Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,586
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    LopezElliana
    Newest Member
    LopezElliana
    Joined

Next storm on the list, March 6-7


Typhoon Tip

Recommended Posts

That gradient was probably from some sort of banding..maybe deformation banding perhaps. It looks like any dryslot would have been south based on the mid level features, but maybe NYC dryslotted briefly? The obs would tell it.

Yeah it wasn't a warm storm where NYC would have done worse than the 'burbs, unlike March 1888 which dropped 32" but Central Park only measured 21"...that might have been measuring issues though since Brooklyn had some 30" reports and New Haven had 48", Central Park definitely had an oddball report as has been well discussed on this forum.

I think it was probably just banding for the 3/1960 storm, might have had to do with strong north winds creating more convergence in areas of the Hudson Valley than in the open coastal plain?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

No, they had 20" on the nose it looks like. The 27" total is actually much higher than any total around it, so I don't think anyone got 30". Mostly 17-20" totals in all the surrounding coops.

OK, I think Dobbs Ferry had the 27" report...

I guess White Plains had 32" in March 1888 but not March 1960. I know they also had around 30" in December 1947...we reported around 27" here. There's an exhibition of photos from the December 1947 blizzard in White Plains, and it's just ridiculous, might have been over 30" actually with modern 6-hour measurements.

Was the 6-hour technique in use for 1960 storm, Will?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I think Dobbs Ferry had the 27" report...

I guess White Plains had 32" in March 1888 but not March 1960. I know they also had around 30" in December 1947...we reported around 27" here. There's an exhibition of photos from the December 1947 blizzard in White Plains, and it's just ridiculous, might have been over 30" actually with modern 6-hour measurements.

Was the 6-hour technique in use for 1960 storm, Will?

Probably not, but the 6 hourly totals go back to the 1940s, but most sites used daily snow until relatively recently. Daily totals are still commonly used in coops. 6 hourly method isn't the only "correct" method either as some have come to believe. The correct method is "at least once per 24 hours and no greater than 4 times per 24 hours with a minimum of 6 hours between measurements".

However, the large range of what's accepted for a correct snowfall measurement can make it difficult to homogenize the data...sometimes you are comparing apples to oranges when you have two coops and one measures only once at 8am every day and another measures 4 times per day and is careful to measure when the snow ends or when it changes to rain/ice/sleet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably not, but the 6 hourly totals go back to the 1940s, but most sites used daily snow until relatively recently. Daily totals are still commonly used in coops. 6 hourly method isn't the only "correct" method either as some have come to believe. The correct method is "at least once per 24 hours and no greater than 4 times per 24 hours with a minimum of 6 hours between measurements".

However, the large range of what's accepted for a correct snowfall measurement can make it difficult to homogenize the data...sometimes you are comparing apples to oranges when you have two coops and one measures only once at 8am every day and another measures 4 times per day and is careful to measure when the snow ends or when it changes to rain/ice/sleet.

Yeah, that's why I believe the March 1960 storm might have been huge...we have the 27" report here at low elevation, and the track of the mid-levels looks good for Westchester. It may have compacted a lot with the powdery nature of the storm, so I think 25-30" fell in much of Westchester. Who knows though, could be less.

I had this experience with the 2/21 overrunning event. 8" of snow fell here but it was down to a 4" snow depth or so later in the day...late February sun came out for a few hours, and it was a fluffy snow that compacted rapidly. So it would have been somewhat inaccurate to measure at the end of the day once and say 4" fell since there was clearly a deep snow in the AM hours. It was an incredible difference that only happens with powder events in the high sun angle part of the cold season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's why I believe the March 1960 storm might have been huge...we have the 27" report here at low elevation, and the track of the mid-levels looks good for Westchester. It may have compacted a lot with the powdery nature of the storm, so I think 25-30" fell in much of Westchester. Who knows though, could be less.

I had this experience with the 2/21 overrunning event. 8" of snow fell here but it was down to a 4" snow depth or so later in the day...late February sun came out for a few hours, and it was a fluffy snow that compacted rapidly. So it would have been somewhat inaccurate to measure at the end of the day once and say 4" fell since there was clearly a deep snow in the AM hours. It was an incredible difference that only happens with powder events in the high sun angle part of the cold season.

ya but it could be a drift for all we know too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least there's some signs on some modelling of a chance at something Sunday/Monday..all we can ask for at this point

Well it has that (which becomes a little warm), but also a nuke afterwards...showing how things can cutoff this time of year. I'm not buying anything until I see it modeled 3-4 days out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...