gymengineer Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 The obs on the PIS says 7.3. They pull this crap at RIC on a consistent basis, but I didn't expect it at Dulles IAD has been really wonky with snowfall since the 2004-2005 season... so many examples of them being way too low. It seemed like the observer either stuck the ruler into the snow on top of asphalt or just took the final snow depth for long events. Both storms in 2/05 were low and 2/06 was a complete miss (8" total compared to 12" everywhere else around them). Even 12/09 was strange as their total of 18.0" exactly matched the snow depth 10 hours after the snow stopped. I think LWX finally decided to just override them last winter in the 2/5-6 storm because that 32.4" total physically came from the Sterling office, not the airport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted January 28, 2011 Author Share Posted January 28, 2011 well im not going to do the whole thing just yet. any idea when an update would show in the climo if there is one? i'll send the sheet to myself to finish at work tomorrow if we can resolve. this is what it would look like with the 2 numbers for IAD but still in raw form. red is too low. not many of those. 5.1 @ IAD 7.3@ IAD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinterWxLuvr Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 well im not going to do the whole thing just yet. any idea when an update would show in the climo if there is one? i'll send the sheet to myself to finish at work tomorrow if we can resolve. this is what it would look like with the 2 numbers for IAD but still in raw form. red is too low. not many of those. 5.1 @ IAD 7.3@ IAD Boy, if IAD comes in closer to what all the guys say is reality, your numbers are going to look pretty good. I knew I was going too high on Lynchburg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gymengineer Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 well im not going to do the whole thing just yet. any idea when an update would show in the climo if there is one? i'll send the sheet to myself to finish at work tomorrow if we can resolve. this is what it would look like with the 2 numbers for IAD but still in raw form. red is too low. not many of those. Anthony would have fixed this by now with the Richmond office. We don't have anyone who has that connection with the climate person at LWX yet. There used to be a met (not our resident hydrologist) from LWX who posted at Eastern, but I haven't seen him on here-- Brandon something? But now that the F6 came out, it's clear the 5.1 is wrong. Again, 6" snow depth at 12Z yesterday, well after the snow ended, even though only 5.1" was reported in snowfall the previous day. What I hope they don't do is just put 6" in as the snowfall when they fix it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 IAD had an 8 inch snow depth in one of their METARS at 8pm on Jan 26th: KIAD 270052Z 33014G19KT 1/4SM R01R/2800V3500FT +SN FG OVC002 00/00 A2965 RMK AO2 SLP043 SNINCR 2/8 P0027 T00000000 $ That doesn't make any sense they would report 5.1" for the event. They had a snow depth of 0 before the event on their 12z ob the morning of Jan 26th. For those who don't know, the bolded ob in the remarks section means snow increasing rapidly 2 inches in the past hour and 8 on the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchnick Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 IAD had an 8 inch snow depth in one of their METARS at 8pm on Jan 26th: KIAD 270052Z 33014G19KT 1/4SM R01R/2800V3500FT +SN FG OVC002 00/00 A2965 RMK AO2 SLP043 SNINCR 2/8 P0027 T00000000 $ That doesn't make any sense they would report 5.1" for the event. They had a snow depth of 0 before the event on their 12z ob the morning of Jan 26th. For those who don't know, the bolded ob in the remarks section means snow increasing rapidly 2 inches in the past hour and 8 on the ground. Will, its bad enough a snow lover has to fight mother nature to get snow, but around here we have to fight the mets too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Will, its bad enough a snow lover has to fight mother nature to get snow, but around here we have to fight the mets too. Well what is bizarre is that its the observer who augments the obs in the remarks section. So why would they report 5.1" if they were reporting an 8 inch snow depth at one point? It might have been a different observer by the time the storm was over, but its still a complete lack of awareness even if it was a different person. Maybe they do it differently than other airports...perhaps the final snow obs is being taken somewhere different than the regular obs. I don't know but it would be interesting to find out why the discrepancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted January 28, 2011 Author Share Posted January 28, 2011 i can try shooting an e-mail to someone i know at lwx to see what the deal is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellinwood Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 i can try shooting an e-mail to someone i know at lwx to see what the deal is Do it. Guns a'blazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WxUSAF Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 i can try shooting an e-mail to someone i know at lwx to see what the deal is Have them ask about BWI's snow as well. They reported at least 2" on the ground for the morning round and then I think they should have had 7"+ for the evening. In the evening, they had a TSSN ob with SNINCR 2/6. The next hour, they had another SNINCR but with 1/6. I think that should have been 1/7, which would mean at least 9" on the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellinwood Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Have them ask about BWI's snow as well. They reported at least 2" on the ground for the morning round and then I think they should have had 7"+ for the evening. In the evening, they had a TSSN ob with SNINCR 2/6. The next hour, they had another SNINCR but with 1/6. I think that should have been 1/7, which would mean at least 9" on the day. Good catch on the 2/6 followed by a 1/6 I didn't look that far into it. However, the /6 is total snow on ground, so part/most/all of the 2" from the morning could be included in that 6" obs (depending on how much melted before round two began). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Have them ask about BWI's snow as well. They reported at least 2" on the ground for the morning round and then I think they should have had 7"+ for the evening. In the evening, they had a TSSN ob with SNINCR 2/6. The next hour, they had another SNINCR but with 1/6. I think that should have been 1/7, which would mean at least 9" on the day. The 2nd number is snow depth, not just new snow on the ground. So its possible to get 1 inch new and the snow depth stays at 6"...they round it too. It could have been like 5.6" rounded to 6" and then the next hour they had like 6.4" on the ground also rounded to 6". Compaction during a wet snow was also possible. I agree the obs looks kind of fishy, but just pointing out that its possible it wouldn't change with the rounding plus potential compaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellinwood Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 The 2nd number is snow depth, not just new snow on the ground. So its possible to get 1 inch new and the snow depth stays at 6"...they round it too. It could have been like 5.6" rounded to 6" and then the next hour they had like 6.4" on the ground also rounded to 6". Compaction during a wet snow was also possible. I agree the obs looks kind of fishy, but just pointing out that its possible it wouldn't change with the rounding plus potential compaction. While technically true, it would have been difficult to pull off in the crazy snow that was going on. The estimation thing is probably a better explanation, since that snow would have had a hard time actually compacting significantly enough to alter the SNoG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WxUSAF Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Here's the relevant obs for BWI: Morning: METAR KBWI 260854Z 05007KT 1/2SM R10/4500V5500FT -SN FG VV006 00/M01 A3001 RMK AO2 SLP162 SNINCR 1/1 P0004 60004 T00001011 58011 $ SPECI KBWI 260858Z 05006KT 3/4SM R10/4500V5500FT -SN BR VV004 00/M01 A3001 RMK AO2 P0001 $ SPECI KBWI 260943Z 04007KT 1SM R10/6000VP6000FT -SN BR OVC004 00/M01 A2999 RMK AO2 P0007 $ METAR KBWI 260954Z 05007KT 1SM R10/P6000FT -SN BR OVC004 00/M01 A2998 RMK AO2 SLP155 P0008 T00001006 $ SPECI KBWI 261012Z 05007KT 1 1/2SM -SNRA BR OVC004 00/M01 A2997 RMK AO2 RAB06 P0000 $ METAR KBWI 261054Z 04005KT 1 1/2SM -SN BR OVC004 01/M01 A2997 RMK AO2 RAB06E54 SLP149 P0002 T00061006 $ SPECI KBWI 261136Z 06009KT 1 1/2SM -SN BR OVC006 01/M01 A2995 RMK AO2 CIG 003V009 P0008 CHINO $ METAR KBWI 261154Z 06009KT 1 1/4SM -SN BR OVC004 01/M01 A2994 RMK AO2 CIG 003V009 SLP140 SNINCR 1/2 P0011 60025 70025 T00061006 10017 20000 58023 CHINO $ Afternoon: SPECI KBWI 262225Z 34011G16KT 1/2SM R10/3000V4500FT SN FG BKN005 BKN012 OVC020 01/00 A2955 RMK AO2 P0010 METAR KBWI 262254Z 34010G17KT 1/2SM R10/4500V5000FT SN FG BKN005 OVC010 01/00 A2957 RMK AO2 SLP013 SNINCR 1/2 P0020 T00060000 SPECI KBWI 262344Z 36011G24KT 1/4SM R10/2000V3000FT +SN FG BKN003 OVC007 00/M01 A2957 RMK AO2 P0017 SPECI KBWI 262351Z 35012G20KT 1/4SM R10/2400V3000FT +SN FG BKN001 OVC005 00/M01 A2957 RMK AO2 P0019 METAR KBWI 262354Z 36012G20KT 1/4SM R10/2400V3000FT +SN FG BKN001 OVC007 00/M01 A2957 RMK AO2 SLP016 SNINCR 1/3 4/003 P0021 60070 T00001006 10017 20000 51005 SPECI KBWI 270015Z 34011G24KT 1/4SM R10/3000V4000FT +SN FG BKN003 OVC008 01/00 A2958 RMK AO2 P0009 METAR KBWI 270054Z 1/2SM R10/3500V4000FT SN FG BKN003 OVC010 01/00 A2959 RMK AO2 SLP022 SNINCR 1/4 P0027 T00060000 $ METAR KBWI 270154Z 34009KT 3/4SM R10/3500V4500FT -TSSN BR OVC003 01/00 A2961 RMK AO2 TSB51 SLP028 OCNL LTGIC OHD TS OHD MOV NE SNINCR 2/6 P0028 T00060000 $ SPECI KBWI 270218Z 34012G17KT 1SM R10/4500V6000FT -SN BR BKN005 OVC009 01/00 A2962 RMK AO2 TSE18 TS MOV NE P0008 $ METAR KBWI 270254Z 33011G16KT 2SM -SN BR BKN008 OVC012 01/00 A2963 RMK AO2 TSE18 SLP035 TS MOV NE SNINCR 1/6 P0013 60068 T00060000 53019 $ So...they had 1" on the ground still when the afternoon snow started. So I guess 7.9" officially sounds right on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIC Airport Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Anthony would have fixed this by now with the Richmond office. We don't have anyone who has that connection with the climate person at LWX yet. There used to be a met (not our resident hydrologist) from LWX who posted at Eastern, but I haven't seen him on here-- Brandon something? But now that the F6 came out, it's clear the 5.1 is wrong. Again, 6" snow depth at 12Z yesterday, well after the snow ended, even though only 5.1" was reported in snowfall the previous day. What I hope they don't do is just put 6" in as the snowfall when they fix it. Yes I would have. But, it does appear that there was an adjustment made so 7.3" goes down as the final total. 000 CXUS51 KLWX 290620 CF6IAD PRELIMINARY LOCAL CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA (WS FORM: F-6) STATION: WASHINGTON DULLES DC MONTH: JANUARY YEAR: 2011 LATITUDE: 38 57 N LONGITUDE: 77 27 W TEMPERATURE IN F: :PCPN: SNOW: WIND :SUNSHINE: SKY :PK WND ================================================================================ 1 2 3 4 5 6A 6B 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 12Z AVG MX 2MIN DY MAX MIN AVG DEP HDD CDD WTR SNW DPTH SPD SPD DIR MIN PSBL S-S WX SPD DR ================================================================================ 1 57 29 43 10 22 0 0.02 0.0 0 4.8 16 190 M M 8 18 21 180 2 58 31 45 13 20 0 0.01 0.0 0 10.8 22 310 M M 8 30 320 3 39 25 32 0 33 0 0.00 0.0 0 8.0 21 310 M M 1 28 310 4 46 17 32 0 33 0 0.00 0.0 0 4.6 13 200 M M 3 16 180 5 40 22 31 -1 34 0 0.00 0.0 0 6.4 16 310 M M 4 23 310 6 39 21 30 -2 35 0 0.00 0.0 0 3.1 12 300 M M 6 16 320 7 34 27 31 -1 34 0 T T 0 6.5 20 290 M M 8 25 290 8 32 21 27 -5 38 0 0.01 0.4 0 11.5 29 290 M M 7 1 37 280 9 32 20 26 -6 39 0 0.00 0.0 0 17.0 30 290 M M 2 39 290 10 34 19 27 -5 38 0 0.00 0.0 0 7.0 20 320 M M 5 25 330 11 32 20 26 -6 39 0 0.11 1.2 0 2.5 9 140 M M 10 1468 14 150 12 32 22 27 -5 38 0 0.00 0.0 1 14.9 36 290 M M 7 1 43 300 13 34 23 29 -2 36 0 0.00 0.0 T 13.0 26 310 M M 3 32 310 14 36 16 26 -5 39 0 T T T 3.3 20 320 M M 7 1 26 310 15 44 22 33 2 32 0 0.00 0.0 0 4.8 16 190 M M 9 21 190 16 39 27 33 2 32 0 0.00 0.0 0 8.5 20 350 M M 7 24 330 17 32 27 30 -1 35 0 0.15 0.6 T 5.8 10 20 M M 10 146 13 20 18 34 26 30 -1 35 0 0.19 0.1 0 6.9 16 360 M M 9 12468 20 360 19 51 33 42 11 23 0 T 0.0 0 7.5 30 320 M M 7 12 37 320 20 41 29 35 4 30 0 T T 0 7.6 24 310 M M 8 29 310 21 36 18 27 -4 38 0 0.01 T 0 15.7 31 290 M M 6 1 39 300 22 25 9 17 -14 48 0 0.00 0.0 0 4.5 15 330 M M 5 20 330 23 29 9 19 -12 46 0 T T 0 7.5 24 310 M M 4 30 310 24 31 6 19 -13 46 0 0.00 0.0 0 5.2 14 190 M M 5 17 190 25 45 28 37 5 28 0 0.00 0.0 0 2.8 12 150 M M 9 17 150 26 35 32 34 2 31 0 1.31 7.3 0 10.4 24 350 M M 10 1234 31 360 27 35 25 30 -2 35 0 0.00 0.0 6 8.3 26 310 M M 8 1 35 320 28 36 26 31 -1 34 0 0.06 0.7 5 3.6 18 300 M M 9 18 22 300 ================================================================================ SM 1058 630 971 0 1.87 10.3 212.5 M 185 ================================================================================ AV 37.8 22.5 7.6 FASTST M M 7 MAX(MPH) MISC ----> # 36 290 # 43 300 ================================================================================ NOTES: # LAST OF SEVERAL OCCURRENCES COLUMN 17 PEAK WIND IN M.P.H. PRELIMINARY LOCAL CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA (WS FORM: F-6) , PAGE 2 STATION: WASHINGTON DULLES DC MONTH: JANUARY YEAR: 2011 LATITUDE: 38 57 N LONGITUDE: 77 27 W [TEMPERATURE DATA] [PRECIPITATION DATA] SYMBOLS USED IN COLUMN 16 AVERAGE MONTHLY: 30.1 TOTAL FOR MONTH: 1.87 1 = FOG OR MIST DPTR FM NORMAL: -1.5 DPTR FM NORMAL: -0.91 2 = FOG REDUCING VISIBILITY HIGHEST: 58 ON 2 GRTST 24HR 1.31 ON 25-26 TO 1/4 MILE OR LESS LOWEST: 6 ON 24 3 = THUNDER SNOW, ICE PELLETS, HAIL 4 = ICE PELLETS TOTAL MONTH: 10.3 INCHES 5 = HAIL GRTST 24HR 7.3 ON M 6 = FREEZING RAIN OR DRIZZLE GRTST DEPTH: 6 ON 27 7 = DUSTSTORM OR SANDSTORM: VSBY 1/2 MILE OR LESS 8 = SMOKE OR HAZE [NO. OF DAYS WITH] [WEATHER - DAYS WITH] 9 = BLOWING SNOW X = TORNADO MAX 32 OR BELOW: 8 0.01 INCH OR MORE: 9 MAX 90 OR ABOVE: 0 0.10 INCH OR MORE: 4 MIN 32 OR BELOW: 27 0.50 INCH OR MORE: 1 MIN 0 OR BELOW: 0 1.00 INCH OR MORE: 1 [HDD (BASE 65) ] TOTAL THIS MO. 971 CLEAR (SCALE 0-3) 3 DPTR FM NORMAL 45 PTCLDY (SCALE 4-7) 17 TOTAL FM JUL 1 2820 CLOUDY (SCALE 8-10) 8 DPTR FM NORMAL 33 [CDD (BASE 65) ] TOTAL THIS MO. 0 DPTR FM NORMAL 0 [PRESSURE DATA] TOTAL FM JAN 1 0 HIGHEST SLP M ON M DPTR FM NORMAL 0 LOWEST SLP 29.41 ON 8 [REMARKS] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MN Transplant Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 LYH: 9.1" (+8.4") IAD: 8.0" (+0.7") BWI: 7.6" (-0.2") Tiebreaker: Loudon Bonus: DCA: 5.6" (+0.6) One of these is not like the other Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted January 29, 2011 Author Share Posted January 29, 2011 i will grad it on 7.3 shortly. they initially had the lower in the climo but 7.3 at least sounds reasonable so im fine with that. we can re-address if needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted January 29, 2011 Author Share Posted January 29, 2011 scores... didnt check the tiebreaker since it didnt matter for the top few. if someone wants to plz do. tho i realize it might not work anyway if no one gets it in the tied group. i guess you could use whoever was closest -- unless two counties are next to the jackpot one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted January 29, 2011 Author Share Posted January 29, 2011 One of these is not like the other lyh sucks.. i might not use it again. it burned just about everyone on dec 16 as well.tho i guess those are good lessons for the future... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midlo Snow Maker Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 4th place not bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellinwood Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 lyh sucks.. i might not use it again. it burned just about everyone on dec 16 as well.tho i guess those are good lessons for the future... Too many modelcasters I would have actually gone a little lower in LYH (about 2.0") had I not second-guessed myself! I'll take what I did, though... not bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted January 29, 2011 Author Share Posted January 29, 2011 Too many modelcasters I would have actually gone a little lower in LYH (about 2.0") had I not second-guessed myself! I'll take what I did, though... not bad. i partly just undercut everyone especially after seeing your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellinwood Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 i partly just undercut everyone especially after seeing your post. Hah! Well, you're welcome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fozz Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Wow......looks like I got BWI exactly right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yeoman Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 P-U! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blazeKing Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 :weight_lift: For IAD/BWI I took the NAM qpf, converted into 8 to 1 ratios, added some based on how, typically, the best dBZ's usually end up in that area in SECS/MECS/HECS's, subtracted for IAD/BWI a few inches based on how they typically underreport and subtracted some more for compaction/melting I wasn't spooked by LYH's WSW, they were warmer at the surface, the precip wasn't headed there until during midday w/ poor sun angle and to top that off, the models were showing lower QPF in the roanoke area. Still, surprising they only got 0.7 LOL BTW Just kidding, I totally fooking guessed it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huffwx Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 lyh sucks.. i might not use it again. it burned just about everyone on dec 16 as well.tho i guess those are good lessons for the future... You don't know how bad this hurts me. Some ranked some actual reporting stations for winter totals and we were dead last-- behind RIC< ORF< and Danville. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MN Transplant Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 lyh sucks.. i might not use it again. it burned just about everyone on dec 16 as well.tho i guess those are good lessons for the future... I'll be honest, I kind of forgot where in the state LYH was, and then I was too lazy to go back and change it when I figured it out. Still would have gone higher than what fell, but I wouldn't have been so obscenely wrong on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellinwood Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 I'll be honest, I kind of forgot where in the state LYH was, and then I was too lazy to go back and change it when I figured it out. Still would have gone higher than what fell, but I wouldn't have been so obscenely wrong on that one. Google -> KLYH -> Map -> zoom out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MN Transplant Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Google -> KLYH -> Map -> zoom out LOL. Yeah, in my mind I had it west of Charlottesville, not SSW like it really is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.