NNE Winter 2013-14 Part I

[j24vt]

I'm going to keep clearing as I measure so that I can compare my data to previous years.  If I get motivated I may make another snowboard to measure with the new 24 hour clearing cycle. 

[powderfreak]

I'm going to keep clearing as I measure so that I can compare my data to previous years. If I get motivated I may make another snowboard to measure with the new 24 hour clearing cycle.

Yeah I was thinking that too....someone with intensive 6-hour and clearing records, can't just switch to once every 24-hours and expect to compare that with past winters.

You could conceivably get more snowfall one winter than a past winter, but easily end up with a lower annual snowfall because you did it once every 24 hours vs. every 6 hours previously.

I'd continue with however you've been doing it to keep that consistency.

[tamarack]

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.

 

Judging by their records, that's how the Ft.Kent coop measured when I lived there, and how my 135" avg (measured once daily at 9 PM, but also accounting for melting/settling during the day) was barely over 100" at the coop.  Now I measure twice daily, at 9 PM to maintain continuity for my 40-yr records, and at 7 AM for cocorahs.

[ono]

Yeah I was thinking that too....someone with intensive 6-hour and clearing records, can't just switch to once every 24-hours and expect to compare that with past winters.

You could conceivably get more snowfall one winter than a past winter, but easily end up with a lower annual snowfall because you did it once every 24 hours vs. every 6 hours previously.

I'd continue with however you've been doing it to keep that consistency.

 

How does this new measuring system relate to SNOTEL out West, anyone? It seems as though the automated SNOTEL system can be, more or less, a standardized system.  

 

I'm curious about how this 24 hour measuring system represents snowfall.   At the extreme end, some of those mammoth Pineapple Express storms in the Sierras could, feasibly, see sustained epic, multi-inch per hour rates (1-4"/hr or more) during a 60 hour window, while, with this approach, the only "real" storm measurements are taken every 24 hours- while moisture content, wind, temp, and corresponding snow density will vary incredibly over the period with only 2 snow measurements.  J.Spin's points on the northeast are case in point, again.

 

 Maybe like a 12 hour window would be a nice middle-ground?

 

perhaps a  happy medium- 12 hour cycle with standard 6z and 18z measuring point would be great for standardization in winter- seems like a natural diurnal fit IMHO.    

[dendrite]

I'll be continuing to measure every 6+ hours.

Someday they will find a way to measure snow with remote sensing along with automated clearing of a board. When that day comes, it'll all go back to 6hrly snow obs anyways.

[Nittany88]

As far as we know, there is no policy change from previous years in regards to snow measurement.

[powderfreak]

As far as we know, there is no policy change from previous years in regards to no snow measurement.

Yeah it's an interesting development but if you guys haven't heard anything, it must not be widespread.

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

[Nittany88]

Yeah it's an interesting development but if you guys haven't heard anything, it must not be widespread.

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

image.jpg

Yeah a few of us looked it over (saw it on here actually lol), and while confusing, it was determined this is no different than previous policy. Co-Op and Cocorahs observers have always been told to do the 24 hour measurement, while others a MAX of every 6 hours. Most spotter reports we get anyway are storm total on ground.

 

IMO, its ridiculous that we tell different people to do different things anyway lol, but with volunteer observers, its tough to mandate something.

[J.Spin]

Maybe like a 12 hour window would be a nice middle-ground?

 

perhaps a  happy medium- 12 hour cycle with standard 6z and 18z measuring point would be great for standardization in winter- seems like a natural diurnal fit IMHO.

 

 

I really like the 12-hour cycle at 6:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M., and in fact the majority of my observations come from that cycle because it hits my regular CoCoRaHS morning observations and goes along well with getting home from work.  Trying to get in noon and midnight slots on most days will obviously interfere with work and sleep, but when I’m home and can accommodate them (weekends, snow days, etc.), or if I’m up late for some reason, I do try to get in some additional snowboard clearings and analyses.

[powderfreak]

Yeah a few of us looked it over (saw it on here actually lol), and while confusing, it was determined this is no different than previous policy. Co-Op and Cocorahs observers have always been told to do the 24 hour measurement, while others a MAX of every 6 hours. Most spotter reports we get anyway are storm total on ground.

IMO, its ridiculous that we tell different people to do different things anyway lol, but with volunteer observers, its tough to mandate something.

See I didn't know that CoCoRAHS and Coop were told to do 24 hour total measurement...I assumed the official NWS standard was 6-hourly if you could achieve it, for every site regardless. But I assumed most people just can't be home to do that every 6 hours so you end up with a variety of measurement patterns.

But that would explain why I think the Stowe Village CoCoRAHS guy has been a little low on snowfall before, even though we come up with similar liquid. But then in fact he would be correct and mine is inflated, as I find his numbers often seem to be what's on the ground at reporting time. If he's just measuring at 6-7am and that's it, of course it would be lower than if I clear my board (I've got a white-trash set-up with an over-turned recycling bin in my yard with a piece of scrap plywood laying on top) twice a day and add them.

I've always done once in the morning before going to the mountain, and then once in the evening at some point. I just want to know how much new fell while I was at work and what fell while I was asleep. At the ski area, it's always 5:30am and then again around 2-4pm depending on convenience, but those are the main times we update snowfall for skiers and riders...beginning of day and end of day. Everyone wants to know how much fell while skiers were on it during the day, and how much fell while the lifts were closed...important info for deciding how much untracked pow there will be, haha.

I do agree that storm total snow (provided the storm isn't like 48 hours long) should be just a ruler in the snow when it stops snowing though. I'll sometimes amend the ski areas snowfall if board clearing looks to be inflating a storm total, because as a skier you only care about how much is on the ground, and I don't want people to get any impression of inflation, lol (ie saying the 24 hr total is 4"+4"= 8" but there was sleet in there so the total on the ground is 6", I'd go public with the 6" most times).

It is a fascinating topic and one I don't think will ever become a clear cut-and-dry procedure...until like Dendrite said we can do it via remote sensing or automated reporting.

I just want a SNOWTEL system like Alta, Utah or Jackson Hole, Wyoming where they get accurate snow/liquid info every hour on their "snow pillow" sites. It would be awesome to watch hourly snowfall on Mansfield all season long.

[Nittany88]

See I didn't know that CoCoRAHS and Coop were told to do 24 hour total measurement...I assumed the official NWS standard was 6-hourly if you could achieve it, for every site regardless. But I assumed most people just can't be home to do that every 6 hours so you end up with a variety of measurement patterns.

But that would explain why I think the Stowe Village CoCoRAHS guy has been a little low on snowfall before, even though we come up with similar liquid. But then in fact he would be correct and mine is inflated, as I find his numbers often seem to be what's on the ground at reporting time. If he's just measuring at 6-7am and that's it, of course it would be lower than if I clear my board (I've got a white-trash set-up with an over-turned recycling bin in my yard with a piece of scrap plywood laying on top) twice a day and add them.

I've always done once in the morning before going to the mountain, and then once in the evening at some point. I just want to know how much new fell while I was at work and what fell while I was asleep. At the ski area, it's always 5:30am and then again around 2-4pm depending on convenience, but those are the main times we update snowfall for skiers and riders...beginning of day and end of day. Everyone wants to know how much fell while skiers were on it during the day, and how much fell while the lifts were closed...important info for deciding how much untracked pow there will be, haha.

I do agree that storm total snow (provided the storm isn't like 48 hours long) should be just a ruler in the snow when it stops snowing though. I'll sometimes amend the ski areas snowfall if board clearing looks to be inflating a storm total, because as a skier you only care about how much is on the ground, and I don't want people to get any impression of inflation, lol (ie saying the 24 hr total is 4"+4"= 8" but there was sleet in there so the total on the ground is 6", I'd go public with the 6" most times).

It is a fascinating topic and one I don't think will ever become a clear cut-and-dry procedure...until like Dendrite said we can do it via remote sensing or automated reporting.

I just want a SNOWTEL system like Alta, Utah or Jackson Hole, Wyoming where they get accurate snow/liquid info every hour on their "snow pillow" sites. It would be awesome to watch hourly snowfall on Mansfield all season long.

Yeah that would be ideal haha.

 

As far as the Co-Op and Cocorahs, the instructions they're given is once every 24 hours, but they're not specifically told NOT to do every 6 hours. It's a very murky situation lol...

[powderfreak]

Yeah that would be ideal haha.

 

As far as the Co-Op and Cocorahs, the instructions they're given is once every 24 hours, but they're not specifically told NOT to do every 6 hours. It's a very murky situation lol...

 

This is literally my dream scenario.  New snowfall broken into 12 hour increments, hourly precipitation and total precipitation, total snow depth, and temp data. 

 

Alta, Utah's snow safety team for avalanche control can just look at this and easily see that 13" fell in the last 24 hours (7" one 12hr period, 6" in the other), with 0.94" of liquid, and the snow depth increased 12" from 28" to 40"... and no one has to do anything.  All automated.  I have no idea what a set-up like this costs, but it can't be cheap, lol.

 

http://www.alta.com/pages/observation.php?location=mid

[J.Spin]

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

 

The melting and re-accumulating issue is really not a big factor around here from what I’ve seen – but I always assumed that policy was only for total melt out.

 

Here’s the text from one of the CoCoRaHS training documents:

 

“Three separate snowfalls occur during the day.  You go out and measure the snow after each has ended.  The first snow fall is 2.0 inches, the second is 1.5 inches, and the third is 1.0 inch.  The snow melts after each snowfall, and there is nothing on the snowboard at observation time the next morning.  The snowfall for the 24-hour period should be recorded as the sum of the individual events, or 4.5 inches.”

 

http://www.cocorahs.org/media/docs/Measuring%20Snow-National-Training%201.1.pdf

 

That melt out policy has to be concerned only with total melt out, otherwise, how could anyone tell the difference between melting and settling?  You’d be dealing with the issue essentially any time snowfall stopped and began to settle.  Anyway, using that total melt out assumption, in the 7+ seasons that I’ve been tracking snowfall, I can recall one instance where I even had to use that, and that was miniscule.  It was one of those early or late season situations where a couple tenths of an inch fell, melted fully, and then another tenth of an inch or so fell later.

 

Realistically, how often do we get a significant multi-inch accumulation, followed by a total melt out, followed by another significant accumulation – all in the span of the 6 or 12 hours that many of us use for collection intervals?  We just don’t have many storms like that – think of how hard it has to be snowing to get a substantial snowfall down at marginal temperatures, and then for it to get so warm and rainy that it could melt that all out (let’s not forget that if we’re talking borderline rain, the accumulations that you do get are going to be quite dense) and then still go back to cold to get another substantial accumulation after that.  That just isn’t typically going to happen in the span of 6 or 12 hours.  I guess there’s more of a chance for it to happen in 24 hours, so ironically, I users of the 24-hour accumulation method would actually be more likely to make use of that rule.

 

Our storm from last week here was a great example:

 

We picked up 3.0 inches of snow/sleet comprised of 0.63” of liquid equivalent

Then we picked up 0.62” of rain, which was nowhere near enough to melt out all that dense snow.

Then we got another 5.2 inches snow comprised of 0.28” of liquid equivalent.

 

There was no melt out in that situation, but the whole process was also over a long enough period of time that the board would have been cleared anyway.  It’s difficult to think of situations with substantial snowfall amounts where the total melt out rule would even come into effect – perhaps something in the Pacific Northwest if you were right around the rain/snow line, and it kept raising and lowering.  But it would have to be dumping rain and dumping snow to get notable accumulations and then lose them, entirely, in short periods of time.

 

What’s funny about that total melt out rule is, if you don’t totally melt out, you’re actually going to be recording less snow.  In the example from the CoCoRaHS document above, the overall measurement was 4.5 inches because everything melted out, but if it didn’t melt out totally, let’s say it melted down to just half an inch each time, you’d only ever reach a maximum depth of 2.0 inches, and that would be the depth you would have to report.  So ironically, because it wasn’t warm enough to totally melt out the snow, you would be recording less snowfall.  LOL!

[powderfreak]

The melting and re-accumulating issue is really not a big factor around here from what I’ve seen – but I always assumed that policy was only for total melt out.

 

Here’s the text from one of the CoCoRaHS training documents:

 

“Three separate snowfalls occur during the day.  You go out and measure the snow after each has ended.  The first snow fall is 2.0 inches, the second is 1.5 inches, and the third is 1.0 inch.  The snow melts after each snowfall, and there is nothing on the snowboard at observation time the next morning.  The snowfall for the 24-hour period should be recorded as the sum of the individual events, or 4.5 inches.”

 

http://www.cocorahs.org/media/docs/Measuring%20Snow-National-Training%201.1.pdf

 

That melt out policy has to be concerned only with total melt out, otherwise, how could anyone tell the difference between melting and settling?  You’d be dealing with the issue essentially any time snowfall stopped and began to settle.  Anyway, using that total melt out assumption, in the 7+ seasons that I’ve been tracking snowfall, I can recall one instance where I even had to use that, and that was miniscule.  It was one of those early or late season situations where a couple tenths of an inch fell, melted fully, and then another tenth of an inch or so fell later.

 

Realistically, how often do we get a significant multi-inch accumulation, followed by a total melt out, followed by another significant accumulation – all in the span of the 6 or 12 hours that many of us use for collection intervals?  We just don’t have many storms like that – think of how hard it has to be snowing to get a substantial snowfall down at marginal temperatures, and then for it to get so warm and rainy that it could melt that all out (let’s not forget that if we’re talking borderline rain, the accumulations that you do get are going to be quite dense) and then still go back to cold to get another substantial accumulation after that.  That just isn’t typically going to happen in the span of 6 or 12 hours.  I guess there’s more of a chance for it to happen in 24 hours, so ironically, I users of the 24-hour accumulation method would actually be more likely to make use of that rule.

 

Our storm from last week here was a great example:

 

We picked up 3.0 inches of snow/sleet comprised of 0.63” of liquid equivalent

Then we picked up 0.62” of rain, which was nowhere near enough to melt out all that dense snow.

Then we got another 5.2 inches snow comprised of 0.28” of liquid equivalent.

 

There was no melt out in that situation, but the whole process was also over a long enough period of time that the board would have been cleared anyway.  It’s difficult to think of situations with substantial snowfall amounts where the total melt out rule would even come into effect – perhaps something in the Pacific Northwest if you were right around the rain/snow line, and it kept raising and lowering.  But it would have to be dumping rain and dumping snow to get notable accumulations and then lose them, entirely, in short periods of time.

 

What’s funny about that total melt out rule is, if you don’t totally melt out, you’re actually going to be recording less snow.  In the example from the CoCoRaHS document above, the overall measurement was 4.5 inches because everything melted out, but if it didn’t melt out totally, let’s say it melted down to just half an inch each time, you’d only ever reach a maximum depth of 2.0 inches, and that would be the depth you would have to report.  So ironically, because it wasn’t warm enough to totally melt out the snow, you would be recording less snowfall.  LOL!

 

Haha, yes its true.  If it doesn't completely melt out and you are only to record the max depth over a 24 hour period, you'd come in with less snow if it stayed on the board for the full 24 hours, oscillating between like 1.5-3" of depth, rather than the sum of 4.5".  

 

I'd be curious in this past storm, what snowfall would've been if it was max depth on the snow board in a 24 hour time with no clearing in there at all.   Would it still reach 8.2"?  I think in that case it might be close because the first 3" that hold a lot of QPF wouldn't settle or anything, so you'd throw 5" of 20:1 snow on top and would probably only have to worry about subtle settling within that fluffy stack.  

[ADKweather27]

FYI, whiteface has also added a summit webcam.  Here is a pic from this morning:

[N. OF PIKE]

The two new cams are GREAT!

[ono]

I just want a SNOWTEL system like Alta, Utah or Jackson Hole, Wyoming where they get accurate snow/liquid info every hour on their "snow pillow" sites. It would be awesome to watch hourly snowfall on Mansfield all season long.

 

I guess the blessings of having abundant water sources in the east has its drawbacks- SNOTEL sites around here would be great.  It's pretty cool to stumble upon one when your out west in the mountains in the winter- they're pretty neat setups.

[klw]

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

Well the new guidelines don't actually tell us exactly how to measure the snow so I will keep putting the yardstick in on an angle.

[weatherMA]

Hasn't been much talk about Friday night, but looks like a few inches possible in S VT and C/E NH into S ME. Would be nice to whiten the ground up before the cold weekend. NAM/SREF seem to be on board but GFS/EC stay south much. Not the model camp I'd want on my side.

[powderfreak]

Hasn't been much talk about Friday night, but looks like a few inches possible in S VT and C/E NH into S ME. Would be nice to whiten the ground up before the cold weekend. NAM/SREF seem to be on board but GFS/EC stay south much. Not the model camp I'd want on my side.

 

Haven't seen the 12z CMC but the 00z looked decent.

 

 

 

 

And like you said the 12z NAM looked good for a several hour period of steadier snows in the southern Greens up through the Lakes Region of NH and southern Whites...

 

[ctsnowstorm628]

Not putting much stock in Friday for NNE. Maybe CNE especially closer to the MA border.

Monday is our turn. Could be a decent amount of snow and ice.

[powderfreak]

Not putting much stock in Friday for NNE. Maybe CNE especially closer to the MA border.

Monday is our turn. Could be a decent amount of snow and ice.

 

Yeah we are definitely too far north... I like the Rutland/Windsor/Bennington/Windham counties are for 1-3" in VT. 

[powderfreak]

A friend sent this pic of an awesome ridge cloud today on Mansfield.  I'm off so wasn't up there, had too much stuff to get done in town.

 

But it is a bizarre looking roll-like cloud.

 

[bobbutts]

I like to measure the depth after the snow is done falling.  Just the way I always did it, and no way I'm going to be consistent every 6 hours anyway.  I'll leave the accurate measuring to the pros.

[eyewall]

A friend sent this pic of an awesome ridge cloud today on Mansfield.  I'm off so wasn't up there, had too much stuff to get done in town.

 

But it is a bizarre looking roll-like cloud.

 

 Wow that is awesome! I

[powderfreak]

 Wow that is awesome! I

 

Multiple people have commented to me about that cloud today... not sure I've ever really seen that.  It was relatively short-lived and looked to be spinning rapidly on a horizontal axis from descriptions.  The odd part is it looks like it was just upstream of the ridge, not directly above the ridge axis. 

 

I'm not all that familiar with roll clouds, but that's what it would appear to be.  There must've been some wind/moisture combo that briefly allowed it to develop, as it dissipated pretty quickly from eyewitness reports.  Apparently it was pretty darn impressive though in person, seeing a big rope-like cloud spinning over the ridgeline. 

[eyewall]

Multiple people have commented to me about that cloud today... not sure I've ever really seen that.  It was relatively short-lived and looked to be spinning rapidly on a horizontal axis from descriptions.  The odd part is it looks like it was just upstream of the ridge, not directly above the ridge axis. 

 

I'm not all that familiar with roll clouds, but that's what it would appear to be.  There must've been some wind/moisture combo that briefly allowed it to develop, as it dissipated pretty quickly from eyewitness reports.  Apparently it was pretty darn impressive though in person, seeing a big rope-like cloud spinning over the ridgeline. 

 

I bet, it sounds like some sort of mountain rotor with enough moisture available for condensation within it.

[N. OF PIKE]

A friend sent this pic of an awesome ridge cloud today on Mansfield. I'm off so wasn't up there, had too much stuff to get done in town.

But it is a bizarre looking roll-like cloud.

Surprised that didn't drop 2-4". That Mtn tries to snow at least excuse. They should put it downwind from a Taco Bell. That will up the totals. Sorry.

[alex]

Hi guys, I'm back! Still house hunting. After some research and a few visits, we've decided to focus our attention on the Jackson, NH area. Any thoughts about how much snow this area gets? Seems like a decent spot - not VT, of course, but should be able to retain the snowpack quite well, at least? Where is a reliable source of yearly snowfall data? 

 

Thanks!

[ctsnowstorm628]

Yeah we are definitely too far north... I like the Rutland/Windsor/Bennington/Windham counties are for 1-3" in VT. 

Agree. 

 

Verbatim Monday is 4-8" for many in VT with no changeover north of RUT-LEB.