Jump to content

  • Member Statistics

    17,606
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    ArlyDude
    Newest Member
    ArlyDude
    Joined

Central Park snowfall totals increased (now 50.3)

hooralph

By hooralph,
in New York City Metro

Recommended Posts

hooralph

hooralph

Posted
Posted

...Increases to snowfall amounts at Central Park...

The National Weather Service performed an analysis of snowfall
amounts that fell and were measured at Central Park earlier this
year.

Three specific snowfall amounts at Central Park were less than
surrounding observations. Based on these findings...an analysis was
performed that made use of surrounding observations...snow to liquid
ratios and radar data for all these events.

The results of these analysis were to increase the daily snowfall
amounts at Central Park on the following days...

1/6/2015 from 0.5 to 1.0 inch...an increase of 0.5 inches.

1/24/2015 from 2.5 to 3.6 inches...an increase of 1.1 inches.

2/2/2015 from 3.3 to 5.0 inches...an increase of 1.7 inches.

This is an increase of 3.3 inches...which brings the total seasonal
snowfall at Central Park to 50.3 inches.

These adjustments were made to the climate database for Central Park
and represents a better fit to the gradient between the surrounding
observations for these respective winter events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply
weathermedic

weathermedic

Posted
Posted

000

NOUS41 KOKX 241456

PNSOKX

CTZ005>012-NJZ002-004-006-103>108-NYZ067>075-078>081-176>179-

252300-

PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT

NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE NEW YORK NY

1056 AM EDT TUE MAR 24 2015

...INCREASES TO SNOWFALL AMOUNTS AT CENTRAL PARK...

THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE PERFORMED AN ANALYSIS OF SNOWFALL

AMOUNTS THAT FELL AND WERE MEASURED AT CENTRAL PARK EARLIER THIS

YEAR.

THREE SPECIFIC SNOWFALL AMOUNTS AT CENTRAL PARK WERE LESS THAN

SURROUNDING OBSERVATIONS. BASED ON THESE FINDINGS...AN ANALYSIS WAS

PERFORMED THAT MADE USE OF SURROUNDING OBSERVATIONS...SNOW TO LIQUID

RATIOS AND RADAR DATA FOR ALL THESE EVENTS.

THE RESULTS OF THESE ANALYSIS WERE TO INCREASE THE DAILY SNOWFALL

AMOUNTS AT CENTRAL PARK ON THE FOLLOWING DAYS...

1/6/2015 FROM 0.5 TO 1.0 INCH...AN INCREASE OF 0.5 INCHES.

1/24/2015 FROM 2.5 TO 3.6 INCHES...AN INCREASE OF 1.1 INCHES.

2/2/2015 FROM 3.3 TO 5.0 INCHES...AN INCREASE OF 1.7 INCHES.

THIS IS AN INCREASE OF 3.3 INCHES...WHICH BRINGS THE TOTAL SEASONAL

SNOWFALL AT CENTRAL PARK TO 50.3 INCHES.

THESE ADJUSTMENTS WERE MADE TO THE CLIMATE DATABASE FOR CENTRAL PARK

AND REPRESENTS A BETTER FIT TO THE GRADIENT BETWEEN THE SURROUNDING

OBSERVATIONS FOR THESE RESPECTIVE WINTER EVENTS.

$$

Link to comment
Share on other sites
donsutherland1

donsutherland1

Posted
Posted

...Increases to snowfall amounts at Central Park...

The National Weather Service performed an analysis of snowfall

amounts that fell and were measured at Central Park earlier this

year.

Three specific snowfall amounts at Central Park were less than

surrounding observations. Based on these findings...an analysis was

performed that made use of surrounding observations...snow to liquid

ratios and radar data for all these events.

The results of these analysis were to increase the daily snowfall

amounts at Central Park on the following days...

1/6/2015 from 0.5 to 1.0 inch...an increase of 0.5 inches.

1/24/2015 from 2.5 to 3.6 inches...an increase of 1.1 inches.

2/2/2015 from 3.3 to 5.0 inches...an increase of 1.7 inches.

This is an increase of 3.3 inches...which brings the total seasonal

snowfall at Central Park to 50.3 inches.

These adjustments were made to the climate database for Central Park

and represents a better fit to the gradient between the surrounding

observations for these respective winter events.

This quality review is welcome news. If I recall correctly, the 2/2 snowfall was listed at 3.3" by early evening. Additional snow fell, but the final figure was not increased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
donsutherland1

donsutherland1

Posted
Posted

Now, how about the other way?...

From the wording, it seems that more than 3 events were analyzed. The analysis found 3 events that were out of line with surrounding observations. In this case, Central Park's figures were too low. I'm fairly confident that if there had been a need to lower some of the amounts, NWS would have done so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NorthShoreWx

NorthShoreWx

Posted
Posted

What makes me uncomfortable about this is that I was an island of 15" for the blizzard surrounded by 20"+ amounts.  Should I increase my totals too? 

 

I am not disagreeing that the zoo does an inconsistent job of measuring snow, but there is no substitute for getting it right the first time.  If we all adjust our totals based on surrounding reports, we will gravitate towards a uniform area-wide total of the highest common denominator.  I have a lot more faith in the NWS analysis than I do with the rationalization that goes around on this board, but the NWS needs to do what ever they can to insure these measurements get done right the first time.

 

PS I am not adjusting my totals for the blizzard, but if I did, I'd be over 70" for the season.  If you went by my melted LE (1.64") that would seem a no brainer, but the LE is at least as prone to error in this case, if not more so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ag3

ag3

Posted
Posted

What makes me uncomfortable about this is that I was an island of 15" for the blizzard surrounded by 20"+ amounts.  Should I increase my totals too? 

 

I am not disagreeing that the zoo does an inconsistent job of measuring snow, but there is no substitute for getting it right the first time.  If we all adjust our totals based on surrounding reports, we will gravitate towards a uniform area-wide total of the highest common denominator.  I have a lot more faith in the NWS analysis than I do with the rationalization that goes around on this board, but the NWS needs to do what ever they can to insure these measurements get done right the first time.

 

PS I am not adjusting my totals, but if I did, I'd be over 70" for the season.  If you went by my melted LE (1.64") that would seem a no brainer, but the LE is at least as prone to error in this case, if not more so.

 

 

I think the 3 events they raised the totals from were ones where they reported an early snow total and then more precip/snow fell but Central Park kept their next update the same.

A clearly erroneous mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
donsutherland1

donsutherland1

Posted
Posted

What makes me uncomfortable about this is that I was an island of 15" for the blizzard surrounded by 20"+ amounts.  Should I increase my totals too? 

 

I am not disagreeing that the zoo does an inconsistent job of measuring snow, but there is no substitute for getting it right the first time.  If we all adjust our totals based on surrounding reports, we will gravitate towards a uniform area-wide total of the highest common denominator.  I have a lot more faith in the NWS analysis than I do with the rationalization that goes around on this board, but the NWS needs to do what ever they can to insure these measurements get done right the first time.

 

PS I am not adjusting my totals, but if I did, I'd be over 70" for the season.  If you went by my melted LE (1.64") that would seem a no brainer, but the LE is at least as prone to error in this case, if not more so.

I agree.

 

NWS's approach appeared robust:

1. Surrounding observations

2. Snow-Liquid ratios

3. Radar data

 

Just relying on surrounding observations would have left too much uncertainty e.g., the situation you described above provided an example. Using all three measures creates more confidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LongBeachSurfFreak

LongBeachSurfFreak

Posted
Posted

What makes me uncomfortable about this is that I was an island of 15" for the blizzard surrounded by 20"+ amounts.  Should I increase my totals too? 

 

I am not disagreeing that the zoo does an inconsistent job of measuring snow, but there is no substitute for getting it right the first time.  If we all adjust our totals based on surrounding reports, we will gravitate towards a uniform area-wide total of the highest common denominator.  I have a lot more faith in the NWS analysis than I do with the rationalization that goes around on this board, but the NWS needs to do what ever they can to insure these measurements get done right the first time.

 

PS I am not adjusting my totals for the blizzard, but if I did, I'd be over 70" for the season.  If you went by my melted LE (1.64") that would seem a no brainer, but the LE is at least as prone to error in this case, if not more so.

Having been there for every single storm this winter this is dead on.

People have to remember me calling out the zoo keeper multiple times

2/2 is the king that one was so blatantly wrong I was pissed.

I think the upton guys lurk on here and see what we write if so they knew I was going off during said events

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmillz25

dmillz25

Posted
Posted

Having been there for every single storm this winter this is dead on.

People have to remember me calling out the zoo keeper multiple times

2/2 is the king that one was so blatantly wrong I was pissed.

I think the upton guys lurk on here and see what we write if so they knew I was going off during said events

I think there is a guy from upton on here. He was posting when we was looking at the model runs for the blizzard

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LongBeachSurfFreak

LongBeachSurfFreak

Posted
Posted

Bill G has posted here but we don't see him as much as we used to.

To bad very smart guy. He did take a beating with the blizzard. He stuck to his guns and went down with ship.

I have a feeling some of the upton guys peek in here after storms to look at our thoughts and totals. And if they did they certainly saw my major zoo keeper bashing

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bluewave

bluewave

Posted
Posted

To bad very smart guy. He did take a beating with the blizzard. He stuck to his guns and went down with ship.

I have a feeling some of the upton guys peek in here after storms to look at our thoughts and totals. And if they did they certainly saw my major zoo keeper bashing

 

He's a great forecaster and does a fantastic job with warnings during severe events working the radar.

 

The blizzard introduced a difficult dilemma for the forecasting community. The ECMWF is traditionally the

best model with these major events.Many lead with it as they have in the past like February 2013

when it clearly beat the GFS. I am still not sure if the GFS performance on the blizzard was just a

broken clock being right twice a day scenario since it is usually too far east on major East Coast storms.

 

You would think that that the NWS recognized the measurement issue for a while ever since they

left the office at 30 Rock and stopped doing measurements on their own. But it is good to see

them doing something about it now.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/12/nyregion/neighborhood-report-new-york-weather-central-park-zoo-workers-stalk-elusive.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
doncat

doncat

Posted
Posted

What makes me uncomfortable about this is that I was an island of 15" for the blizzard surrounded by 20"+ amounts.  Should I increase my totals too? 

 

I am not disagreeing that the zoo does an inconsistent job of measuring snow, but there is no substitute for getting it right the first time.  If we all adjust our totals based on surrounding reports, we will gravitate towards a uniform area-wide total of the highest common denominator.  I have a lot more faith in the NWS analysis than I do with the rationalization that goes around on this board, but the NWS needs to do what ever they can to insure these measurements get done right the first time.

 

PS I am not adjusting my totals for the blizzard, but if I did, I'd be over 70" for the season.  If you went by my melted LE (1.64") that would seem a no brainer, but the LE is at least as prone to error in this case, if not more so.

I agree...take a few minutes on the day of the storm to check things like LE,radar data, other reports etc before making totals official...that's what I do..its not that hard...don't really like changing things weeks later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LongBeachSurfFreak

LongBeachSurfFreak

Posted
Posted

He's a great forecaster and does a fantastic job with warnings during severe events working the radar.

 

The blizzard introduced a difficult dilemma for the forecasting community. The ECMWF is traditionally the

best model with these major events.Many lead with it as they have in the past like February 2013

when it clearly beat the GFS. I am still not sure if the GFS performance on the blizzard was just a

broken clock being right twice a day scenario since it is usually too far east on major East Coast storms.

 

You would think that that the NWS recognized the measurement issue for a while ever since they

left the office at 30 Rock and stopped doing measurements on their own. But it is good to see

them doing something about it now.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/12/nyregion/neighborhood-report-new-york-weather-central-park-zoo-workers-stalk-elusive.html

It was for sure one hundred percent off. On 2/2 it was extremely blatant I was only a couple miles away on the same island and was measuring a solid 6". Granted I was a little further north but it was just so off.

Back to the blizzard if it weren't for that nice band during the day which was only indirectly related to the storm the park would have only seen around 5" from the main part of the storm now that would have been the most epic bust of all time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...