The historic nor'easter of 13-14 March 2010
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
The historic nor’easter of 13-14 March 2010
By
Richard H. Grumm
National Weather Service
1. INTRODUCTION Gloria September 1985 (2.0m), Hurricane
Donna September 1960 (1.73m), and the
An historic nor’easter affected the East Coast of nor’easter of 12-13 December 1992 (1.75m). A
the United States on 13-14 March 2010. The total of 17 tropical storms produced strong storm
storm will be remembered for heavy rainfall surges. The list of extratropical cyclones
(Fig. 1), flooding, strong winds, and the coastal includes many memorable East Coast Winter
surge 1. Hurricane force wind gusts were Storms (ECWS) and famous nor’easters
reported at Kennedy International Airport including the 31 October 1991 (1.40m), 13
(KJFK) around 0000 UTC 14 March 2010 when March 1993 “Superstorm” (1.46m), and the 7-8
wind gusts reach 64KTS (74 mph). Islip had 54 January 1996 “Blizzard of 1996” (1.35m) and
KTS winds 2. The strong winds produced the 14-15 November 1995 nor’easter (1.24).
widespread power outages, downed trees, and Storm surges and coastal flooding are often
produced coastal flooding due to a strong storm overlooked but important aspect nor’easters. The
surge. storm of 13-14 March produced a surge of 1.28
m.
This storm has been compared to several past
storms. The nor’easters of 12-13 December 1992 As with many nor’easters, this storm produced
and 07-08 January 1996 storms both produced high winds. The highest gusts were on Long
strong storm surges along the East Coast. Unlike Island including KJFK (75 mph) and Breezy
this storm, these storms produced areas of heavy Points (66 mph). Table 1 lists some of the higher
snowfall. Another similar storm, which winds reports for the event for gusts over 50
produced heavy rainfall, was the 3-4 March MPH. The strongest winds were primarily along
1993 event. All of these storms had strong the coast. However, strong winds and wind
easterly winds with significant u-wind anomalies damage were reported well into central
north of the cyclone. It was in this general area Pennsylvania.
where these storms produced the most
significant impact. The 850 hPa winds and u- This event also produced locally heavy rainfall.
wind anomalies during the peak of the 13-14 Coastal areas received 2 to 3 inches with locally
March 2010 nor’easter are shown in Figure 2. higher amounts exceeding 5 inches. A higher
elevation report in southern Pennsylvania
Colle et al (2010) examined storms which received 6.25 inches of rainfall. Table 2 lists
produced storm surges in New York City. They rainfall amounts in excess of 5 inches. There
listed all storms which produced storms which were over 165 reports of 3 inches or more
produced significant surges above the mean-high observed liquid equivalent precipitation.
water mark (Colle et al. 2010: Table 1)
separating out tropical cyclones (Tab le2: Colle This paper will provide an overview of the
et al. 2010). The top 3 storms were Hurricane historic nor’easter of 13-14 March 2010. The
focus is on the pattern and the significant
1
Information provided by Brian Colle SUNY-Stony weather impacts. A comparison of this storm to
Brook.
several notable nor’easters from the published
literature is presented too.
2
KISP 132356Z 08027G42KT 4SM RA BKN010
2. METHODS AND DATA
OVC016 09/07 A2958 RMK AO2 PK WND
10054/2312 SLP017 P0008 60042 T00940067 10094 The 500 hPa heights, 850 hPa temperatures and
20089 58017 $= winds, other standard level fields were derived
from the NCEP GFS, GEFS, and the Where F is the value from the reanalysis data at
NCEP/NCAR (Kalnay et al. 1996) reanalysis each grid point, M is the mean for the specified
data. The means and standard deviations used to date and time at each grid point and σ is the
compute the standardized anomalies were from value of 1 standard deviation at each grid point.
the NCEP/NCAR data as described by Hart and
Grumm (2001). Anomalies were displayed in Model and ensemble data shown here were
standard deviations from normal, as primarily limited to the GFS and GEFS. The
standardized anomalies. All data were displayed 1.25x1.25 degree JMA data may be used when it
using GrADS (Doty and Kinter 1995). becomes available. The NAM and SREF data
were also available for use in this study.
The standardized anomalies computed as: Displays will focus on the observed pattern and
some forecast issues associated with the pattern.
SD = (F – M)/σ ()
For brevity, times will be displayed in day and
Figure 1 Total observed liquid precipitation (mm) from 1200 UTC 12 March through 1200 UTC 15
March 2010. From the unified precipitation data set. Return to analysis section.hour format such at 14/0000 UTC signifies 14 Jersey, New York and then southern New
March 2010 at 0000 UTC. England. The heavy rain axis in Figure 1
appears to align well with this feature to include
3. RESULTS the rainfall maximum over the Appalachians of
Maryland and central Pennsylvania. Wind
i. Synoptic scale pattern reports and damage appear to be well aligned
with this feature too. The strong easterly jet was
The large scale pattern over North America is a critical player in this event.
shown in Figure 3. The key features associated
with this event include the ridge with positive A regionalized view of the PW and PW anomalies
height anomalies over eastern Canada and the is shown in Figure 8. These data show that the
deep trough with negative height anomalies strong southerly winds (not shown) in the warm
moving from the central United States (Fig. 3a) sector taped some deep tropical moisture with 24
which moves over the Eastern United States to 32 mm PW values wrapping about the series of
(Fig. 3d-f). A strong subtropical jet (Fig. 4) was cyclones into the Mid-Atlantic region. PW
present at 3250 hPa with 2 to 3SD anomalies in anomalies of +1 to +3 SDs were present in and
the core of the jet as it moved across the Gulf of near the region of heavy rainfall. This is best seen
Mexico and up the East Coast. between 13/0600 and 14/0000 UTC. The really
deep moist air with +5SD anomalies and PW
values over 50 mm never surge into the cyclone.
The precipitable water (PW) and PW anomalies
Nor were they forecast to do so.
showed a surge of PW along the coast and over
the eastern Atlantic (Fig. 5). The storm was able
to ingest some of this high PW air. iii. Comparison to historic cases
ii. Regional pattern and anomalies Colle et al (2010) listed nor’easters and tropical
storms which produced surges over the mean
Figure 6 shows the NAM 00-hour forecasts of high water level in New York City. All of the
the surface features from 12/18000 through events to which this event was being compared
14/1800 UTC. A strong anticyclone was present to during its evolution are in that Table 1 of their
over New England and to the northeast with paper. Storms with similar characteristics can
1SD above normal surface pressure anomalies. and do produce similar weather and weather
Beneath the 500 hPa low (Fig. 3) there was low impacts. They details will vary as no two storms
pressure over most of the eastern United States are true analogs of each other.
with -1 to -3 SD surface pressure anomalies. An
initial cyclone moved up the Ohio Valley and Some key features of the 3-4 March 1993 storm
there were hints of surges of low pressure along are shown in Figure 9. The 500 hPa heights (not
the coastal zone. shown) had a cut-off low. This event lacked cold
air and produced heavy rainfall with a maximum
The key to this event and its complex cyclone in western Maryland at 8.9 inches. The surface
evolutions, not examined here in detail, was the pattern was remarkably similar to that shown in
strong pressure gradient over the Mid-Atlantic Figure 6. The 850 hPa jet was equally as
region and southern New England. This was the impressive though it maximized farther west
area of concern and the area were the strong then the 13-14 March 2010 event. The storm
easterly flow (Fig. 7) developed. produced a 1.03 meter surge in NYC (Colle et
al. Table 1) on 5 March 1993. The observed
The wind anomalies show the increase in the precipitation for this event is shown in Figure
winds over time with -5SD u-winds developing 10. The easterly winds produced locally heavy
around 13/0600 UTC and increasing to -6SD rainfall as the event moved up the Appalachian
over Pennsylvania by 13/1200 UTC. This strong Mountains. The pattern of heavy rainfall was
u-wind anomaly then lifted slow to the east- similar and there were local maximums in the
northeast over the next 6-24 hours into New mountains of 96-100 mm of precipitation.concept. It should clear to the reader that the
Another similar event, which caused massive 75km GEFS will not pick up the maximum and
coastal storm surge and flooding issues (Colle et terrain enhanced values that higher resolution
al 2010), was the storm of 11-13 December 1992 models would detect.
(Fig. 11). This storm was associated with cold
air and there was some extremely heavy The SREF QPF for the 36 hour period ending at
snowfall (2 to 3 feet) in the mountains of 1800 UTC 14 March 2010 is shown in Figure
Maryland and Pennsylvania. This slow moving 17. These data show that the SREF too, with
storm produced a similar Appalachian higher QPF values, got the general high threat
precipitation maximum and really produced area quite effectively.
heavy rainfall in eastern New England (Fig. 12).
The pattern was shown at 12/1800 UTC as the No forecasts of winds and MSLP are presented
rain began in earnest in New England. However, as they were better than the QPF forecasts and
between 11/1800 and 12/0000 UTC a -5SD u- would simply show a pattern extremely similar
wind anomaly moved through Maryland and to the analysis already presented.
Pennsylvania (not shown).
v. impacts
The 7-8 January 1996 or Blizzard of 1996 storm
was also similar to this storm. Obviously the The impacts of this event were dramatic. Along
storm contained cold air and was snow the coast, high winds (Fig. 19) produced coastal
producing nor’easter. The data here are valid at flooding and damage to beaches. Inland areas
08/0600 UTC as the surge in NYC peaked saw tree damage and widespread power outages.
around 08/0600 UTC (Colle et al. 2010). This Over 500000 families lost power during the
storm had an organized and deep cyclone (Fig event. Hard hit areas for power loss included
13c) and of course the strong and anomalous u- New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Rhode
wind anomalies (Fig 13a). This event was faster Island. Lesser outages were reported in
moving and associated with colder air and thus Pennsylvania where around 25000 families lost
produced lower overall precipitation amounts power.
(Figure 14).
The heavy rains produced flooding. The NWS in
iv. Forecasts Taunton reported that this event produced some
of the worse flooding documented history
The event was well predicted by the NCEP outside of events associated with tropical storms
models and ensemble forecast systems (EFS). and snow melt. Cranston, RI had a flood of
As with all events there were timing and record and two other rivers experienced their
location issues which impact the forecasts. second worse flood since record keeping began.
This surpassed the Mothers Day 2006 weekend
event 3. The heavy rainfall in southeastern New
The GEFS forecasts of 1 inch or greater QPF England was captured by the Stage-IV data (Fig.
from 1200 UTC 09-11 March 2010 are shown in 18) and pubic reports (Fig. 19)
Figure 15. These data show that with
considerable lead time the potential for heavy Figure 18 shows high resolution QPE data for
rain were predicted for the general region where the event. These data show where the heaviest
rainfall fell during this multi-day event. Over
heavy rain was observed. Other probability
Pennsylvania and New Jersey, the strong winds
forecasts produced similar outcomes using 2 into the terrain played a critical role in the higher
inches and 36 hour accumulations. QPE amounts. A similar pattern can be seen in
In general the rain event and affected are was 3
Data and summary provided by Walt Drag WFO
well predicted. The 9 forecasts of the ensemble
Taunton.
mean QPF (Fig. 16) further support this generalNew England. Both regions showed clear and Heavy rains were another issue, though they
consistent rain shadows. The Connecticut and were not focused over areas with large snow
Hudson Valleys show up as clear rainfall water and the rains came over a long period of
minimums in the lower panel of Figure 18. A time. This and slow steady snow melt for several
similar minimum was present west of the days ahead of the event precluded major and
Catskills. In the upper panel, the Susquehanna widespread flooding. Many dodged a bullet. The
Valley and the lee, for easterlies, of the axis of heavy rainfall (Fig. 1) was well aligned
Alleghenies were also precipitation minimums. with the anomalous low-level jet and u-wind
anomalies as shown in Figure 7. Overall, both
4. CONCLUSIONS the SREF and GEFS did well predicting the
rainfall. Due to resolution issues they lacked,
though the SREF hinted at, the impact and
A slow moving cyclone produced an historic localization of the terrain.
nor’easter on 13-14 March 2010. This storm
produced hurricane force wind gusts, high surge, During the event, high resolution windows from
a storm surge, and heavy rainfall. The winds the GFS were used (not shown) to produce QPFs
produced widespread power outages due to for the time of heavy rainfall over Pennsylvania.
downed trees and wires. The winds also The results of these downscaled GFS runs to 8
impacted coastal regions. The rains were intense km produced heavy rainfall in many of the
and produced flooding in Pennsylvania, New terrain focused areas where the rain fell. Due to
York, New Jersey and New England. This was a uncertainty issues, some of the regions of heavy
high impact event that contained clear and rainfall from downscaled runs 60, 66 and 72
consistent signals in the NCEP models and EFS hours in advance did not materialize. But this
to provide a reasonable lead-time on predicting real-time test showed the value of downscaled
this event. runs during periods of heavy rainfall events.
This storm shared main of the characteristics of The comparative nor’easter shown here all
many of the significant storms of the winter of shared some common characteristics. The key
2009-2010. The deep trough moving beneath the feature they all had in common was strong 850
high latitude ridge is a common theme for hPa u-winds with u-wind anomalies in the -5 to -
nor’easters and was the case with this event. 6SD range. These common features, often well
This storm lacked cold air and did not produce predicted could be leveraged to improve rating
significant snowfall. Additionally, this storm and evaluating East Coast Winter storms.
had strong southern stream jet (Fig. 4) which is Ensemble forecasts compared to climatology
quite common during an ENSO positive winter. and model climatologies could be leveraged to
Another feature of many strong cyclonic events rate nor’easters based on ensemble forecasts. An
was the surge of high PW air (Fig. 5) into the operational storm rating system from 1 to 5
cyclone. could be used. Threats for key features could be
made in relation to snowfall threats, rainfall
The storm produced high winds with many threats, high surf and coastal flooding threats
locations along the coast having near hurricane and high wind threats. This approach would
forecast winds. Over 500,000 people lost power eliminate some of the adjectives used to describe
mainly along the coastal zone during the event. storms.
The strong winds and coastal flooding appeared
to be timed well and linked to the anomalous The time to produce products to rate and show
low-level easterly jet (Fig. 7). This jet was also key threats has passed we need such products to
well timed and coincided with the storm surge evaluate significant threats with discrete
and surf which caused flooding in NYC and probabilities now.
adjacent New Jersey and along the coast of
southern New England as it lifted to the north
and east.Clearly, we need to better leverage EFS data to Events: Preliminary Findings. Wea.
rate storms and provide probabilistic threat and Fore., 16,736–754.
outcomes. These products need to be made
available to NWS forecasters to facilitate rapid Grumm, R.H., and R. Hart, 2001a: Anticipating
identification of key meteorological threats. Both
Heavy Rainfall: Forecast Aspects. Preprints,
planview and point specific displays must be
provided to forecasters. Symposium on Precipitation Extremes,
Albuquerque, NM, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 66-70.
5. Acknowledgements Grumm, R.H., and R. Holmes, 2007: Patterns of
heavy rainfall in the mid-Atlantic. Pre-prints,
Discussion on ensemble displays were conducted Conference on Weather Analysis and
before the event with Lance Bosart, SUNY- Forecasting,Park City, UT, Amer. Meteor. Soc.,
Albany. Tim Hewson provided ECMWF guidance 5A.2.
related to the storm to include ECMWF EFI
forecasts for New York City. Local support and Grumm, Richard H. 2000, "Forecasting the
data summaries were provided by the local NWS
Office in State College. Thanks to my old friend Precipitation Associated with a Mid-Atlantic
John LaCorte for decoding and plotting rain, States Cold Frontal Rainband", NWA
snow, and wind reports. Digest,24, 37-51.
6. REFERENCES Hart, R. E., and R. H. Grumm, 2001: Using
normalized climatological anomalies to rank
Colle, B.A., F. Buonaiuto, M.J. Bowman, R.E.
synoptic scale events objectively. Mon. Wea.
Wilson, R. Flood, R. Hunter, A. Mintz, and D.
Rev., 129, 2426–2442.
Hill, 2008: New York City's Vulnerability to
Coastal Flooding. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 89, Junker, N.W., R.H. Grumm,R.H. Hart, L.F
829-841.’ Bosart, K.M. Bell, and F.J. Pereira, 2008:
Colle, B.A., K. Rojowsky, and F. Buonaiuto, 2010: Use of normalized anomaly fields to
New York City Storm Surges: Climatology and anticipate extreme rainfall in the mountains
an Analysis of the Wind and Cyclone Evolution. of northern California.Wea. Forecasting,
J.Appl. Meteor. Climatol., 49, 85-100. 23,336-356.
Doswell,C.A.,III, H.E Brooks and R.A. Maddox, --------, M.J. Brennan, F. Pereira, M.J. Bodner,
1996: Flash flood forecasting: An and R.H. Grumm, 2009: Assessing the
ingredients based approach. Wea. Potential for Rare Precipitation Events with
Forecasting, 11, 560-581. Standardized Anomalies and Ensemble
Doty, B. E., and J. L. Kinter III, 1995: Geophysical Guidance at the Hydrometeorological
data and visualization using GrADS. Prediction Center. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,
Visualization Techniques Space and 90, 445–453.
Atmospheric Sciences, E. P. Szuszczewicz
and Bredekamp, Eds., NASA, 209–219. Lackmann, G. M., and J. R. Gyakum, 1999: Heavy
cold-season precipitation in the northwestern
Grumm, R.H. and R. Hart. 2001: United States: Synoptic climatology and an
Standardized Anomalies Applied to analysis of the flood of 17–18 January 1986.
Significant Cold Season Weather Wea. Forecasting, 14, 687–700.Figure 2. GFS 00-hour forecasts showing 850 hPa winds (KTS) and 850 hPa wind anomalies. Data are valid at a) 0000 UTC 13 March, b) 0600 UTC
13 March, c) 1200 UTC 13 March, d) 1800 UTC 13 March, e) 0000 UTC 14 March, and f) 0600 UTC UTC 14 March 2010
Neiman, P.J., F.M. Ralph, A.B. White, D.E. Overland Precipitation Impacts of
Kingsmill, and P.O.G. Persson, 2002: The Atmospheric Rivers Affecting the
Statistical Relationship between Upslope West Coast of North America Based
on Eight Years of SSM/I Satellite
Flow and Rainfall in California's Coastal
Observations. J. Hydrometeor., 9,
Mountains: Observations during CALJET. 22–47.
Mon. Wea. Rev., 130, 1468–1492.
Stuart, N.A., and R.H. Grumm, 2006: Using
Wind Anomalies to Forecast East
______ , _____, G.A. Wick, J.D. Lundquist, Coast Winter Storms. Wea.
and M.D. Dettinger, 2008: Forecasting, 21, 952–968.
Meteorological Characteristics andFigure 3. As in Figure 2 except for 500 hPa heights (m) and height anomalies over North America.
Figure 4. As in Figure 2 except 250 hPa winds and 250 hPa wind anomalies.
Figure 5. As in Figure 2 except for precipitable water (mm) and precipitable water anomalies. Return to text.
Figure 6. NAM 00-hour forecasts of mean-sea level pressure (hPa) and pressure anomalies. The data shown are form 00-hour NAM initialized at at a) 1800 UTC 12 March, b) 0000 UTC 13 March, c) 0600 UTC 13 March, d) 1200 UTC 13 March, e) 1800 UTC 13 March, f) 0000 UTC 14 March, g) 0600 UTC 14 March, h)1200 UTC 14 March, and i) 1800 UTC 14 March 2010.
rd Figure 7. As in Figure 6 except for NAM 850 hPa winds (kts) and u-wind anomalies. Winds have been thinned showing every 3 grib point.
Figure 8. As in Figures 6 & 7 except for NAM PW and PW anomalies. Return to text.
Figure 9. JRA analysis with NCEP/NCAR bases anomalies of conditions at 1800 UTC 04 March 1993 showing a) 850 hPa u-winds and u-wind anomalies, b) 850 hPa v-winds and v-wind anomalies, c) mean sea level pressure and anomalies, and d) precipitable water and anomalies.
Figure 10. As in Figure 1 except for 1200 UTC 3-6 March 1993.
Figure 11. As in Figure 9 except valid at 1800 UTC 12 December 1992.
Figure 12. As in Figure 10 except valid for 1200 UTC 10-13 December 1992.
Figure 13. As in Figure 9 except valid at 0600 UTC 8 January 1996.
Figure 14. As in Figure 9 except valid 1200 UTC 6 to 1200 UTC 9 January 1996.
KJFK 132351Z 08035G64KT 5SM -RA BR
BKN014 OVC021 09/07 A2949 RMK
AO2 PK WND 07064/2347 SLP986
P0000 60033 T00940072 10111
20094 56026
KJFK 132351Z 08035G64KT 5SM -RA BR
BKN014 OVC021 09/07 A2949
KJFK 140051Z 09035G48KT 10SM -RA
BKN014 OVC020 11/08 A2952 RMK AO2
PK WND 08055/0041 SLP995 P0001
T01060078Wind
Town State MPH LST AM/PM
NYC/JFK ARPT NY 75 833 PM
EAST MILTION MA 69 1251 AM
JONES BEACH STATE NY 67 350 PM
BREEZY POINT NY 67 330 PM
BLUE POINT NY 67 302 PM
FIRE ISLAND NY 67 700 PM
FORT LEE NJ 66 634 PM
AMITY HARBOR NY 66 621 PM
BAYVILLE NY 63 435 PM
JONES BEACH ISLAND NY 63 240 PM
WHITE PLAINS NY 62 629 PM
FARMINGDALE NY 60 636 PM
GROTON/NEW LONDON CT 59 812 PM
TETERBORO NJ 59 859 PM
SHIRLEY NY 56 340 PM
SHIRLEY NY 56 539 PM
YARMOUTH MA 56 1157 PM
FALMOUTH MA 56 155 AM
CALDWELL NJ 55 605 PM
PELHAM BAY PARK NY 55 515 PM
WESTHAMPTON BEACH NY 55 502 PM
NEWPORT RI 55 110 AM
WESTERLY RI 55 100 AM
ISLIP NY 54 346 PM
BROOKLINE MA 54 1249 AM
BOSTON MA 54 344 PM
NYC/CENTRAL PARK NY 53 345 PM
EAST SETAUKET NY 53 445 PM
SOUTHAMPTON NY 53 625 PM
NANTUCKET MA 53 141 AM
BERGENFIELD NJ 52 605 PM
HARWICH MA 52 705 PM
VINEYARD HAVEN MA 52 1050 PM
WRENTHAM MA 52 136 AM
JERSEY CITY NJ 50 621 AM
WEST ISLAND MA 50 201 PM
BARRINGTON RI 50 1200 AM
Table 1. Maximum wind gust 13-14 March 2010 based NWS public
information statements. Value of 50 mph or more shown . Return to
text.Figure 15. NCEP GEFS forecasts of 1 inch or more of precipitation for the 24 hour period ending at 1200 UTC 14 March 2010. The 3 2 panel
images are from 1200 UTC forecasts initialized on a) 09 March, b) 10 March, and c) 11 March 2010. Upper panels show the probability of 1
inch or more QPF and the ensemble mean 1 inch contour. Lower panels show the ensemble mean QPF (shaded) and each members 1 inch
contour. Return to text.
.Figure 16. GEFS ensemble mean QPF accumulated for the period ending at 1200 UTC 15 March 2010 from forecasts initialized at a) 0000 UTC 10 March, b) 1200 UTC 10 March, c) 0000 UTC 11 March, d) 0600 UTC 11 March, e) 1200 UTC 11 March, f) 1800 UTC 11 March, g) 0000 UTC 12 March, h) 0600 UTC 12 March and i) 1200 UTC 12 March 2010.
Figure 17. As in Figure 15 except NCEP SREF showing 36-hour probability of 2 inches or more QPF ending 1800 UTC 14 March and accumulated QPF and each members 2 inch contour from SREF initialized at 0900 UTC and 2100 UTC 12 March 2010.
Figure 18. Stage-IV precipitation (mm) upper panel for the Mid-Atlantic region lower panels is for New England. Due to the period of precipitation the Mid-Atlantic region data ends at 1800 UTC 14 March and the New England data at 1800 UTC 15 March 2010. Return to text.
county location rain state YORK SOUTH BERWICK 9.09 me ROCKINGHAM EPPING 7.73 nh UNION ELIZABETH 7.63 nj YORK SOUTH ELIOT 7.6 me YORK WELLS BEACH 7.55 me ROCKINGHAM EXETER 7.52 nh STRAFFORD DOVER 7.4 nh ESSEX BEVERLY 7.13 ma STRAFFORD DURHAM 6.92 nh PLYMOUTH KINGSTON 6.52 ma YORK WELLS 6.28 me YORK CAPE NEDDICK 6.27 me YORK CAPE NEDDICK 6.27 me ADAMS CASHTOWN 6.25 pa MIDDLESEX CAMBRIDGE 6.23 ma YORK KENNEBUNK 6.2 me MIDDLESEX SOUTH AMBOY 6.08 nj ROCKINGHAM STRATHAM 6.05 nh ROCKINGHAM GREENLAND 6.04 nh MIDDLESEX SOUTH BILLERICA 5.85 ma ROCKINGHAM PORTSMOUTH 5.79 nh MIDDLESEX NORTH TEWKSBURY 5.77 ma BRISTOL NORTON 5.76 ma BRISTOL DIGHTON 5.76 ma STRAFFORD EAST ROCHESTER 5.64 nh ESSEX PEABODY 5.57 ma MIDDLESEX KINGSTON 5.52 ma PROVIDENCE WEST GLOCESTER 5.51 ri STRAFFORD MADBURY 5.5 nh MIDDLESEX HUDSON 5.5 ma ROCKINGHAM DEERFIELD 5.37 nh ROCKINGHAM NORTHWOOD 5.2 nh ESSEX NEWARK 5.17 nj HUDSON NORTH BERGEN 5.16 nj MIDDLESEX SOUTH PLAINFIELD 5.12 nj MIDDLESEX GROTON 5.09 ma PASSAIC WEST MILFORD 5.06 nj WINDHAM STERLING 5.04 ct ROCKINGHAM WEST HAMPSTEAD 5.03 nh NASSAU MILL NECK 5.02 ny MIDDLESEX DEEP RIVER 5.02 ct NASSAU EAST MEADOW 5.01 ny CARROLL MOULTONBOROUGH 5 nh Table 2. Locations with 5 or more inches of storm total precipitation based on NWS reports. Data includes County, Town, rainfall (in) and the State. Return to text.
Figure 19. Public reports of rainfall (in) and wind gusts (mph). Return to text.
You can also read
