Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,588
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    LopezElliana
    Newest Member
    LopezElliana
    Joined

2010-2011 SNE snowfall map


ORH_wxman

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 423
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Havent seen any evidence of 100" totals in that county. Maybe the top of a high hill. But I'm not going to put it on the map just for that. Wachusett probably had over 100" at the top but I didn't bother with a 100"contour there.

Will, you might need to bring that 90-99" contour a bit further south in Merrimack county, almost all the way to the southern part got 90-93". of course I don't have any evidence, but i am pretty confident in that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to get too picky but I have a friend over in Ledyard CT (north of Groton/Stonington) who I'm pretty sure got a little less than me. He melted out a little earlier and I think the far SE of the state mixed more in one of the big January ones. You kind of have the 60" contour bulging south and almost touching him.. but I'd guess he was more like 50".

I guess that is Ginx's 86.8" north of him? Must have been a pretty tight gradient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to get too picky but I have a friend over in Ledyard CT (north of Groton/Stonington) who I'm pretty sure got a little less than me. He melted out a little earlier and I think the far SE of the state mixed more in one of the big ones. You kind of have the 60" contour bulging south and almost touching him.. but I'd guess he was more like 50".

I guess that is Ginx's 86.8" north of him? Must have been a pretty tight gradient.

The hilly terrain of Ledyard did very well. There were definite 60 spots there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The hilly terrain of Ledyard did very well. There were definite 60 spots there.

Ok you'd probably know better than I, I was just judging based on the mixing and dry slot they got in one of the big Jan storms, and then the earlier snowmelt. Maybe something else compensated. My friend's down around 100' and just south of the casino. I can't imagine he personally had 60" but maybe in the hills and north of there.

I had 53.5" and it would be pretty hard for him to melt out before me if he had had 60"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok you'd probably know better than I, I was just judging based on the mixing and dry slot they got in one of the big Jan storms, and then the earlier snowmelt. Maybe something else compensated. My friend's down around 100' and just south of the casino. I can't imagine he personally had 60" but maybe in the hills and north of there.

I had 53.5" and it would be pretty hard for him to melt out before me if he had had 60"

Maybe he did better in Boxing Day?

53.5" only? That's nothing for SNEdevilsmiley.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok you'd probably know better than I, I was just judging based on the mixing and dry slot they got in one of the big Jan storms, and then the earlier snowmelt. Maybe something else compensated. My friend's down around 100' and just south of the casino. I can't imagine he personally had 60" but maybe in the hills and north of there.

I had 53.5" and it would be pretty hard for him to melt out before me if he had had 60"

Yea down behind the terminal moraine was much less and yes it melted early. By the way here is my location at 512 feet, also 53 is probably 23 above average for that location Tubes

a6898903-2887-62e5.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea down behind the terminal moraine was much less and yes it melted early. By the way here is my location at 512 feet, also 53 is probably 23 above average for that location Tubes

You are in a good spot, wow! That 512' must really help in that location.

And yes, I know how little he averages, that was why I made the joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea down behind the terminal moraine was much less and yes it melted early. By the way here is my location at 512 feet, also 53 is probably 23 above average for that location Tubes

Interesting.. I just checked it out and you are right about the terminal moraine.. he's right on the very north edge of the coastal plain but north of there it's mostly around 200' ... Will's graph follows that edge nicely.

Although I just noticed the guy north of me with 56" is also up around 200-300' in Salem

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Bridgehampton co-op total is reliable to my knowledge. The 12/26 and 1/26 events had quite sharp gradients from about 5 miles east of OKX heading east toward the Twin Forks because of a change to rain (and because of the dry slot in the 12/26 event). Their totals for all 3 major events agree well with surrounding spotter reports, though there are very few spotters on the South Fork.

Is the Bridgehampton total on the S fork correct?

I'm assuming it is since it would match the cutoff from NE to SW that happened in SE MA...and I recall several storms that probably screwed them but hammered north-central LI. Ala 1/11-12.

But was just making sure that they weren't 6" too low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Bridgehampton co-op is reliable to my knowledge. All 3 major storms (12/26, 1/11, and 1/26) had quite sharp gradients from about 5 miles east of OKX heading east toward the Twin Forks because of a change to rain (and because of the dry slot in the 12/26 event).

Thanks, I do recall some tight gradients in far E LI.

Also if anyone can get some totals from Danbury area, that would be helpful. I have them near the 80" contour, but they might have gotten a bit more than that. I updated the 80" contour in the CT River valley and made the area of 70-79" much larger given BDL's questionable total and the totals from Springfield, MA down to Collinsville, CT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will - Nice map so far.

Steve, how did you end up getting and etra half inch of snow than me?

:guitar:

Slant stick.

:whistle:

Probably but the March 23 snow I was snowing while you had stopped. I think the fact that we were so close and we both were very close to official coop reports in our area shows we are truthful kind of guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are in a good spot, wow! That 512' must really help in that location.

And yes, I know how little he averages, that was why I made the joke.

I wish I was a half mile up the hill at 625 . They get smoked, I had DBZ a fellow poster who worked as a plow guy for the State of CT tell me that area which is adjacent to RT6 gets the most snow in far East CT. Very close to Foster RI which gets frequently much more than me. Amazing how the marine layer does not get over them small hills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think my area is overdone on the map...i only had 70 and a friend of mind in spfd on the chicopee line only had 74. I know agawam had more and just east of me had more but there should be a 70s sliver running right through spfd metro area down into extreme n ct.

I may have been slightly on the conservative side but there is no way i had 80 plus inches...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think my area is overdone on the map...i only had 70 and a friend of mind in spfd on the chicopee line only had 74. I know agawam had more and just east of me had more but there should be a 70s sliver running right through spfd metro area down into extreme n ct.

I may have been slightly on the conservative side but there is no way i had 80 plus inches...

My current map has a much larger area of 70-79.9 in the CT River valley as I put much less weight into the BDL total...but I probably wont post an updated version until i make a few more changes. I basically reduced it to just a sliver of 80+ near BDL just to "respect" the total thats on there even though its likely inflated a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My current map has a much larger area of 70-79.9 in the CT River valley as I put much less weight into the BDL total...but I probably wont post an updated version until i make a few more changes. I basically reduced it to just a sliver of 80+ near BDL just to "respect" the total thats on there even though its likely inflated a bit.

Will by the way thanks, great map and a fantastic resource. What if you have to change it one more time, LOL, ya never know.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Havent seen any evidence of 100" totals in that county. Maybe the top of a high hill. But I'm not going to put it on the map just for that. Wachusett probably had over 100" at the top but I didn't bother with a 100"contour there.

100" no, I agree. No 100" contour.

You have spots way way over 1000' in the 80 to 89", when here under 500' we had over 95". I promise you the eles over 1000' close to here had over 95" if not near 100" and they are not just some bump like MQE, who all the time we see little contours for. It's a common misconception, roughly 80" in ASH and 85" in MHT that it somehow translates into 80-85 county-wide.

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...