Nor’easter: Biggest October Storm in NYC History?
Email
Yana Paskova/Getty Images
A rare October Nor’easter that is forecast to hit at least 10 states from North Carolina to Maine starting Saturday morning has the potential to be the biggest October storm in New York City history, according to AccuWeather.com senior meteorologist Paul Walker.
“The record for snow in October for New York City is .8 inches set on Oct. 30, 1925,” said Walker. “This has the possibility to beat that.”
Inland communities will bear the brunt of the storm with heavy wet snow forecast to fall starting in the afternoon from Virginia, West Virginia and Pennsylvania to Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine.
Areas near Springfield, Mass., could see as much as 10 inches of snow.
Major cities up and down the coast can expect to see a chilly rain on Saturday morning that changes to snow in the evening.
Saturday City Forecast:
Washington D.C. – Rain ending as snow showers in the evening. Could result in a light dusting of snow.
Philadelphia – Rain ending as snow in the evening with up to one inch of accumulation.
New York City – Rain changing to a wet snow until midnight with one to three inches of accumulation possible.
Boston – Mostly rain with the possibility of snow showers leaving a minor dusting.
ABC News’ Max Golembo contributed to this report.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Too much snow? As any mindless Liberal knows, this is the result of global warming.
Posted by: General Electric's BIG DOG | October 28, 2011, 12:50 pm 12:50 pm
OMG, 3 inches of snow! Must be global climate change. Let’s add a $1 surtax on gasoline, natural gas and home heating oil. That will fix it.
Posted by: TJB | October 28, 2011, 12:53 pm 12:53 pm
of course there is a political remark in a weather article…side note: 0.8 inches is a record snowfall?????? ok.
Posted by: evan | October 28, 2011, 12:57 pm 12:57 pm
@evan…
0.8 inches IN OCTOBER.. in NYC….. yes. that’s a record. why should this concept be so difficult to understand?
Posted by: tuxey | October 28, 2011, 1:11 pm 1:11 pm
As any educated person (which in this case excludes the first 2 posters on this blog) would know that changes in climate have effects in the circulatory flow systems of both atmosphere and ocean. Of course, science and reason are the last things “deniers” are interested in… if 1000+ climatologists can agree on this, how is it that the only scientists these people listen to are the dozen dissenters! The mark of a fool is being ready to accept a falsehood which is comforting, rather than accept a truth which disturbing; regardless of what the fool chooses to believe, the fact remains the same. The real losers are the people who will be “blindsided” by the truth when it is unavoidable (as in “crisis”) and unworkable.
Posted by: Sandwalker59 | October 28, 2011, 1:16 pm 1:16 pm
And just as any mindless conservative does, you’ve just made clear you don’t understand the difference between “climate” and “weather”. But I must commend you for proving that conservatives can make ANY story about politics.
Posted by: puppyfeet217 | October 28, 2011, 3:52 pm 3:52 pm
I remember this one time in NYC that it snowed early in the year. There were people everywhere and the smell was horrible.
Posted by: Jimmy Rigsby | October 28, 2011, 3:59 pm 3:59 pm
Looks like another cold winter. This global warming thing is really getting old.
Posted by: billy bob | October 28, 2011, 4:07 pm 4:07 pm
For your info, 0.8 is less than one inch. I think ABC needs to get their facts straight.
Posted by: billy bob | October 28, 2011, 4:11 pm 4:11 pm
Talk about counting you chickens before the eggs hatch. I will laugh if it turns out to be nothing. Storms can fizzle out really fast and do very little if anything.
Posted by: David | October 28, 2011, 6:21 pm 6:21 pm
Up to 3 inches of snowfall in NYC. The people in Denver must be massing to organize relief efforts for the unfortunate urbanites.
Posted by: Publius | October 28, 2011, 6:34 pm 6:34 pm
Oooh, they’re up to a whopping 1000+ scientists that say global warming is real.
There are 31,487 scientists that say global warming is a bunch of bunk.
So much for your dozen dissenters there flat earther.
Posted by: Kat | October 28, 2011, 8:54 pm 8:54 pm
Kat, OK so name a few. You do know that the deniers’ poster boy, Dr. Richard Muller, recently completed a study funded by the bankrollers of the anti-science crowd, the Koch Brothers, that found that Global Warming is REAL, that the ‘hockey stick graph’ is REAL, that the existing data base showing these results is “EXCELLENT”, that the urban heat island effect did NOT bias the measurements of global surface warming, and that most of the deniers’ other ‘scientific’ claims are equally as faulty. So I’m curious – just who are these “31,487 scientists that say global warming is a bunch of bunk.”?
Posted by: WilliamDawesJr. | October 28, 2011, 9:08 pm 9:08 pm
Kat, surely you don’t mean the ‘Global Warming Petition’, better known as the ‘Oregon Petition’ which CLAIMS to have 31,487 scientific signatories, but has NEVER released the name of a SINGLE ONE OF THEM!!! Furthermore even the petition itself does NOT claim what you say it claims, only that there has, to date, been no “CATASTROPHIC HEATING”. Many of those supposed signatories have asked to have their names removed. to no avail. People who signed it multiple times are counted multiple times. Businesses which ‘signed’ the petition are counted as ‘scientists’. To date, exactly ONE (1) active climate researcher has been identified as a signatory. So, Kat, AGAIN: Who, exactly, are the “31,487 scientists that say global warming is a bunch of bunk.”?
Posted by: WilliamDawesJr. | October 28, 2011, 9:20 pm 9:20 pm
Stand by for the legions of denialist cult devotees publicly displaying their ignorance by implying that the huge increases in record precipitation events ‘disproves Global Warming’.
Even I get embarrased for them sometimes.
And of course the laughable online ‘Oregon Petition’ that can be signed by anyone who claims to have a BSc in any subject whatsoever (including Gerri Halliwell from The Spice Girls) is *still* being quoted by new disciples who have yet to learn that it is the new Godwinizer in any serious discussion about climate change.
The last time I checked there was precisely ONE qualified climate scientist on the list. They also forget to mention the tens of millions of ‘scientists’ who are ‘qualified’ to sign it didn’t do so.
Desperate stuff from an increasing desperate minority of whackjobs.
Posted by: Leslie Graham | October 29, 2011, 1:15 am 1:15 am
Hey. Science deniers. Here are some basic facts of atmospheric physics:
More heat leads to more evaporation, which leads to more water in the atmosphere, which leads to more precipitation, including snow. Also, more heat implies a less even or stable distribution of the precipitation, which means the water in the atmosphere has a tendency to collect in the atmosphere such that it comes down in precipitation events bigger than would otherwise have been the case.
Posted by: Elizabeth | October 29, 2011, 1:39 am 1:39 am
Such hype. You don’t know what a snowstorm is. 3″ snow, we call that flurries.
Posted by: A. Holland | October 29, 2011, 2:05 am 2:05 am
I don’t know about you but when 90+% of the experts in a field say something and a miniscule percentage of experts in that same field… and typically those with lesser credentials… say the opposite, reasonable, rational human beings (those not being paid by big oil anyway) should listen to the majority.
Posted by: kobrakai7474 | October 29, 2011, 5:05 am 5:05 am
William
I went to that site you mentioned and it does seem that it really has over 31 thousand scientists that have signed that list. In the FAQ’s, they even adddress what you try to claim.
I randomly picked a couple names and googled them. Turns out, they are really scientists. Giving credit to that list, much more credit than someone on a blog who doesn’t agree with it trying to deny it exists.
Posted by: ang | October 29, 2011, 10:04 am 10:04 am
So, Ang, 31,000 scientists claim that Global Warming is bunk. Right? These 31,000 scientists have done no research in the field and have published no papers so that their research can be verified. Right? Otherwise, please cite those works. These same 31,000 scientists have not petitioned their professional societies to take a position consistent with their beliefs. Right? Every scientific society in the United States has issued policy statements that Global Warming is real, man-made, and a threat to our continued existence. These 31,000 scientists have written no editorials, appeared on no discussion shows, made no efforts to publicize their views or defend them in a give and take with other scientists. Right? Again, please cite such efforts if they exist. No, according to Kat and you (and other deniers) the sum total contribution of all these 31,000 scientists to the subject has been to sign a petition from an obscure Oregon think tank over ten years ago and leave it at that. Right? That is seriously your position? And, by the way, have you contacted those people you googled to ask them if the really think that “global warming is a bunch of bunk”, or are you just taking an unverified website’s word for it?
Posted by: WilliamDawesJr. | October 29, 2011, 10:59 am 10:59 am
The interesting thing here isn’t the AMOUNT of snow in New York, it’s that it’s happening in October. NYC doesn’t usually see any snow until mid to late November. The weather has been appropriately seasonal until last night, when it turned very cold. And now, snow.
For those of you balking that this is news because of the amount of snow are clearly not comprehending this article. New York gets a significant amount of snow each year. Unlike other cities or states, we go on with our lives without the city shutting down (even in spite of extreme amounts of snow, like last year’s post-holiday storm). This storm is only interesting because of the timing.
Posted by: Michelle | October 29, 2011, 12:51 pm 12:51 pm
I am a geology student at York College, in Queens. I have no qualifications or certificates, but I am an intelligent and dedicated major on the topic. I do understand peoples hesitation to say global warming is anthropogenic in nature. It most definitely is a real and natural process and has happened many times in Earths history for billions, yes billions of years. It is the direct and natural result of the presence of methane, water vapor, carbon dioxide (to name a few green house gasses) in the atmosphere. This is simply due to volcanic activity. Although this is a natural, and cyclic process, it usually takes place slowly, over thousands of years. It’s is preserved in our geologic record. Only recently have we noticed an acceleration to this process. It is foolish to assume that if we are adding more of these gasses to the atmosphere, it is having no effect. It is a real concern. I always approach the environment with a ‘better safe than sorry attitude.’ Taking precautions and taking care of the earth can’t be a bad idea.
Posted by: Arthur | October 29, 2011, 4:39 pm 4:39 pm
I agree. Let’s remember, for decades people used to think smoking was good for you. How long did that take to change in the public or professional mind. Check the weather records. Each consecutive decade 80′s, 90′s, 2000′s has set new heat records. Humans have measured the weather formally for while now and these temperature records have never happened like this before. And people who like to mention the snowfall as evidence against the warming of the planet should consider 1 thing. The warmer it is the more water evaporated from the oceans. That water has to come back down to earth as precipitation, either as rain OR snow.
Posted by: Helen | October 29, 2011, 11:17 pm 11:17 pm
Yes, the average temperature on Earth has gone up slightly in the last century. Yes, CO2 levels have risen. As any educated person knows, Tuxey, that’s a correlation, not a cause-and-effect scenario. AGW is so far just the fallacy of the ad hoc argument. It’s bad science. Yes, sandwalker59, I know the difference between “climate” and “weather.” I even know the difference between “heat” and “temperature.” And I know that more moisture means more clouds means greater albedo means homeostatic feedback loop. I also know that the computer simulations for climate are trying to model non-linear differential equations with millions of variables, and thus can’t even begin to predict climate, let alone cloud formation. All you get are imbecilic predictions such as the melting of the Arctic ice cap in 2008. Still hasn’t happened. If you AGW adherents actually understood science, you wouldn’t be such strident fanatics. Go back to school and stay sober this time.
Posted by: Hypatia | October 31, 2011, 1:08 am 1:08 am