NNE Winter 2013-14 Part I

[mahk_webstah]

Ended up with 3.0", A little -zr this am...

 

Jeff that is an awesome start to December! Wow, congrats.  If it can survive the week you might have your perma-snow cover down, and earlier than most of us.  Enjoy your changed landscape!

[MaineJayhawk]

Ended up with 3.0", A little -zr this am...

 

 

 

 

Sweet!  I had just a dusting over in my 'ville.  Nothing of note in North Windham either.

[dryslot]

Jeff that is an awesome start to December! Wow, congrats.  If it can survive the week you might have your perma-snow cover down, and earlier than most of us.  Enjoy your changed landscape!

 

Will see how it works out, Going to tough to hold on to it Mark, But next week holds some promise

 

 

Sweet!  I had just a dusting over in my 'ville.  Nothing of note in North Windham either.

 

We ripped plus rates for a time last night with some pretty large aggregates, Did not take long to pile those up

[eyewall]

Many surfaces here have rime ice on them from the freezing fog. You can definitely see it on trees, roofs, and bushes etc.

[Lava Rock]

Ended up with 3.0", A little -zr this am...

 

Lucky duck. Thought we'd end up with more, but only 0.25" when I woke up. Looks like it'll be gone by end of day.

[powderfreak]

Nice Dryslot! 3" this time of year is a full on snowstorm, lol. Looks nice to cover the grass doesn't it?

[dryslot]

Nice Dryslot! 3" this time of year is a full on snowstorm, lol. Looks nice to cover the grass doesn't it?

 

Yeah scott, Wish i would have got this a couple days back when i was out hunting though, Oh Well, Outside of you guys area there has not been much to report for anyone, We were fortunate last night with marginal temps, But we had + rates so it was able to snow, I had started out at 28F yesterday morning and was up to 34F and still snowing last night, The bulk of the snow fell between 0z and 04z before we flipped to some -zr this am and now over to -rnshwrs

[dryslot]

Lucky duck. Thought we'd end up with more, but only 0.25" when I woke up. Looks like it'll be gone by end of day.

 

Yeah, We lucked out here i guess, And a few others.....

NOUS41 KGYX 021430PNSGYXMEZ007>009-012>014-018>028-NHZ001>010-013-014-180235--030230-PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENTSPOTTER REPORTSNATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE GRAY ME930 AM EST MON DEC 02 2013THE FOLLOWING ARE UNOFFICIAL OBSERVATIONS TAKEN DURING THE PAST 18HOURS FOR THE STORM THAT HAS BEEN AFFECTING OUR REGION. APPRECIATIONIS EXTENDED TO HIGHWAY DEPARTMENTS...COOPERATIVE OBSERVERS...SKYWARNSPOTTERS AND MEDIA FOR THESE REPORTS. THIS SUMMARY IS ALSO AVAILABLEON OUR HOME PAGE AT WEATHER.GOV/GRAY********************STORM TOTAL SNOWFALL********************LOCATION          STORM TOTAL     TIME/DATE   COMMENTS                     SNOWFALL           OF                     /INCHES/   MEASUREMENTMAINE...ANDROSCOGGIN COUNTY...   2 E LEWISTON           3.0   645 AM 12/02   5 NNW GREENE           3.0   700 AM 12/02   TURNER                 2.7   700 AM 12/02   1 NW AUBURN            2.5   819 AM 12/02...CUMBERLAND COUNTY...   3 NE NAPLES            1.5   700 AM 12/02   3 NW BRIDGTON          1.4   700 AM 12/02...FRANKLIN COUNTY...   1 WNW TEMPLE           3.2   600 AM 12/02   PHILLIPS               2.7   700 AM 12/02   FARMINGTON             1.4  1200 AM 12/02...KENNEBEC COUNTY...   1 SSE WINSLOW          5.0   700 AM 12/02   3 SSE WAYNE            4.3   630 AM 12/02   3 SW MOUNT VERNON      3.5   630 AM 12/02...OXFORD COUNTY...   6 SSE BETHEL           2.0   709 AM 12/02   1 W OTISFIELD          2.0   814 AM 12/02   ANDOVER                1.5   700 AM 12/02...SOMERSET COUNTY...   2 ESE HARTLAND         3.0   700 AM 12/02   NORTH ANSON            3.0   700 AM 12/02   12 N NEW PORTLAND      2.5   700 AM 12/02   BRASSUA DAM            2.3   700 AM 12/02   LONG FALLS DAM         2.2   700 AM 12/02   MOOSEHEAD              2.2   700 AM 12/02...WALDO COUNTY...   3 S MONROE             1.6   700 AM 12/02

[MaineJayhawk]

 

Yeah, We lucked out here i guess, And a few others.....

NOUS41 KGYX 021430PNSGYXMEZ007>009-012>014-018>028-NHZ001>010-013-014-180235--030230-PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENTSPOTTER REPORTSNATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE GRAY ME930 AM EST MON DEC 02 2013THE FOLLOWING ARE UNOFFICIAL OBSERVATIONS TAKEN DURING THE PAST 18HOURS FOR THE STORM THAT HAS BEEN AFFECTING OUR REGION. APPRECIATIONIS EXTENDED TO HIGHWAY DEPARTMENTS...COOPERATIVE OBSERVERS...SKYWARNSPOTTERS AND MEDIA FOR THESE REPORTS. THIS SUMMARY IS ALSO AVAILABLEON OUR HOME PAGE AT WEATHER.GOV/GRAY********************STORM TOTAL SNOWFALL********************LOCATION          STORM TOTAL     TIME/DATE   COMMENTS                     SNOWFALL           OF                     /INCHES/   MEASUREMENTMAINE...CUMBERLAND COUNTY...   3 NE NAPLES            1.5   700 AM 12/02   3 NW BRIDGTON          1.4   700 AM 12/02

 

 

So, 1.5" in Naples and five miles away jzinckgra gets 0.25".  This will make him happy.

[dryslot]

So, 1.5" in Naples and five miles away jzinckgra gets 0.25".  This will make him happy.

 

He must of built his house on a compost pile......

[Lava Rock]

Fog city at home

[Lava Rock]

He must of built his house on a compost pile......

wtf! Just saw the Naples total. Man, now I think our house on the hill is jinxed. Maybe our builder last year installed radiant heat under the front lawn as well.

[dryslot]

wtf! Just saw the Naples total. Man, now I think our house on the hill is jinxed. Maybe our builder last year installed radiant heat under the front lawn as well.

 

Jeezus, Dude that's bad luck, There has to be something going on there, Even your temps have been marginal

[Lava Rock]

Jeezus, Dude that's bad luck, There has to be something going on there, Even your temps have been marginal

yeah, I'd almost challenge that Naples measurement, but Bridgton got about the same. I guess the snow cloud wasn't hanging over our heads. It certainly didn't rain as my gauge didn't record any after 6pm.

 

Speaking of rain gauges, do you guys cover yours up as to not record during the winter or do you scoop out the fresh snow before it melts? I've always let the snow melt in the bucket, but then it screws up my yearly totals.

[dryslot]

yeah, I'd almost challenge that Naples measurement, but Bridgton got about the same. I guess the snow cloud wasn't hanging over our heads. It certainly didn't rain as my gauge didn't record any after 6pm.

 

Speaking of rain gauges, do you guys cover yours up as to not record during the winter or do you scoop out the fresh snow before it melts? I've always let the snow melt in the bucket, but then it screws up my yearly totals.

 

I use mine to take snow core samples, So i am emptying it out ea storm, But i leave mine up all winter and have for several years and have had no issues, Some bring them inside for the winter for fear of cracking when water freezes in the tube

[tamarack]

I use mine to take snow core samples, So i am emptying it out ea storm, But i leave mine up all winter and have for several years and have had no issues, Some bring them inside for the winter for fear of cracking when water freezes in the tube

 

You're a braver man than I; mine comes in before the serious cold arrives.  I'm fairly sure it would've broken had I left it in place for this Illinois trip - 2.5" (about) RA fllowed by near-zero temps.  Ouch!

 

Got an informal report of half a foot of "snowball snow" from Fairfield, next to WVL, from the owner of the kennel keeping our Lab during our trip.  Cocorahs reports suggest about half that at our place.  Highest on there was 5.0" at Winslow, 10 miles east of AUG.

[dryslot]

You're a braver man than I; mine comes in before the serious cold arrives.  I'm fairly sure it would've broken had I left it in place for this Illinois trip - 2.5" (about) RA fllowed by near-zero temps.  Ouch!

 

Got an informal report of half a foot of "snowball snow" from Fairfield, next to WVL, from the owner of the kennel keeping our Lab during our trip.  Cocorahs reports suggest about half that at our place.  Highest on there was 5.0" at Winslow, 10 miles east of AUG.

 

I have had rainfall frozen solid in the inner tube, Don't have to worry about it spilling..........lol, Just bring it inside and let it thaw slowly, Have had no issues

[J.Spin]

We’re into December now, so I can pass along the final November 2013 snow/liquid numbers for our site:

 

Accumulating snowstorms:  7

Snowfall: 17.7”

Liquid Equivalent: 5.04”

 

In terms of snow, this November falls in behind November 2007 and November 2008, but unfortunately I don’t have liquid equivalent from those seasons to compare.  The numbers from the comparative table I prepared the other day will stand though:

 

 

As for the valley snowpack that was discussed in that post, we’ll just have to see how that goes – this week isn’t especially cold, but a quick glance at our point forecast doesn’t show any 50 F deluges expected, and precipitation here in the valley seems to be a mix of rain and snow.  It certainly looks like its staying reasonably active, even if there aren’t any huge storms:

 

 

The week also looks fine in the mountains based the Mt. Mansfield point forecast:

 

 

The next chance for a larger system seems to be about a week from now based on the GFS and ECMWF models, but since that’s a week away we’ll have to wait and see if any confidence develops in that potential event.

[powderfreak]

Cool view on the Mansfield web cam late this afternoon.

 

[Lava Rock]

Cool view on the Mansfield web cam late this afternoon.

Any idea what cam that is?

[ono]

Any idea what cam that is?

 

new top-o-the-mound cam at Stowe (well, the Octagon- so almost the top).  

 

http://www.stowe.com/explore/webcams/

 

don't know how PF got that larger image, though.

[N. OF PIKE]

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/coop/reference/Snow_Measurement_Guidelines.pdf

It is my understanding that the primary goal of the re-write is to "reduce snowfall inflation", which some believe the previous guidelines encouraged.

Whats up w this, someone tryin to cut VT's upslope totals

[Lava Rock]

new top-o-the-mound cam at Stowe (well, the Octagon- so almost the top).

http://www.stowe.com/explore/webcams/

don't know how PF got that larger image, though.

sorry I meant which make/model cam.

[powderfreak]

Whats up w this, someone tryin to cut VT's upslope totals

lol...I will likely continue to measure twice a day. Once in the morning and once in the evening.

However I'd be curious what this might mean for someone like JSpin who is probably the most rigorous of the multiple clearings per day.

http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/topic/41853-new-nws-snow-measurement-guide/

This was posted by Famartin and I'm not sure I agree with the new terms:

"An additional change of significance is that snow that melts and re-accumulates is not to be factored in; only the maximum new depth during the 24-hour period is to be reported as snowfall. Previously you would have factored melting into your total.

Example: Previously, if 5" fell, 2" melted, then another 4" fell, your total was 9". Now you just report the maximum depth (in this case, likely 7")."

[borderwx]

The murk is holding strong here in the valley so far.  Had to go high to get some Vitamin D. Rime and sunshine, pretty nice NNE day up there. 38F at 2K, still 32F here at 1080'.

 

 

 

 

[N. OF PIKE]

lol...I will likely continue to measure twice a day. Once in the morning and once in the evening.

However I'd be curious what this might mean for someone like JSpin who is probably the most rigorous of the multiple clearings per day.

http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/topic/41853-new-nws-snow-measurement-guide/

This was posted by Famartin and I'm not sure I agree with the new terms:

"An additional change of significance is that snow that melts and re-accumulates is not to be factored in; only the maximum new depth during the 24-hour period is to be reported as snowfall. Previously you would have factored melting into your total.

Example: Previously, if 5" fell, 2" melted, then another 4" fell, your total was 9". Now you just report the maximum depth (in this case, likely 7")."

The board clearing is debatable to me, but the melting-reacumulating is idiotic . This will be cited by alarmists 5 years from now how climate change is decimating snowfall totals in last 5 years

[powderfreak]

sorry I meant which make/model cam.

I can find out for you.

Ono...the larger image can be gotten by right clicking on the cam image and opening the image link.

[powderfreak]

The board clearing is debatable to me, but the melting-reacumulating is idiotic . This will be cited by alarmists 5 years from now how climate change is decimating snowfall totals in last 5 years

I understand the board clearing thing, but you need some guidelines to go by when it snows every day for like two weeks straight. You get a half inch here, an inch there, etc, and clearing every 6 hours will give you the best way to capture all that snow. However, I know I've seen JSpin post during larger upslope events, that you can get 6" to fall in 6 hours on a board, but snow depth only increased 2" during that time as it settles as it falls.

I feel like they should concentrate more on snow depth and keep snowfall as it is. It's almost like measuring change in snow depth every 24 hours and using that as snowfall.

[powderfreak]

The inflating snowfall claim though can be a bit valid at times, but it's important to clarify how everyone is measuring.

I mean say a person measures every 6 hours during a 24 hour storm, and comes up with 18.5" of snow. He meets his neighbor that morning while shoveling the driveway, and he says wow we got over 18" of snow! His neighbor busts out the tape measure, and finds only 15.0" of snow right where they are standing, and the snow just stopped. He's thinking how the heck did this guy come up with 18" of snow?

But what the neighbor is really measuring is snow depth, not snowfall. It's like if you see JSpin's CoCoRAHS reports, the snowfall is usually greater than the 24 hour change in depth. And in the above example, the report should say, 18.5" of snowfall, 15" of snow depth.

[J.Spin]

famartin, on 02 Dec 2013 - 8:30 PM, said:

http://www.nws.noaa...._Guidelines.pdf

It is my understanding that the primary goal of the re-write is to "reduce snowfall inflation", which some believe the previous guidelines encouraged.

Whats up with this…

 

Yeah, that’s a bit of a conundrum; it’s certainly easier and more consistent to clear snowboards once every 24-hours and have everyone locked into that minimum measurement interval rather than trying to strive for the 6-hour cycles.  But if this isn’t a full conversion, it’s still going to leave the dichotomy that exists between the offices that do the intermediate clearings, and the typical observers that don’t.  I’m not sure how many of the NWS observers performed intermediate snowboard clearings before, but based on the wording below from the new document, it certainly sounds like it’s going to be a more select number:

 

“YOUR SERVICING NWS OFFICE WILL LET YOU KNOW IF YOU ARE REQUIRED TO TAKE 6-HOURLY MEASUREMENTS. OTHERWISE ONLY TAKE 24-HOUR MEASUREMENTS.”

 

I wonder if it’s based on climate or type of snowfall with regard to which observers (if any) are still required to get those intermediate measurements – is it for places that get fast-settling snow?  It will be interesting to see if CoCoRaHS asks their observers to trend in the 24-hour direction with the release of that new document, but so far, the latest online directions I could find were from the article “CoCoRaHS—More info on measuring snow and ice” in the February 2011 edition of their newsletter, “The Catch”, which seems to have the traditional wording on snowfall collection.  They do note that once a day clearing is recommended for consistency, but allow the 6-hour clearings:

 

Rapidly accumulating but rapidly settling low-density snowfalls

While some of us have had ice and dense wet snows, others have had generous amounts of fluffy, low-density snow. This type of snow provides its own challenges. Some of the "lake effect" snow that is common around the Great Lakes and in some other areas can be amazingly fluffy with water content of 5% or less (i.e. 1 inch of snow may contain 0.05" of water or less). We've had quite a few reports this winter of snow with only 1-2% water content -- now that's fluff! Without even measuring, it's easy to tell low-density snow from denser snow just by walking through it, sweeping or shoveling. The main thing to think about when measuring is to remember the definition of "snowfall". Snowfall refers to the accumulation of new snow since the previous observation. Ideally, it is the maximum accumulation of new snow -- prior to melting or settling -- that occurs within your 24-hour observing period. You can stick your ruler in the snow as often as you wish during the day to see how much has accumulated. It is OK to measure and then clear your snow board (if you have one) up to four times a day at 6-hour intervals -- which is what our long-term airport weather stations did for many years. But to be considered a valid measurement please don' clear your measurement surface and sum the increments for periods of less than 6 hours. It is best, for measurement consistency, to only clear the measurement surface once a day at your regular morning observing time.

 

Although they don’t specify where sub-24 hour snowboard clearing intervals are more important in what I read above, the title “Rapidly accumulating but rapidly settling low-density snowfalls” indicates that they are definitely aware of situations and locations in which long collection intervals are going to have a notable impact.  Clearly those intermediate board clearings are going to be important in lake-effect and upslope areas that get the super-dry, fast-settling snow, in terms of depths that will be observed and the impact on people and their travel.

 

Personally, I’m torn on which way things should go.  From an ease of observations (and at times, sleep) perspective, being confined to the 24-hour clearing interval would be nice.  On the other hand, limiting clearings to 24-hour intervals means that one can’t strive to get data comparable to what is generated at an NWS office, and in areas with substantial amounts of dry, lake-effect/upslope snow, it seems like a bit of a disservice to only make one measurement a day if one is trying to accurately represent the snowfall climate/microclimate.  If you get an upslope or lake-effect blitz that quickly drops a half foot of snow on the interstate which is cleared by the plows, and then another half foot of snow comes through to cover the roads, the travel impacts and local climate are not really described well by simply reporting that 6 to 8 inches fell the next morning just because that’s what’s left on your snowboard after settling.  As much as 24 hours is as good a round number as you can get in a diurnal sense, it’s still quite arbitrary, since for most storms, Mother Nature couldn’t care less how long a day is with respect to snowfall.  Also, 24-hour collection intervals limit the documentation (unless you want to do the extra work to maintain and analyze separate snowboards) of the intermediate snow densities observed throughout the storm cycle.  Fortunately, as adk has wisely pointed out here in the past, documenting the liquid equivalent in the snow that falls is the great equalizer anyway.  Collection interval is irrelevant for that parameter, so as long as one is diligent there, you’ll be accurately documenting the overall liquid equivalent in your location and it can stand alone outside of the snowfall measurements.