Question regarding Snowfall Averages

[wxmanmitch]

Norfolk's 1981-2010 normal snowfall is 78.4 inches - pretty close to mitch's estimated range.

Oh well, close enough. I didn't think they were quite that high. There were some good winters in the past 10-12 years, so that may have skewed it upward a little.

[ChrisM]

Mitch...great post. I agree on all aspects. I think latitude is huge in terms of averages, which is why whatever Norfolk averages, I have to imagine you and Pete average more, and then SVT is another 10" higher at equal elevation. I mean that's how the ski area snowfall works out too.

Jiminy Peak in the Berks averages 100" or so they claim, followed by 150" range in SVT areas like Okemo and Mt Snow, then 200"+ at Killington, 250" at Sugarbush/MRG and finally 300" from Bolton and Stowe, with Jay topping it all at 330".

Granted those are summit level snowfall but I gotta imagine towns around these areas follow similar pattern of a steady increase with latitude, provided you hold elevation constant. Such that in town elevations it ranges from 75-90" in CT, 80-100" in MA, 95-115" in southern/central VT, and 115-140" up this way.

i wonder if the 2000+ foot summits in ct avg over 100

[powderfreak]

I'd say 100" is reasonable for Jiminy as they face NW right into that upslope stuff. They don't do as well synoptically as areas to the east, but I've seen Jiminy get a foot of upslope in the right situation. Higher latitudes will generally do better in SWFE scenarios and are more likely to remain all snow in nor'easters, provided they reach that far north. Higher latitudes are also more likely climatologically to get hit with a Miller B storm or nice snowy clipper.

The northern mountains of New England also seem to really cash in with these cutoff lows in SE Canada that wrap around moisture on a NW flow. A lot of that stuff often dries up further south.

Well put...I mean up here, that NW flow stuff is our bread and butter and without that we'd average amounts like the White ski resorts like Loon and Waterville that get 150-180" instead of 300".

We all get similar synoptic snow from SWFE, Coastals, clippers, etc and they all favor different areas, but it's the orographic enhancement that really seperates western New England from the Berks up through VT, from more eastern New England. Eastern may get more Coastals, but I think it depends on the year...some seasons really favor ALB to BTV for snowfall from coastline runners, other seasons those Coastals favor the coast plain.

[powderfreak]

i wonder if the 2000+ foot summits in ct avg over 100

I could see that...maybe not by much but 2200ft is a significant elevation.

[CoastalWx]

It depends where we are talking about. I'm thinking the Monads like EEN and AFN, not nrn Monads like Washington NH..etc. Also, I'm referencing areas further west than Norfolk CT. I agree in general latitude is important as a whole regarding increasing snowfall in general..especially from synoptic events. Throw in a little longitude as well. But, there are mesoscale stuff like weenie upslope that can buck the general rules. What nw CT doesn't get from late blooming Miller Bs (which lately have not been existent) they can get from storms diving south in WNW flow like clippers and south of Pike specials.

[Collinsville]

Oh yeah I believe the number is in the 85-95" range, but I have a hard time believing over 110" which would make it snowier than the Monadnocks.

Its lower than that range. I'd stake my life on it. The 110" was just one period of record where weenie totals came out of Norfolk. Its hard to pinpoint why that period is so high, other stations were above average for sure but not insane like that. The facts are this 1915-1955 avg was 80", 1955-1979 avg was 114.5", 1979 to 2011 average was 79.0" (and slowly dropping). I guess I'm the only one who can see a problem here, lol.

These are actual numbers not weenie guessing and the supposition of magical upslope totals that do not really exist this far South. There are areas to Norfolks West that are higher in elevation. I've hiked Bear mtn an Mount Everett many times and you look down on Norfolk to the East.

A 90" plus average can only be defended by one 20 year period of record where the other 70 years of record have to be ignored.

[Guest Pamela]

Its lower than that range. I'd stake my life on it. The 110" was just one period of record where weenie totals came out of Norfolk. Its hard to pinpoint why that period is so high, other stations were above average for sure but not insane like that. The facts are this 1915-1955 avg was 80", 1955-1979 avg was 114.5", 1979 to 2011 average was 79.0" (and slowly dropping). I guess I'm the only one who can see a problem here, lol.

These are actual numbers not weenie guessing and the supposition of magical upslope totals that do not really exist this far South. There are areas to Norfolks West that are higher in elevation. I've hiked Bear mtn an Mount Everett many times and you look down on Norfolk to the East.

A 90" plus average can only be defended by one 20 year period of record where the other 70 years of record have to be ignored.

I think it is just wonderful when someone like yourself...who was not even alive when most of these records were prepared...claims greater insight into what transpired than the actual observers.

Do yourself a favor and read Joseph Brumbach's The Climate of Connecticut...he was the state climatologist for numerous years following a distinguished career in meteorology.

[Collinsville]

[Guest Pamela]

Think about how good 2011 was, and they only got 108"? How the heck would they average 110"+ over 20+ years? That would mean that 2011 was actually below average or not that great.

That is calendar year 2011...January through December...January was great...February, March and April were not particularly good snow months...October was again great...and November and December were awful.

They did average 110" from 1951 -1973...I guess that is about 23 winters...look it up.

[Guest Pamela]

Good response...demonstrates your intellectual prowess!

[powderfreak]

Its lower than that range. I'd stake my life on it. The 110" was just one period of record where weenie totals came out of Norfolk. Its hard to pinpoint why that period is so high, other stations were above average for sure but not insane like that. The facts are this 1915-1955 avg was 80", 1955-1979 avg was 114.5", 1979 to 2011 average was 79.0" (and slowly dropping). I guess I'm the only one who can see a problem here, lol.

These are actual numbers not weenie guessing and the supposition of magical upslope totals that do not really exist this far South.

Oh I completely agree with you...and wxmanmitch also threw out numbers below 85", too. Mitch has a great read on the Berks and that area of New England.

There is something wrong with this numbers...climate snowfall averages don't just jump around by 24-36" every 20 years. And I still have no doubt it's the snowiest place in CT but averaging well over 100" just isn't happening. Again those are snowfall numbers that are in the range of up here in northern VT. I'm not saying it's not possible but snowfall in the mountains of western New England gradually increases as you head north.

If they averaged 115" then places like ORH and ALB should have seen a big jump in snowfall too during that period, along with other CoOps in hills around CT. Synoptic storms would have had to increase in a big way and that would be reflected by other increases in area snowfall.

[Guest Pamela]

If they averaged 115" then places like ORH and ALB should have seen a big jump in snowfall too during that period, along with other CoOps in hills around CT. Synoptic storms would have had to increase in a big way and that would be reflected by other increases in area snowfall.

Don't be so quick to compare Norfolk with Albany...so many of the so-called I-95 storms...Jan 61, Feb 67, Feb 69 (1st one), Feb 83, Jan '96 (just to name a few) were enormous hits in Litchfield County but never made it to the Capitol District or just brushed them...Norfolk profits from both the coastal storms and those that would impact only the mid Hudson Valley and central New England...abetted by the altitude. It is perfectly placed to benefit from the general winter storm tracks. As I said, the 110 inch average was during an unusually snowy 23 year stretch during the last century...proper average annual snowfall likely falls between 90 and 100 inches. The station has a good reputation and a long history.

[ChrisM]

Oh I completely agree with you...and wxmanmitch also threw out numbers below 85", too. Mitch has a great read on the Berks and that area of New England.

There is something wrong with this numbers...climate snowfall averages don't just jump around by 24-36" every 20 years. And I still have no doubt it's the snowiest place in CT but averaging well over 100" just isn't happening. Again those are snowfall numbers that are in the range of up here in northern VT. I'm not saying it's not possible but snowfall in the mountains of western New England gradually increases as you head north.

If they averaged 115" then places like ORH and ALB should have seen a big jump in snowfall too during that period, along with other CoOps in hills around CT. Synoptic storms would have had to increase in a big way and that would be reflected by other increases in area snowfall.

Norfolk =/= orh =/= alb...not even close. A near 1400' valley far south enough to get coastals but far west to get snow when most of sne warm sectors can definitely average 90+. Norfolk on average picks up 3" more than my house on most synoptic snows and they pick up one or two inches here and there throughout the winter. There's their 20-25" more average than me right there. If im 65", it makes sense.

[Guest Pamela]

Don't be so quick to compare Norfolk with Albany...so many of the so-called I-95 storms...Jan 61, Feb 67, Feb 69 (1st one), Feb 83, Jan '96 (just to name a few) were enormous hits in Litchfield County but never made it to the Capitol District or just brushed them...Norfolk profits from both the coastal storms and those that would impact only the mid Hudson Valley and central New England...abetted by the altitude. It is perfectly placed to benefit from the general winter storm tracks. As I said, the 110 inch average was during an unusually snowy 23 year stretch during the last century...proper average annual snowfall likely falls between 90 and 100 inches. The station has a good reputation and a long history.

Moreover...as I noted earlier...Norfolk picks up plenty of rotting lake effect...I subscribed to Climatological Data for years...reflecting the station's daily snowfall....it was full of days where less than an inch or two of snow was recorded....when the rest of CT recorded dry. Flat Albany does not see that sort of thing very often.

[powderfreak]

Norfolk =/= orh =/= alb...not even close.

Yeah I know...that's not the point I'm trying to make. I'm not arguing that they get 80-90" or even a few inches more. I'm saying that if you look at the Coop numbers, I doubt they had one 25 year period where they averaged over 110", bookended by long climate periods of averaging 80".

If for 25 years, they saw a 34" increase in snowfall on average, then neighboring areas like ORH or ALB would see an increase during that time too. Region wide you'd see a big increase in snowfall at all sites. Not one localized sight that all the sudden gets three more feet per year on average.

It's like up here...I get more snow than BTV, prob like Norfolk relative to BDL. But if I all the sudden started averaging 34" more over 20 years, I bet BTV would see a noticeable snowfall increase as well...it would be a reflection of a more favorable pattern and snowier winters in general. You dont just see one site increase by three feet per season with places around it remaining more or less the same.

[powderfreak]

Moreover...as I noted earlier...Norfolk picks up plenty of rotting lake effect...I subscribed to Climatological Data for years...reflecting the station's daily snowfall....it was full of days where less than an inch or two of snow was recorded....when the rest of CT recorded dry. Flat Albany does not see that sort of thing very often.

Again I understand that...but if those 23 years were so unusually snowy, why aren't we seeing averages across the region all increase by 15-25%?

Norfolk could not have had a 25% increase in snowfall over 23 years and without seeing that type of increase at other stations. Spots in the Berkshires with very similar climates should have also all the sudden averaged 2-3 feet mote snow for those 23 years. I would assume a snowier pattern would cause the same increase in snowfall even at ALB and ORH reflecting a snowier pattern.

Norfolk didn't just see a 25% increase in annual snowfall from increased amounts of dying lake effect. Other stations would have seen a similar 25% increase.

[Guest Pamela]

Norfolk didn't just see a 25% increase in annual snowfall from increased amounts of dying lake effect. Other stations would have seen a similar 25% increase.

I know they kept a pretty good climate record up at Pittsfield Municipal Airport in Berkshire County during the 20th century...they are at around 1000 feet or so...though on the west side of the Berkshires...that might not be a bad station to do a comparison with. Most of the other Litchfield County stations have too many holes in their record...I recall a pretty high coop in MA...I think on the eastern slopes...Cummington Hill, IIRC...their record might be pulled also, for examination and comparison....locally anomalous increases in snowfall are not unprecedented...look at Logan Airport from 1992-2011...huge increase vs average that is not matched at spots like Bradley Field in Windsor Locks in neighboring CT.

[tamarack]

When I was a good deal younger, the generally accepted average annual snowfall for Windsor Locks CT / Bradley Field was around 50". I went to the Boston NWS page and was somewhat taken aback to see that the 1981-2010 average had gone all the way down to around 41". Again, when I was considerably younger, Bradley was a good deal snowier than Logan Airport...but it appears Boston has the edge during the last 3 decades.

Norfolk averaged 110" of snow per year (1951-73). They hold the state record for most snow in a season (177" in 1955-56) and snowiest month (73" in March 1956)...haven't checked if anything in January 2011 eclipsed that...

Norfolk has 50.0" for Jan 2011; the late-month snow barely gave them advisory criteria. Still, it's their #4 month, trailing Jan '87 by 1/2" and Feb '69 by 2"+, along with the March '56 monster. That 2/69 came without all that much help from the late-month dump on points farther N and E - the Lindsay Storm was the biggie.

BDL's avg for 55-56 thru 77-78 is 57", or at least 1/3 higher than the rest of their record. Lends some credence, IMO, to Norfolk's snow bulge.

[Damage In Tolland]

^{How did I miss this thread lol?}

^{Norfolk averages between 85-90 a year. I think it's around 87 inches .}

^{Plainville does surprisingly weel being in a general valley..though there are some higher els. in town closer to Bristol. I worked in Bristol for 11 yrs and know the area pretty well.}

^{The NW hills of Ct several times per winter will have their own private upslope/lake effect snow storm..while the rest of us are partly cloudy.}

^{It is truly a different world up there. I proposed to my wife at the top of Bear Mtn in Salisbury at over 2,000 feet on Jan 1 1998...with well over a foot of snow on the ground and periodic squalls.}

^{I would live in that area in a heartbeat if I could. They are also a severe wx mecca in the summer.}

[CoastalWx]

^{How did I miss this thread lol?}

^{Norfolk averages between 85-90 a year. I think it's around 87 inches .}

^{Plainville does surprisingly weel being in a general valley..though there are some higher els. in town closer to Bristol. I worked in Bristol for 11 yrs and know the area pretty well.}

^{The NW hills of Ct several times per winter will have their own private upslope/lake effect snow storm..while the rest of us are partly cloudy.}

^{It is truly a different world up there. I proposed to my wife at the top of Bear Mtn in Salisbury at over 2,000 feet on Jan 1 1998...with well over a foot of snow on the ground and periodic squalls.}

^{I would live in that area in a heartbeat if I could. They are also a severe wx mecca in the summer.}

As much as it pains me to say it, other than Union...you are probably in the second best location in CT for snow. You kind of are at the crossroads of different things. Far enough north to avoid some (not all taint), high elevation, and can get the pike south deals.

[ChrisM]

As much as it pains me to say it, other than Union...you are probably in the second best location in CT for snow. You kind of are at the crossroads of different things. Far enough north to avoid some (not all taint), high elevation, and can get the pike south deals.

Not sure if serious....you must mean eastern ct lol cause if not that is the biggest SCF fail that could ever happen.

[CoastalWx]

Not sure if serious....you must mean eastern ct lol cause if not that is the biggest SCF fail that could ever happen.

Well I break it down to NW CT (which is obviously snowier) and Nctrl CT. Other than Union which is higher and more northeast, I'd say Kevin is in a good snow spot. Maybe a weenie hill in Stafford could do better in some Nina winters, but Kevin is in a good spot.

[Diego]

Norfolk has 50.0" for Jan 2011; the late-month snow barely gave them advisory criteria. Still, it's their #4 month, trailing Jan '87 by 1/2" and Feb '69 by 2"+, along with the March '56 monster. That 2/69 came without all that much help from the late-month dump on points farther N and E - the Lindsay Storm was the biggie.

BDL's avg for 55-56 thru 77-78 is 57", or at least 1/3 higher than the rest of their record. Lends some credence, IMO, to Norfolk's snow bulge.

Fyi - March 56 and Feb. 69 (but this doesn't mean that I'm vouching for their accuracy, lol).

Norfolk56.pdf

Norfolk69.pdf

[NorEaster17]

^{It is truly a different world up there. I proposed to my wife at the top of Bear Mtn in Salisbury at over 2,000 feet on Jan 1 1998...with well over a foot of snow on the ground and periodic squalls.}

^{I would live in that area in a heartbeat if I could.}

Very cool. How did you climb those rocks in a foot of snow? Wow. Id love to see pics of Mt. Bear with that much snow. PM me if you have them.

--------

I'm sitting here with arms crossed and tape on my mouth being near the digusting coast reading all these nice snow posts.. So many times I've had rain and just an hour north of me all snow.

The averages I got using all years since 1950, directly from NWS office themselves is:

Windsor Locks(BDL): 47.91"

Bridgeport(BDR): 27.75"

BDL Usually (but not always) gets double the amount of snow BDR gets in a given year. So imagine what Litchfield hills get..

Here's a non surprising day in Winter. Feb 29th, 2012. Started in Norwalk all Rain all morning, drove up RT 7, got the mix snow in Redding, then all snow in Danbury but already accumulated. It stayed all rain all day in Norwalk and it was all snow in Danbury until changed to sleet at 3pm.

[Damage In Tolland]

As much as it pains me to say it, other than Union...you are probably in the second best location in CT for snow. You kind of are at the crossroads of different things. Far enough north to avoid some (not all taint), high elevation, and can get the pike south deals.

Yeah..it's not the best,but I live in a very good snow spot. FDar enough east and north to catch most coastals, and high eneough in elevation to do well ion marginal situations. But always subject to sleet as we know lol.

And only 10-15 minutes from the hideous CT Valley and 25 minutes from hideous IJD

[wxmanmitch]

Very cool. How did you climb those rocks in a foot of snow? Wow. Id love to see pics of Mt. Bear with that much snow. PM me if you have them.

--------

I'm sitting here with arms crossed and tape on my mouth being near the digusting coast reading all these nice snow posts.. So many times I've had rain and just an hour north of me all snow.

The averages I got using all years since 1950, directly from NWS office themselves is:

Windsor Locks(BDL): 47.91"

Bridgeport(BDR): 27.75"

BDL Usually (but not always) gets double the amount of snow BDR gets in a given year. So imagine what Litchfield hills get..

Here's a non surprising day in Winter. Feb 29th, 2012. Started in Norwalk all Rain all morning, drove up RT 7, got the mix snow in Redding, then all snow in Danbury but already accumulated. It stayed all rain all day in Norwalk and it was all snow in Danbury until changed to sleet at 3pm.

I feel your pain. Growing up in New Canaan was a painful experience for me as a snow weenie, and I remember countless storms like the one you just mentioned. Oh, the frustration! Although I was located about 5 miles inland just above the Merritt Parkway, it usually wasn't quite enough to do the trick.

Occasionally we'd get a little more (1/2" or an inch) than right down by LI Sound, but many times it was a negligible difference. I lived in that town for 14 years, and we only had about 4 or 5 storms where the difference between our home and LI Sound was significant. They were the type of events where we were 32° F and getting a paste job while the shore was getting 33° F and rain or rain and slush. I was frequently envious of Ridgefield and Danbury just up the road as they'd often cash in.

The snowfall climatology of SW CT is actually quite interesting as elevation increases rapidly as you head inland. There really isn't a coastal plain there like much of SNE. My high school on the north side of New Canaan was nearly 500' ASL about 9 miles inland and they'd often get a bit more than I did closer to the Merritt. I remember some events where I had 4" and by my school there would by 6-7". The difference between the Merritt and the north side of New Canaan or Stamford is actually larger than the difference between the Merritt and the shoreline IMO. Meanwhile just up the road in Ridgefield you have spots approaching 1K, and they'll do quite well with about 45-50" in an average winter. My high school probably averaged 35-40", I was 30-35" and right by the shore it is probably near 25". The gradient from LI Sound to Danbury is often very large.

[NorEaster17]

The snowfall climatology of SW CT is actually quite interesting as elevation increases rapidly as you head inland. There really isn't a coastal plain there like much of SNE. My high school on the north side of New Canaan was nearly 500' ASL about 9 miles inland and they'd often get a bit more than I did closer to the Merritt. I remember some events where I had 4" and by my school there would by 6-7". The difference between the Merritt and the north side of New Canaan or Stamford is actually larger than the difference between the Merritt and the shoreline IMO. Meanwhile just up the road in Ridgefield you have spots approaching 1K, and they'll do quite well with about 45-50" in an average winter. My high school probably averaged 35-40", I was 30-35" and right by the shore it is probably near 25". The gradient from LI Sound to Danbury is often very large.

Very cool info. Yeah, its pretty frustrating on a cold lover aspect and an interesting aspect. Winter Rain is not interesting. lol. But you're right, it is interesting how you can drive from the beach just 40 minutes inland and see a whole different scenery. I found a spot in Stamford itself at 650 feet.

I'm very familiar with the High School location. In fact, if you start at RT 123(New Canaan Avenue) by RT7 connector its 40 feet above sea level. Drive litterally 5 minutes and your at 250'. Drive another 10-15 minutes on RT123 and your at 600-700'.

If you take RT 7 up you'll find spots in Redding at 800' and its just 30 miles from the coast. Danbury has spots at 1000'. But when you look on the map its still in SWCT. Most outside Meteos dont understand that and always get a snow forecast incorrect. I tell them to use the Merrit or I-84 as the rain/snow line.

[CapturedNature]

Well I break it down to NW CT (which is obviously snowier) and Nctrl CT. Other than Union which is higher and more northeast, I'd say Kevin is in a good snow spot. Maybe a weenie hill in Stafford could do better in some Nina winters, but Kevin is in a good spot.

There's an area in NE Stafford/NW Union that is a big plateau around 1000'. The highest hill is 1315' which is to the north of my sugarbush there. The top of that hill is 1250' and if it's marginal, it's usually snow there. I've seen is rain down at 1000' but snow up there. It's also a north facing slope so it has some decent snow retention.

My 28 year average is 57.4" which includes some years in the valley but I'd have to say that spot averages 65-70". This area is great in most cases but where it looses is when we warm sector at times.

[CT Rain]

Its lower than that range. I'd stake my life on it. The 110" was just one period of record where weenie totals came out of Norfolk. Its hard to pinpoint why that period is so high, other stations were above average for sure but not insane like that. The facts are this 1915-1955 avg was 80", 1955-1979 avg was 114.5", 1979 to 2011 average was 79.0" (and slowly dropping). I guess I'm the only one who can see a problem here, lol.

These are actual numbers not weenie guessing and the supposition of magical upslope totals that do not really exist this far South. There are areas to Norfolks West that are higher in elevation. I've hiked Bear mtn an Mount Everett many times and you look down on Norfolk to the East.

A 90" plus average can only be defended by one 20 year period of record where the other 70 years of record have to be ignored.

I agree with you when you look at the body of records those weenie years truly do jump out at you.

It certainly could be an issue or specifically where/how snow was measured in those years. I think we all get a little too cute and precise when it comes down to nailing specific seasonal averages. If you start measuring every 6 hours as compared to every 24 (not necessarily when a storm ends but at 12z) you can get some fairly substantial differences. I'm not saying one is right over another but I could see the difference between measuring at 12z only and measuring through the duration of a storm and immediately following snowfall can inflate the totals somewhat dramatically.

[N. OF PIKE]

yup take a look at jspin's number for waterbury at 500'. he is the most dedicated meticulously poster and he is sorta "rewarded in a fair sense with higher totals" especially when measuring 50% or more upslope fluff.

most measure less meticulously and while still being by the book...skew the totals...i'd say if jspin measured every 24 hours his totals wold be reduced by a 15-20% compaction. let me STRESS j.spin measures by the book and his totals are accurate but not every station has the time OR committment to measure like that so there numbers will be down. Not saying this is the case in norfolk (for those years) but if there is evidence that period was a bit snowier AND someone was measuring every 6 hours i think we may be suprised "disturbed" to see how much things could change

in fact i would like to ASK A MET....is it NOT true that two posters in the same locale posting within acceptable guidelines...but one measuring every 6 hours and the other 24 hours or just after the storm (could get 20%) differences both measuring perfectly?

i.e 10 inches and say 12inches same locale .....within the same rules but just one clearing the board every 6 hours and one after the snow has fallen.

it makes you WONDER how much more impressive big snows were like 1969 or 1978 if the totals were measured every 6 hours....just inflate the totals 15% and take a look.