famartin Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Upon review of additional data from neighboring localities and news articles, I suspect that the reported 34" figure is incorrect. Perhaps the 29" figure for 11/27 should have been 19". That would lead to a storm total of 24" (5" on 11/26 + 19" on 11/27). FWIW, accumulations were 20" at New Haven and 27" at New London. If one took the snowfall ratios (around 12:1) for New London, one would get a figure for Bridgeport around 22". In short, I believe the actual accumulation was in the 20"-24" range there. The plausibility of an error in which 19" was incorrectly listed as 29" suggests that 24" is probably the most reasonable figure and a 20"-24" range seems likely. This change would also reduce the 1898-99 seasonal figure to 83.9". That would still be the highest on record for Bridgeport. Hi Don, I took a look at the original form and I agree that the total should be 24" with 19" on 11/27. I've put in a ticket with NCDC to have the data corrected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted February 25, 2014 Author Share Posted February 25, 2014 Hi Don, I took a look at the original form and I agree that the total should be 24" with 19" on 11/27. I've put in a ticket with NCDC to have the data corrected. Thanks, Ray. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the original forms online, so I was unable to verify what had taken place. There are some issues with the January-March 1930 and 1931 snowfall amounts (several storms are increased by what seems to be a factor of 10). The dates are below: 1/27/30 1/28/30 2/2/30 2/15/30 2/16/30 2/27/30 1/29/31 1/30/31 2/7/31 2/8/31 2/10/31 2/19/31 2/20/31 3/4/31 3/5/31 3/10/31 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famartin Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Thanks, Ray. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the original forms online, so I was unable to verify what had taken place. There are some issues with the January-March 1930 and 1931 snowfall amounts (several storms are increased by what seems to be a factor of 10). The dates are below: 1/27/30 1/28/30 2/2/30 2/15/30 2/16/30 2/27/30 1/29/31 1/30/31 2/7/31 2/8/31 2/10/31 2/19/31 2/20/31 3/4/31 3/5/31 3/10/31 Hi Don, check out this link, you'll find it of much interest I think: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/coop/coop.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted February 25, 2014 Author Share Posted February 25, 2014 Hi Don, check out this link, you'll find it of much interest I think: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/coop/coop.html Thank you very much, Ray. That's a fantastic link. I've bookmarked it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famartin Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Thank you very much, Ray. That's a fantastic link. I've bookmarked it. No problem. Let me know if you find other issues, I'll consolidate them into one report and send them along to NCDC. They already agreed to change the 29" to 19" on 11/27/1898. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted February 25, 2014 Author Share Posted February 25, 2014 No problem. Let me know if you find other issues, I'll consolidate them into one report and send them along to NCDC. They already agreed to change the 29" to 19" on 11/27/1898. Thanks. That seems to be the extent of the issues that I could find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pamela Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Everyone's thanking & crediting one another while I'm the one who actually ferreted out the error...the persona non grata of the NYC Metro Forum would expect no less...lmao. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famartin Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Everyone's thanking & crediting one another while I'm the one who actually ferreted out the error...the persona non grata of the NYC Metro Forum would expect no less...lmao. Thanks William Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pamela Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Thanks William yw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthShoreWx Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Everyone's thanking & crediting one another while I'm the one who actually ferreted out the error...the persona non grata of the NYC Metro Forum would expect no less...lmao. There are a lot of them and you are not one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted February 26, 2014 Author Share Posted February 26, 2014 Everyone's thanking & crediting one another while I'm the one who actually ferreted out the error...the persona non grata of the NYC Metro Forum would expect no less...lmao. I thought it was pretty clear in the thread that you suggested the 24" figure. I merely posted the results of my looking further into the matter, as I had promised in my reply to you, and thanked Ray for fowarding the information for correction. The important thing is that that error and some additional ones were noted and that should lead to a more accurate climate database. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famartin Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 I thought it was pretty clear in the thread that you suggested the 24" figure. I merely posted the results of my looking further into the matter, as I had promised in my reply to you, and thanked Ray for fowarding the information for correction. The important thing is that that error and some additional ones were noted and that should lead to a more accurate climate database. I forwarded the other issues you noted, but its late so I probably won't hear back til tomorrow at earliest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted February 26, 2014 Author Share Posted February 26, 2014 I forwarded the other issues you noted, but its late so I probably won't hear back til tomorrow at earliest. Thank you, Ray. It's not a rush of any kind. I appreciate all that you have done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r6inct Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Holy smokes that is an insane amount of snow!!! 93.9" Wow. I am several miles from Bridgeport, and see that city get paralyzed for at least a day after even a modest storm. What was the biggest storm that winter of 1898-99? Yeah but they were probably taking measurements elsewhere then. Sikorsky Airport isn't even in Bridgeport nor did it exist then. It is practically in LI Sound, even the runways rise and fall with the tides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted March 3, 2014 Author Share Posted March 3, 2014 Yeah but they were probably taking measurements elsewhere then. Sikorsky Airport isn't even in Bridgeport nor did it exist then. It is practically in LI Sound, even the runways rise and fall with the tides. They were. There was an error in one of the snowfall amounts. The final figure was 83.9". The Airport is clearly influenced by the Sound. FWIW, during the 7/1/1948 through 3/31/1951 period when both sites were reporting data, the average low temperature at the earlier site was 42.2° vs. 43.4° at Sikorsky Airport. The average high temperature was 61.5° at the earlier site vs. 60.1° at Sikorski Airport. Approximately 60% of days had low temperatures within 2° of one another at the two sites and 70% had high temperatures within 2° of one another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.