Central Park snowfall totals increased (now 50.3)

[bluewave]

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

 

The blizzard was like going with you ace pitcher (Euro) time after time for clutch wins and having a bad outing.

Every baseball manager in that situation would would have done the same thing.

[rgwp96]

i dont know seems strange to do this now.   should we all do this when our totals are lower than surrounding towns?

[donsutherland1]

i dont know seems strange to do this now.   should we all do this when our totals are lower than surrounding towns?

After-the-fact quality control is part of the NWS directives:

 

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/directives/sym/pd01013005curr.pdf(pp.17-19)

[jm1220]

The blizzard was like going with you ace pitcher (Euro) time after time for clutch wins and having a bad outing.

Every baseball manager in that situation would would have done the same thing.

But in a situation where there are other skilled models and they mostly disagree with the Euro, I think at least more uncertainty could have been placed in the forecasts and a slower ramping up of totals. Issuing an area wide 2-3' range so far from the Storm and with the modeled uncertainty was excessive IMO. 12-18" or 18-24" would've been better, with the possibility for more or less mentioned. That still gives the impression that it could be a very bad storm but also that it could develop too late and blast New England and eastern LI.

[bluewave]

But in a situation where there are other skilled models and they mostly disagree with the Euro, I think at least more uncertainty could have been placed in the forecasts and a slower ramping up of totals. Issuing an area wide 2-3' range so far from the Storm and with the modeled uncertainty was excessive IMO. 12-18" or 18-24" would've been better, with the possibility for more or less mentioned. That still gives the impression that it could be a very bad storm but also that it could develop too late and blast New England and eastern LI.

 

That part of the lead up I agree with you on. The Euro runs closest to the storm time while still too high didn't support

the 2-3' area wide range. You could see the Euro trimming totals from 2-3 days out right up to storm time.

A good policy would be to resist the temptation to post official storm total guesses in the 2-3 day range. It's better

to wait to until 24-36 hrs before the storm begins to put up your first specific amounts. If you want to put out

a day 2 or more amount statement, then make  it a conservative one like this storm has the potential to produce 6" or more

or 12" or more...etc. Trying to be more specific at days 2-3 is too low skill.

[LongBeachSurfFreak]

The funny thing is I still think it's too low by a couple inches. 2/2 was more like 6" and there were a couple other low ones missed. The zoo keeper did great with the final 2 storms as I was within a couple tenths which is reasons for about 3 miles.

The one thing we need to be prepared for is another brutal under 10" winter. I don't think its next winter as the -epo hangs around for a while plus another weak niño. It's all or nothing these days. While we couldn't loose after the blizzard (especially to our NE) other parts of the northern hemi can't buy snow. Obviously out west but also up in Alaska where they had to move the big dog race (I can't spell to save my life) north because of lack of snow

[CPcantmeasuresnow]

Now, how about the other way?...

It never works the other way, ever.

 

Give NOAA credit for at least correcting the obvious errors. The totals at CPK are never higher than surrounding areas because the zookeeper either doesn't bother to measure after a ceretain point during a storm or they measure where the snow doesn't collect right away, or they measure after it compresses and settles, and on and on and on.

 

They are not trained spotters at the Central Park Zoo they are just public employees that could care less about going out and measuring snow. This has been an ongoing problem there for deades. Any meteorologist from our area will tell you flat out the under counts through the years at Central Park are legendary.

[CPcantmeasuresnow]

The funny thing is I still think it's too low by a couple inches. 2/2 was more like 6" and there were a couple other low ones missed. The zoo keeper did great with the final 2 storms as I was within a couple tenths which is reasons for about 3 miles.

The one thing we need to be prepared for is another brutal under 10" winter. I don't think its next winter as the -epo hangs around for a while plus another weak niño. It's all or nothing these days. While we couldn't loose after the blizzard (especially to our NE) other parts of the northern hemi can't buy snow. Obviously out west but also up in Alaska where they had to move the big dog race (I can't spell to save my life) north because of lack of snow

 

And you're correct, it's still to low but they updated conservatively and didn't go with what they actually knew fell, but it's certainly better than not doing anything. I give NOAA credit.

[yhbrooklyn]

Say it with me....

NYC, NYC, NYC.

CPK is Chesapeake.

[pazzo83]

Say it with me....

NYC, NYC, NYC.

CPK is Chesapeake.

 

seven FIVE seven!!

[Guest Pamela]

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.

 

Nothing wrong with correcting a mistake; if a person is convicted of a crime and later proven to have been innocent...we certainly do not ask him to serve the balance of the sentence for bookeeping purposes...however, I agree, it should have been gotten right the first time. 

[famartin]

I think they got it right...The 0.5" event showed a 1" snow depth the next day...I thought the January 24th event was to ow and the Feb 2nd was also...

 

0.5" of snow on the ground is counted as 1" of depth but 0.5" of fall.  Confusing, I know, but that's how it works, so its not necessarily evidence of a bad measurement, in and of itself.

[famartin]

It never works the other way, ever.

 

Give NOAA credit for at least correcting the obvious errors. The totals at CPK are never higher than surrounding areas because the zookeeper either doesn't bother to measure after a ceretain point during a storm or they measure where the snow doesn't collect right away, or they measure after it compresses and settles, and on and on and on.

 

They are not trained spotters at the Central Park Zoo they are just public employees that could care less about going out and measuring snow. This has been an ongoing problem there for deades. Any meteorologist from our area will tell you flat out the under counts through the years at Central Park are legendary.

 

First, I give you February 25th 2010 as evidence that surrounding totals can indeed be lower.

 

Second, they are most certainly trained.  Now, whether they care or not, I couldn't say of course, but they have most certainly gotten training; probably more than the average spotter, in fact.

[Absolute Humidity]

The 2/2 event featured the evening 700mb frontogenic band the setup S to N over eastern NJ and dumped an additional 1-4" snow from Monmouth eastward. This I believe was never added to the total for that event. The additional 1.7" added from that is even likely a bit low as most areas in that band's jackpot zone, Monmouth and eastward recieved no less than 2" with 4" amounts over the Island. Regardless, Kudo's to Upton for making that QC change.

[yhbrooklyn]

seven FIVE seven!!

Pazzo is funny.

Even when he's not trying.

I forgot to laugh.

[Guest Pamela]

After the 2009-10 winter, they went in the opposite direction at I think BWI Airport...lowering the seasonal totals because of perceived overmeasurement.

[donsutherland1]

After the 2009-10 winter, they went in the opposite direction at I think BWI Airport...lowering the seasonal totals because of perceived overmeasurement.

BWI was incorrectly measuring snow on an hourly basis.

 

http://weblogs.marylandweather.com/2010/03/december_snow_and_season_lose.html

[RU848789]

That part of the lead up I agree with you on. The Euro runs closest to the storm time while still too high didn't support

the 2-3' area wide range. You could see the Euro trimming totals from 2-3 days out right up to storm time.

A good policy would be to resist the temptation to post official storm total guesses in the 2-3 day range. It's better

to wait to until 24-36 hrs before the storm begins to put up your first specific amounts. If you want to put out

a day 2 or more amount statement, then make  it a conservative one like this storm has the potential to produce 6" or more

or 12" or more...etc. Trying to be more specific at days 2-3 is too low skill.

 

100% agree. As I said at the time, I was even ok if they had just put out a map 2-3 days out showing 12-18" and noting the possibility for 24" or more (for NYC/NE NJ - LI looked like a lock for 18" or more).  A map like that would have readily conveyed the message that an historic snowstorm was coming (36 NYC storms with 12" or more and only 9 with 18" or more, so 12-18" is a very serious snowfall) and if they later adjusted upwards to 20-30" if there was model consensus 12-24 hours out, nobody would've thought twice about it, since I don't think most people would think 25" is really that different from 15" (both are a crapload, lol).    

 

However, a 12-18" forecast is much easier to come down from right before or during the storm, and even if they didn't come down during the storm, a 12-18" forecast vs. the reality of 6-12" having fallen for NYC/NE NJ is only a modest bust.  Classic case of mismanaging risk perception - don't go right to the worst case as your lead, especially 2+ days out, when uncertainty is still pretty high.  Build up to it.  This was NOT Sandy, where underpredicting a 6' storm surge 2 days out and then adjusting that to 12' 12 hours out would represent a major emergency preparedness risk - better in that case to predict 12', get people out of Dodge and hope it only end up being 6' (since it was 10-14' those forecasts were great 2-3 days out).  

[bluewave]

100% agree. As I said at the time, I was even ok if they had just put out a map 2-3 days out showing 12-18" and noting the possibility for 24" or more (for NYC/NE NJ - LI looked like a lock for 18" or more).  A map like that would have readily conveyed the message that an historic snowstorm was coming (36 NYC storms with 12" or more and only 9 with 18" or more, so 12-18" is a very serious snowfall) and if they later adjusted upwards to 20-30" if there was model consensus 12-24 hours out, nobody would've thought twice about it, since I don't think most people would think 25" is really that different from 15" (both are a crapload, lol).    

 

However, a 12-18" forecast is much easier to come down from right before or during the storm, and even if they didn't come down during the storm, a 12-18" forecast vs. the reality of 6-12" having fallen for NYC/NE NJ is only a modest bust.  Classic case of mismanaging risk perception - don't go right to the worst case as your lead, especially 2+ days out, when uncertainty is still pretty high.  Build up to it.  This was NOT Sandy, where underpredicting a 6' storm surge 2 days out and then adjusting that to 12' 12 hours out would represent a major emergency preparedness risk - better in that case to predict 12', get people out of Dodge and hope it only end up being 6' (since it was 10-14' those forecasts were great 2-3 days out).  

 

You wonder if the wide access to weather model output on social and other media outlets creates a

race to be first with dramatic model snowfall forecasts. The RPM model that was too far west with the

jackpot in the February 2013 blizzard made it onto the storm team 4 weather segment.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/nemo-nyc-storm-predictions-vary-wildly-2013-2

[LongBeachSurfFreak]

100% agree. As I said at the time, I was even ok if they had just put out a map 2-3 days out showing 12-18" and noting the possibility for 24" or more (for NYC/NE NJ - LI looked like a lock for 18" or more).  A map like that would have readily conveyed the message that an historic snowstorm was coming (36 NYC storms with 12" or more and only 9 with 18" or more, so 12-18" is a very serious snowfall) and if they later adjusted upwards to 20-30" if there was model consensus 12-24 hours out, nobody would've thought twice about it, since I don't think most people would think 25" is really that different from 15" (both are a crapload, lol).    

 

However, a 12-18" forecast is much easier to come down from right before or during the storm, and even if they didn't come down during the storm, a 12-18" forecast vs. the reality of 6-12" having fallen for NYC/NE NJ is only a modest bust.  Classic case of mismanaging risk perception - don't go right to the worst case as your lead, especially 2+ days out, when uncertainty is still pretty high.  Build up to it.  This was NOT Sandy, where underpredicting a 6' storm surge 2 days out and then adjusting that to 12' 12 hours out would represent a major emergency preparedness risk - better in that case to predict 12', get people out of Dodge and hope it only end up being 6' (since it was 10-14' those forecasts were great 2-3 days out).

Great post! I think sandy had allot to do with the way the nws and emergency management personnel and government officials handled the blizzard. Had the worst case senecio happened and NYC saw 30" and wind gusts to 70mph it would have been life threatening to allot of people. As sandy was so downplayed early on (the Bloomberg press conference where he says "this is not a tropical system so there will not be a big sudden surge") they really couldn't deny that the worst blizzard in NYC history was on the table.

Now, as we saw Irene underperform then a down play of sandy I expect to see the same sort of thing the next time a historic blizzard has major support of the euro and not the gfs. One day the euro will nail a big epic miller A the question is will they bite? I say no I don't think we ever see that type of forecast for a snow event again

[BxWeatherwatcher]

whats even more incredible is that it might still want to snow in to april.the pattern is starting to really come in to it's own with forecast lakes cutters ending up in to strong coastal's as the event nears.another thing is that my seasonal totals might be close to 60 inches by now if nyc has over 50.as my location is usually the snowbelt of of the city,riverdale to woodlawn to norwood to kingsbridge heights in the bx.

[Guest Pamela]

whats even more incredible is that it might still want to snow in to april.the pattern is starting to really come in to it's own with forecast lakes cutters ending up in to strong coastal's as the event nears.another thing is that my seasonal totals might be close to 60 inches by now if nyc has over 50.as my location is usually the snowbelt of of the city,riverdale to woodlawn to norwood to kingsbridge heights in the bx.

A couple of spots on Long Island are less than 4" away from a 70" season...in other words, getting close to being one of the 5 snowiest winters since the middle of the last century.

Others being '67, '96, '05, and last year.

[BxWeatherwatcher]

A couple of spots on Long Island are less than 4" away from a 70" season...in other words, getting close to being one of the 5 snowiest winters since the middle of the last century.

Others being '67, '96, '05, and last year.

 well we might get 2 more shots at a few more seasonal records,winter hasnt really gone anywhere lol..and yeah i went back to my event,hydrology and cilmo charts and i indeed do have over 60 inches for season.@ 61.6 inches,what kills me is that almost every report that i have submitted to upon pretty much got tossed,although i always knew that my meteorology wasn't off at all.  .

[CPcantmeasuresnow]

First, I give you February 25th 2010 as evidence that surrounding totals can indeed be lower.

 

Second, they are most certainly trained.  Now, whether they care or not, I couldn't say of course, but they have most certainly gotten training; probably more than the average spotter, in fact.

 

Third most of them are certainly not well trained, if trained at all.

 

Fourth as an example of the infamous under-counts at CPK I give you, December 26, 2010 under done by 4-5 inches, February 16, 2003 the same, the famous January 7-8 1996 under-count, and those are just a few of the famous ones, throw in the 3 from this year another three from last year and on and on and on. I've had this discussion with Bill Evans and he believes the CPK totals historically are about 5 inches below what has actually fallen. I don't think it's qute that high but 2-3 inches sounds about right.

 

Whoever happens to be on zookeeper duty that night, day, or afternoon gets measuring duty and most don't know what they're doing or care. They are not trained spotters and I don't know why you seem to think otherwise. NOAA the NWS and any local meterologist will tell you that 90% of the time if their measurements are incorrect they measure low. The reasons are many, they don't measure after a certain point in time, or they take a final measurement several hours after an event has ended when melting, or compression or settling or all three have taken place.

 

I've discussed this with many in the know through the years and finally this year NOAA is taking an active position and trying to correct it but until now it's been a mess.

 

This has been an on going problem for years with the central Park measurements and anyone from the local meterologists on TV that have been here for years, to NOAA themselves will tell you exactly what I've just stated.

[ag3]

Third most of them are certainly not well trained, if trained at all.

 

Whoever happens to be on zookeeper duty that night, day, or afternoon gets measuring duty and most don't know what they're doing or care. They are not trained spotters and I don't know why you seem to think otherwise. NOAA the NWS and any local meterologist will tell you that 90% of the time if their measurements are incorrect they measure low. The reasons are many, they don't measure after a certain point in time, or they take a final measurement several hours after an event has ended when melting, or compression or settling or all three have taken place.

 

I've discussed this with many in the know through the years and finally this year NOAA is taking an active position and trying to correct it but until now it's been a mess.

 

This has been an on going problem for years with the central Park measurements and anyone from the local meterologists on TV that have been here for years, to NOAA themselves will tell you exactly what I've just stated.

 

 

They also give a snow report hours before an event ends, then more precip falls and their next snow report is identical.

I believe all 3 events changed this year, have that issue.

[bluewave]

This problem has been well known by the NWS for quite some time now. The

interesting point below is that they had to fight to keep the Central Park station

open. The NYT article is from February 2003.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/11/science/flawed-snowfall-data-jeopardize-climate-change-research.html

 

In Central Park, zookeepers, not meteorologists, take the measurements, according to Mr. Wyllie, who said he had fought to keep the lone weather station in Manhattan open.

Mr. Schlacter said the last 12 measurements Central Park that totaled at least three inches ended in ''point zero'' or ''point five.''

''It makes you very suspicious that they're just rounding,'' he said.

''We're working with them,'' Mr. Wyllie said about the zookeepers. ''We're doing the best we can.''

 

At airports, meteorologists said, F.A.A. employees may not take measurements unless airport operations are affected. As a result, small snowfalls are reported as ''traces'' rather than actual amounts. Heavier snow may not be measured until it stops falling, meaning that there is no information about the progress of a storm.

[jm1220]

Third most of them are certainly not well trained, if trained at all.

Fourth as an example of the infamous under-counts at CPK I give you, December 26, 2010 under done by 4-5 inches, February 16, 2003 the same, the famous January 7-8 1996 under-count, and those are just a few of the famous ones, throw in the 3 from this year another three from last year and on and on and on. I've had this discussion with Bill Evans and he believes the CPK totals historically are about 5 inches below what has actually fallen. I don't think it's qute that high but 2-3 inches sounds about right.

Whoever happens to be on zookeeper duty that night, day, or afternoon gets measuring duty and most don't know what they're doing or care. They are not trained spotters and I don't know why you seem to think otherwise. NOAA the NWS and any local meterologist will tell you that 90% of the time if their measurements are incorrect they measure low. The reasons are many, they don't measure after a certain point in time, or they take a final measurement several hours after an event has ended when melting, or compression or settling or all three have taken place.

I've discussed this with many in the know through the years and finally this year NOAA is taking an active position and trying to correct it but until now it's been a mess.

This has been an on going problem for years with the central Park measurements and anyone from the local meterologists on TV that have been here for years, to NOAA themselves will tell you exactly what I've just stated.

How would Bill Evans know about under measurements at Chesapeake, VA (CPK)?

[Guest Pamela]

Nobody thinks of CPK as Chesapeake, VA...just like nobody ever mentions the all time record for RBI's...held by Aaron, I think.

[dmillz25]

Nobody thinks of CPK as Chesapeake, VA...just like nobody ever mentions the all time record for RBI's...held by Aaron, I think.

You are correct

[famartin]

Third most of them are certainly not well trained, if trained at all.

 

Fourth as an example of the infamous under-counts at CPK I give you, December 26, 2010 under done by 4-5 inches, February 16, 2003 the same, the famous January 7-8 1996 under-count, and those are just a few of the famous ones, throw in the 3 from this year another three from last year and on and on and on. I've had this discussion with Bill Evans and he believes the CPK totals historically are about 5 inches below what has actually fallen. I don't think it's qute that high but 2-3 inches sounds about right.

 

Whoever happens to be on zookeeper duty that night, day, or afternoon gets measuring duty and most don't know what they're doing or care. They are not trained spotters and I don't know why you seem to think otherwise. NOAA the NWS and any local meterologist will tell you that 90% of the time if their measurements are incorrect they measure low. The reasons are many, they don't measure after a certain point in time, or they take a final measurement several hours after an event has ended when melting, or compression or settling or all three have taken place.

 

I've discussed this with many in the know through the years and finally this year NOAA is taking an active position and trying to correct it but until now it's been a mess.

 

This has been an on going problem for years with the central Park measurements and anyone from the local meterologists on TV that have been here for years, to NOAA themselves will tell you exactly what I've just stated.

 

I am not saying that there were no mis-measurements.

 

I *am* saying that OKX staff has undoubtedly been at the zoo time and time again to train the zoo keepers to measure properly.

 

If the person being trained is uninterested, then undoubtedly they aren't going to do a good job.  That doesn't mean they weren't trained, it just means they don't care. 

 

Surely there are things which you have been "trained" for, but you didn't really absorb much information during the training because you weren't that interested in it?