Latest EVER Snowfall In New York City Central Park

Polar Vortex blasts northeastern US.

Several states in New England hit by cold, wind and unexpected snow in the midst of May.

More than 100 record low temperatures for May could potentially be broken this weekend.

New York received snow in Central Park and in the upstate region on Saturday.

New Hampshire’s record for latest snowfall was May 13, 1914 and Saturday could see six inches of snow.

Vermont received as much as nine inches of snow in Shaftsbury.

Part of New Hampshire will be 100 degrees colder than California.

Thanks to Greg C for this link

12 thoughts on “Latest EVER Snowfall In New York City Central Park”

  1. Often, i have wondered why records only go back to the 1890s or so. That’s when the government started keeping track.
    Individuals kept track of their local weather as far back as 1776, Thomas Jefferson was one of them. He kept a chart of weather conditions at Monticello that included low temp taken just before sunrise, and high temp taken in the midday heat, plus weather or not it snowed or rained.
    Check it out- May of 1777 was about the same as it is now, and they were in the middle of the little ice age.

  2. It’s not a polar vortex.
    It’s the meridional flow of the jet streams.
    The polar vortex is still where it belongs, over the pole.
    For a detailed but clear explanation see

  3. Off topic slightly but …

    I recently saw this video –

    It refers to a Lt William Dawes who was in Sydney from 1788 to 1791. He recorded daily meteorological data – 182 pages of handwritten data.

    The colonial Governor Phillip sent him back to England over a dispute over treatment of aboriginals by the military. His records were sent with him and remained lost until 1997.

    In 2019 Geoff Derrick wrote a paper wherein he compared the 1788 – 1791 data to the modern Australian Bureau of Meteorology data record.

    For those interested –

    The resulting Graphs show rather an amazing thing –

    CONCLUSION : Despite a 68-year gap in data from 1791 to 1859, we conclude that there has been NO significant change in Max and Min temperature trends at the Sydney Observatory station for at least a period of 226 years, from 1788 to 2018.

    Now don’t that beat all ?

  4. Here in the UK (just outside of London) it is still not 50F at 11 am today. But don’t worry the BBC are telling anyone who will believe them that this is only just a little bit below normal. there are forecasts of frosts as far south as here for the end of the week which if they do happen is going to hammer food production just when it is not needed.

  5. I love it when liberals get snow dumped on them!

    This may be the latest date so far, but May is not over yet.

    And my grandma said it snowed in June in St. Louis when she was a girl (early 1900’s). No mention of it in the official records, but I believed my grandma over bureaucrats.

    • My father told me that it snowed in Brisbane one morning in the 1940’s.

      Of course it was gone soon after sunrise but snow at sea level at 27°S is a rare event.

      When I was a child in the 60’s it regularly got so cold dew would freeze into icicles hanging from the clothes line, water would freeze in the hose and the large still pools in the creek at the back of our yard would freeze with a thin layer of ice.

      Oh, the good old days.

  6. It tied 1977 for the latest, another very cold year. How in a few years they went from Global Cooling on Time magazine’s cover ti global warming a few years later I’ll never know. They were already talking about it back then.

  7. Don’t get me wrong, I am certain there were cold and snow records with this. Any time you get a slow moving hurricane blizzard, literally hurricane force winds on Mount Washington and negative 22 degrees on that peak! Normally I don’t pay attention to winchill, though in that case, very dangerous. Why that mountain is so extreme, I’m not sure. Not that high altitude, or maybe, probably higher than I think. Actually I think it’s a place I’ve been near, though not actually there. That might explain it.

Comments are closed.