40/70 Benchmark

I don't like 24 hours because it isn't accurate. How are you going to get an accurate snowfall measurement once per day? Just as bad as swiping every hour in the other direction. Peak storm depth? Okay. To be perfectly honest, I pick whatever the paid LCD observers do. If that isn't the best method, then change it. The climatological significane of snow measuring is not at all nil if you want to compare apples to apples among sites. I completely disagree with you.

Yea, same...happy medium. Apparently some don't realize how that can sometimes cause a large discrepancy from the depth measurement.

That is the issue...pick one.

The Kev-zone killed my forecast, along with the Hubbdave-fail...decent otherwise. https://easternmassweather.blogspot.com/2019/03/3-213-22-verification.html

Right...its amplified over a longer duration, but same idea.

That blizzard for me last season, at its height, was akin to a late effect band...exquisite snow growth and just pouring fluff. What compounded the discrepancy is that I cleared just at the most intense part began, so it couldn't compact.

9/10 time he is right...its NBD...but the one time out of ten that it is a big deal is the one of the most climo significance.

Exactly...I'm not sure why you would't want to compare sites.

Perfect example. Corahs would report 44" snowfall....yet the 6 hour swipe produced a total of 81.5".

It compromises the integrity of the data when measuring methodologies are not homegeneous.

Fine, stop paying people to measure and clear every 6 hours.

That may be about as extreme and localized event that you will see in sne, but ME gets those fairly frequently due to norluns.

No, I get what you are saying...but getting the max depth method is even more impractical for people than swiping every 6 hours. Regardless, my issue is not which method is used, but that the methodology is not homogeneous between sites....and my frustration is compounded by you dismissing the reality that this inconsistency can lead to large variations in measurements. This has zero to do with wanting higher totals, just use the same damn methodology.

Chris, I cleared the board every 6 hours. One of the clears happened to be JUST before the most intense part of the event, so there was a particularly large discrepancy between snowfall and depth, thus my measurement was tossed. Your claim that it will not be any different is complete and utter BS in a very large event, and the issue is magnified dependent upon when the board is clesred. The fact that LCD and cohras measure differently is what I don't like, so stop twisting my argument because you don't understand.

No I am not, in that type of event. Sorry, but you are incorrect. A fluff bomb accumulating at 3-4"/hr compacts a great deal as it falls. I got 31" via the swipe and clear method, but that actual depth was like 25". Is it a big deal in the vast majority of events? No....but it is in are most important and historic events, although my 31" snowfall last season was admittedly an extreme example because I swiped and cleared just before the heaviest rates began. This season it was not a factor because I didn't get any really large events. I would say a reasonable expectation is for a one inch difference per 10" snowfall...ie a 10" snowfall yields a 9" max depth, 20" and 18", 30" and 27", etc... Simple as that. I understand very well what depth and snowfall are, and my point is that what cohras are reporting is new snow DEPTH.

Man, sign me up for more of this...done with the faux snow threats. 58.1 under brilliant sunshine.

That is what I am going to do in events greater than 12" from now on...report new snowfall and depth, and let them disseminate as they wish.

I'm not saying that is what it was. I am saying that norlun troughs produce private blizzards even severe than that.

Norlun troughs...not as rare as you think.

I said you are wrong that it isn't important, not what the policy is. The six hour swipe and max depth methods yield drastically different results in our most historic events. Not sure how that isn't important.

Nothing is percect...its not feasible to always be able to capture the max depth, either...especially in a season like this with so many turnovers. But measuring snow FALL and depth are two different concepts. I correctly measured a 31" snowfall by utilizing the method employed by paid observers.

Sorry, you are wrong. The majority of the time it is not important, but when you swipe and clear just before a 4 hour period of 3-4"/hr fluff? It makes a profound difference. And no, they didn't lose anything....they had my 31" posted, then took it out because the cohras from town had like 24.8"...which was the deph, but the six hour clear that I used was much different bc tbere was so much compaction.

Coating...still 47.5" lol

This is what drives me nuts ......the inconsistency. I measure just as the LCD sites do, yet they tossed my measurement in the blizzard last year. How do you have two different guidelines for cohras and LCD??? Makes zero sense, and utter BS.

Yea, I was hammering this potential, too....blogged about it back on March 10: https://easternmassweather.blogspot.com/2019/03/pacific-archambault-signal-for-equinox.html ... even when many gave up on the storm idea. Only got a dusting to show for it, but oh well.