2008 9:16 PM

Regarding the too many posts comment - I like the options but it is difficult to keep track. Suggestion: where you have the link to "Latest Forecast" maybe change it so you have a button that says "Post a Comment on Latest Forecast"

Posted by: jeffc | January 14, 2008 9:28 PM

Ned: We'll get categorized links up in the next few weeks. Thanks...

Posted by: Jason, Capital Weather Gang | January 14, 2008 9:54 PM

I guess the whole point of a blog is to keep the posts fresh, but it's really really hard to follow. I have to read all of the post just to make sure I'm not missing the most current one.

About these so-called upcoming storms. I have been saying this for awhile now, the models seems to be getting worse not better. I think NYC got a dusting of snow after being in a heavy snow warning?? Based on my untrained opinion, I think thursday's storm is another non-event east of the mountains. You don't have to be a met. to know, no cold, no snow.

Posted by: TJ | January 14, 2008 9:58 PM

Maybe it's because I'm new to the blog, but I think it's flowing quite nicely and keeps the conversations fairly well segmented. Put too much in one post and the comments go crazy. Good work so far guys.

Posted by: hobbes | January 14, 2008 10:17 PM

Next week will be interesting. There are two storms that could be busts or bombs it appears. I am curious to see how models pan out. 00z GFS didn't change too much from last 18z run which is a good sign ..Temps trended a hair bit warmer but still keeps us pretty much near the 850mb line. It does appear a strong arctic high is pushing southward the same time these storms are arriving (one ingredient we need to the puzzle) Timming on cold air will play a role along with development and track of the storms . It almost seems like a repeat in history if it pans out.. Many of the famous historic storms are followed by another only days later. Could a pattern be setting up here? Unlikely for now, but all I can say is it will be interesting. Everyone pray to your Gods or spirits for snow...:)

Dream Dream Dream

Posted by: skinsfn | January 15, 2008 12:23 AM

Argh! I've had it with this area! The weather here sucks! I'm moving to somewhere cold and snowy. I give up on waiting around for snow!

Posted by: Havoc | January 15, 2008 1:07 AM

I am actually encouraged to know that yesterday was a "snow hole" day. We didn't really miss out because there never really was a chance. Now that we're done with that day, we can hope for the possibility of snow from one of these aforementioned systems. As as for the freshness of the blogs, I like having several blogs a day. This assures me that someone has checked recently and updated things, whereas it seems like on AW and TWC I always feel like someone might be on a really long coffee break and forgot to check the weather.

Posted by: missy | January 15, 2008 7:33 AM

New to the site, like it so far but the previous question was a good one that I have not seen the answer for yet... 'Does this site still have the weather model URLs? '

Also, I don't mind one long blog. It is hard to go between all the blogs to make sure you catch everything. WeatherUnderground (Jeff Masters) does just one big one for the day....

Posted by: John M | January 15, 2008 8:49 AM

I love statistical quirks like the January 14 snow hole. In the future, if a storm is predicted for January 14, I'll know to discount it up front.

BTW, I have no complaints about the new blog. Still the same old great content from the old gang.

Posted by: NoVaSnow | January 15, 2008 8:59 AM

I'm still amazed that the D.C. Christmas daily snow record is a mere five inches, while that for Veterans Day (1987) is about a foot!

McleaNed, your big storm for the 24th looks quite impressive, but it's a bit far north, being just off Delmarva. What I'd like to see is a similar "bomb" off Cape Hatteras, or, better yet, Myrtle Beach when the heavy snow starts coming down here. Two other critical factors involve the northeastward progression of the "bomb" (slow enough to give us at least a full 12-18 hours of continuous moderate/heavy snow) and the amount of cold air supplied by the high over Quebec (just right, Goldilocks-style. Too much cold air pushes the "bomb" out to sea; not enough provides too much WAA and changes us to 'plain ole rain'!). The storm of Feb. 12, 1983 was "just right" in my book!

Posted by: El Bombo | January 15, 2008 10:47 AM

Well obviously Steve does not remember the GREAT SNOWSTORM of '31. That's January 14, 1831. And it was probably the biggest storm in the history of the nation up to the time.

Posted by: Wick | January 15, 2008 3:55 PM

i remember that storm... i was only 6 years old... croak!

Posted by: g | February 15, 2008 9:54 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2007 The Washington Post Company