1/23-24/16 #1 All Time KNYC Snowfall-please add Obs, Accums, Pics

[RU848789]

Definitely most accurate assuming the board is in a representative spot (not always easy)...but since most just stick the yardstick in the ground the scientific approach produces what seems like anomalous high totals.  As one met put it, run around the yard and do many measurements.  It quickly becomes apparent what the real total is.  Do this every few hours and the most on the ground at any one time should be reported as the storm total IMO.  At least this provides a fair comparison among stations.  

 

Agreed, for the most part. Using the board and wiping it clean every 6 hours clearly results in reports that are as much as 10% greater than measuring final snow depth (2" on a ~20" snowfall), as I mentioned in my earlier post, as I usually do both and compare.  Plus it results in reports that are greater than reports from decades ago, when boards weren't used, which is unfortunate.  The board method also just doesn't seem "right," i.e., most people simply think about "how much snow is on the ground after the storm."  

 

If I were in charge, I'd insist on snow depth at the end of the storm, but I'd also insist the measurement be taken in some relatively large, open field, which greatly reduces measurement variability, due to drifting, although I'd allow non-field measurements if the deviation around the mean were less than some agreed upon max (like less than 5% of the mean).  Yesterday, my std. deviation on my property, which is typically less than 5% of the mean in past storms, was 12% (due to the winds and low moisture content snow, leading to drifting), which is why I decided to go to the local school football field for my last two measurements, both of which had std deviations well less than 5% of the mean.  

 

The only problem with the snow depth at the end of the storm method is that it doesn't allow one to account for long lulls with compaction and/or melting, especally in the middle of the storm.  One could allow one to measure the depth and then if there's a long lull, remeasure the depth after the lull and subtract out any loss due to compaction (or melting).  No perfect system I guess.  

[WxUSAF]

Popping in to say congrats to the NYC weenie crew.  Glad you guys got to pull this rabbit out of the hat! 

[NorthShoreWx]

22 in commack western side of town). A bit lower than the 26 reports from commack and dix hills. Guess there were localized pockets here. Report in Elwood of 22 which is a few miles away matches up well.

I think northshorewx total of 17 is low...doesnt really matchup to the other reported totals in our area

 

My property does not drift much.  I think it is more accurate than most of the local reports but I know people don't want to hear that.  The deepest snow on my property was 24" in a drift.

 

I know from experience the only time I have a chance of jackpotting (a chance, it still is uncommon for any one area to jackpot) is when there isn't much wind.

 

What was your snow depth this morning after the sun came up?

[Stormlover74]

Popping in to say congrats to the NYC weenie crew. Glad you guys got to pull this rabbit out of the hat!

Thanks, glad we all cashed in!

[Fronto-bombo-cyclo-genesis]

Im between 21-22 tough to measure though..not far off. I think those in Somervile/Bridgewater are in 24-28 range

..SOMERSET COUNTY...

2 S BERNARDS TWP 30.0 1000 PM 1/23 COCORAHS

ENE SOMERVILLE 28.4 800 AM 1/24 COCORAHS

BOUND BROOK 28.0 835 AM 1/24 TRAINED SPOTTER

  BELLE MEAD 28.0 920 AM 1/24 TRAINED SPOTTER   

SOMERVILLE 27.4 622 PM 1/23 TRAINED SPOTTER

BERNARDSVILLE 27.0 1118 AM 1/24 TRAINED SPOTTER

GREENBROOK TWP 25.0 724 PM 1/23 TRAINED SPOTTER

BRIDGEWATER TWP 24.5 1100 PM 1/23 TRAINED SPOTTER

3 NW BRIDGEWATER TWP 24.5 700 AM 1/24 COCORAHS

5 NNW FRANKLIN TWP 24.0 700 AM 1/24 COCORAHS

1 NNW BERNARDS TWP 23.6 800 AM 1/24 COCORAHS

3 ESE BEDMINSTER TWP 23.2 1000 AM 1/24 COCORAHS

WARREN TWP 23.0 917 AM 1/24 TRAINED SPOTTER

5 ESE HILLSBOROUGH T 22.5 700 AM 1/24 COCORAHS

2 NNE MONTGOMERY TWP 22.0 800 AM 1/24 COCORAHS

4 ENE FRANKLIN TWP 21.5 800 AM 1/24 COCORAHS

HILLSBOROUGH 20.7 907 AM 1/24 TRAINED SPOTTER

BASKING RIDGE 20.0 1030 PM 1/23 TRAINED SPOTTER

KINGSTON 18.5 945 PM 1/23 TRAINED SPOTTER

[NorthShoreWx]

Just saw a report from Baldwin-28".

 

Undoubtedly some of the higher end totals will be inflated from blowing/drifting, but JFK coming in with 30.5" makes me think that some of these totals in Nassau have to be legitimate. The radar never looked that different between JFK and Nassau, even much of Suffolk. 

 

Nassau did very well.  It was obvious from the radar most of the day that they were doing better than out here.

[NorthShoreWx]

If people would just use snow depth as there reading the discrepancies wouldn't be so big . To me what u have on the ground is what you should report . Some of these numbers are ridiculous

 Snow depth on the ground at the end has been the NWS standard for the past couple of winters.  There are exceptions for some FAA sites, but the rest of us should be wiping a board no more than once in 24 hours.  In the case of compaction, the standard is to report the greatest depth before compaction.

[NorthShoreWx]

Wow!!

 

Measuring in a backyard is always tricky in a storm like this-it's usually inflated because of roof snow blowoff. 

 Yup.  The smaller the lot size (the greater the roof to lot ratio) the more totals are inflated.  It's really tough in the city, including the outer boroughs.  That being said, the central park total for this one is believable based on radar.

[LongBeachSurfFreak]

Nassau did very well. It was obvious from the radar most of the day that they were doing better than out here.

I'm not gonna lie at least in wantagh I think we were more like 20". Granted there has been settling since I got home. It looks very similar to pics I took from boxing and 96.in Manhattan whole different story. I was outside for every second of the storm. They did extremely well with the evening fluff banding which should have pushed the park to 30.

[NorthShoreWx]

It seems a lot of well intentioned people are measuring snowfall incorrectly.  Please see the NWS guidelines:

 

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

 

From the above document:

 

3.1.1. Once-per-day snowfall measurements

 

Observers in networks such as the NWS Cooperative Observer Program network are typically required to take measurements only once per day. The SMB should be cleared at the end of the 24-hour period in preparation for measuring snowfall during the next observing period.

 

Measure the maximum depth of snow that has accumulated on your snow measurement board (or other approved surface) since the previous snowfall observation. This measurement should reflect the greatest accumulation of new snow observed (in inches and tenths, for example, 3.9 inches) within the past 24 hours even if this total occurs at a time preceding the regularly scheduled observation time.

 

For example: Snow begins to fall at 10:00 a.m., accumulates to 4.2 inches by 3:00 p.m. and then stops. Ideally, this is when you should measure the snow. The snow begins melting and settling such that by your observation the next morning you only have 2.6 inches of snow on your snow board. The correct number to report for your 24-hour snowfall is 4.2 inches - the accumulation prior to melting and settling.

 

 

3.1.3. How to handle short events or multiple events in a 24-hour period

While acknowledging there is no perfect way of measuring snowfall, the following best practice accommodates the observer while ensuring the best consistency. If the snow event ends well before the end of the 24-hour observing period make the 24-hour measurement at the end of the snow event, if possible. For example if the snow event ends at 1PM, make the snowfall measurement at that time. If snow falls later in the 24-hour period an additional measurement can be made but report only the largest accumulated snowfall total. No matter how many times it snows during the 24-hour period report only the SINGLE highest snowfall amount that accumulated on the SMB. Only clear the snowboard at the end of the 24-hour observing period. If you cannot take a measurement at the end of the snow event, measure it as soon as possible after the event ends and no later than the official observation time. See Figure 1 as an example. 8

 

If snow continually melts as it lands and accumulation never reaches 0.1 inches on your measuring surface, record the snowfall as a trace (T), and record in your remarks that the “snow melted as it landed.”

[LongBeachSurfFreak]

Moderate coastal flooding meets the 20"+ snowpack here along the Great South Bay

in SW Suffolk this morning. You can see the world famous iceberg effect with the

tide flooding the streets and driveways along the Great South Bay.

TDBZ12416L.jpg

USGS.01309225.01.62619..20160118.20160125..0..gif

Yeeeesssss best post!!!! Reminds me of growing up 93 March storm flooding and snow!!!!!!

[NorthShoreWx]

I'm not gonna lie at least in wantagh I think we were more like 20". Granted there has been settling since I got home. It looks very similar to pics I took from boxing and 96.in Manhattan whole different story. I was outside for every second of the storm. They did extremely well with the evening fluff banding which should have pushed the park to 30.

 

Manhattan clearly got crushed.  I was very envious looking at that radar.

[JERSEYSNOWROB]

Some more pics.

[UlsterCountySnowZ]

Beautiful sunset tonight from wallkill... Picture credit to my wife lol

[pazzo83]

Greatest city on Earth:

 

 

[pazzo83]

[NycStormChaser]

[psv88]

My property does not drift much. I think it is more accurate than most of the local reports but I know people don't want to hear that. The deepest snow on my property was 24" in a drift.

I know from experience the only time I have a chance of jackpotting (a chance, it still is uncommon for any one area to jackpot) is when there isn't much wind.

What was your snow depth this morning after the sun came up?

Snow depth this morning was about 19/20. Had some compaction overnight. I think I beat you a bit due to that early morning band (Sat morning) around 5am. Watch the radar loop. It was dropping 3 inch an hour and crawled from sw to ne before dying out over commack. Band never really made it to smithtown. I recall that around 6 am I had 3 inches otg and those just to my ne had less than an inch.

Were you watching the radar all storm? Many bands were slamming sw suffolk and grazing western commack, while missing smithtown.

Also, upton reported 18.5 to your east where they missed the heavy stuff and a spotter in stony brook to your ne got 18.

So based upon all of the local official reports and.radar presentation I could see your total being less than mine, but I still think its a bit low.

[NorthShoreWx]

Snow depth this morning was about 19/20. Had some compaction overnight. I think I beat you a bit due to that early morning band (Sat morning) around 5am. Watch the radar loop. It was dropping 3 inch an hour and crawled from sw to ne before dying out over commack. Band never really made it to smithtown. I recall that around 6 am I had 3 inches otg and those just to my ne had less than an inch.

Were you watching the radar all storm? Many bands were slamming sw suffolk and grazing western commack, while missing smithtown.

Also, upton reported 18.5 to your east where they missed the heavy stuff and a spotter in stony brook to your ne got 18.

So based upon all of the local official reports and.radar presentation I could see your total being less than mine, but I still think its a bit low.

 I did notice the early radar was better to my SW.  As for the total here, I couldn't have reported any higher without lying.  It's hard to tell who is measuring wrong and who just got more snow, but my total is accurate.

 

My snowdepth at 9am was still 17"

[weatherpruf]

Agreed, for the most part. Using the board and wiping it clean every 6 hours clearly results in reports that are as much as 10% greater than measuring final snow depth (2" on a ~20" snowfall), as I mentioned in my earlier post, as I usually do both and compare.  Plus it results in reports that are greater than reports from decades ago, when boards weren't used, which is unfortunate.  The board method also just doesn't seem "right," i.e., most people simply think about "how much snow is on the ground after the storm."  

 

If I were in charge, I'd insist on snow depth at the end of the storm, but I'd also insist the measurement be taken in some relatively large, open field, which greatly reduces measurement variability, due to drifting, although I'd allow non-field measurements if the deviation around the mean were less than some agreed upon max (like less than 5% of the mean).  Yesterday, my std. deviation on my property, which is typically less than 5% of the mean in past storms, was 12% (due to the winds and low moisture content snow, leading to drifting), which is why I decided to go to the local school football field for my last two measurements, both of which had std deviations well less than 5% of the mean.  

 

The only problem with the snow depth at the end of the storm method is that it doesn't allow one to account for long lulls with compaction and/or melting, especally in the middle of the storm.  One could allow one to measure the depth and then if there's a long lull, remeasure the depth after the lull and subtract out any loss due to compaction (or melting).  No perfect system I guess.  

But we're measuring what falls, so it's best to measure before compacting to get a true amount. Hence the snowboard solves this problem to some degree, because it is wiped at intervals. You could have 3 inches fall in march and if you measured the streets you would have nothing if it's warm enough, but three on the grass. And as much as five might have fallen. There was a snowfall in March 2013 where around five had fallen but it was already less than that by the end of the storm. But in general, you're right most people want to know how much is on  the ground. Put it this way that was one heckuva dump yesterday, and at that level the differences between 18 and 25 is just fine details.

[psv88]

I did notice the early radar was better to my SW. As for the total here, I couldn't have reported any higher without lying. It's hard to tell who is measuring wrong and who just got more snow, but my total is accurate.

My snowdepth at 9am was still 17"

I agree that local totals are inflated. The 26 in commack and dix hills are too high. I guess the 23 in smithtown also.

By the way, great maps and analysis on your site, really enjoy your maps.

How far east of the sunken meadow parkway are you? I live just east of larkfield road so im probably at least 4 or 5 miles to your west, which can make a big difference when it comes to sitting under a band v sucking subsidence.

[met_fan]

It seems a lot of well intentioned people are measuring snowfall incorrectly. Please see the NWS guidelines:

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

From the above document:

3.1.1. Once-per-day snowfall measurements

Observers in networks such as the NWS Cooperative Observer Program network are typically required to take measurements only once per day. The SMB should be cleared at the end of the 24-hour period in preparation for measuring snowfall during the next observing period.

Measure the maximum depth of snow that has accumulated on your snow measurement board (or other approved surface) since the previous snowfall observation. This measurement should reflect the greatest accumulation of new snow observed (in inches and tenths, for example, 3.9 inches) within the past 24 hours even if this total occurs at a time preceding the regularly scheduled observation time.

For example: Snow begins to fall at 10:00 a.m., accumulates to 4.2 inches by 3:00 p.m. and then stops. Ideally, this is when you should measure the snow. The snow begins melting and settling such that by your observation the next morning you only have 2.6 inches of snow on your snow board. The correct number to report for your 24-hour snowfall is 4.2 inches - the accumulation prior to melting and settling.

3.1.3. How to handle short events or multiple events in a 24-hour period

While acknowledging there is no perfect way of measuring snowfall, the following best practice accommodates the observer while ensuring the best consistency. If the snow event ends well before the end of the 24-hour observing period make the 24-hour measurement at the end of the snow event, if possible. For example if the snow event ends at 1PM, make the snowfall measurement at that time. If snow falls later in the 24-hour period an additional measurement can be made but report only the largest accumulated snowfall total. No matter how many times it snows during the 24-hour period report only the SINGLE highest snowfall amount that accumulated on the SMB. Only clear the snowboard at the end of the 24-hour observing period. If you cannot take a measurement at the end of the snow event, measure it as soon as possible after the event ends and no later than the official observation time. See Figure 1 as an example. 8

If snow continually melts as it lands and accumulation never reaches 0.1 inches on your measuring surface, record the snowfall as a trace (T), and record in your remarks that the “snow melted as it landed.”

So is this article wrong?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/01/24/paltry-national-airport-snowfall-total-raises-questions-about-observing-standards/

[uncle W]

So is this article wrong?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/01/24/paltry-national-airport-snowfall-total-raises-questions-about-observing-standards/

did they hire the zoo keepers from here?...

[Snowshack]

I did notice the early radar was better to my SW. As for the total here, I couldn't have reported any higher without lying. It's hard to tell who is measuring wrong and who just got more snow, but my total is accurate.

My snowdepth at 9am was still 17"

Noticeable difference in snow depth from my house in WR to Hauppauge today. Seemed like at least 6" more otg in Hauppauge. Supports the official reports for my area.

[Allsnow]

Nice pictures Pazzo

[JBG]

Rye Brook, New York during and after storm. Guessing 12” to at most 15”. Really little local impact. Just a storm.

 

 

 

[SnoSki14]

You know we've been spoiled when 12-15" is considered just a storm. Weenies would kill for those amounts in the 80s/90s.

[NorthShoreWx]

So is this article wrong?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/01/24/paltry-national-airport-snowfall-total-raises-questions-about-observing-standards/

 

To the best of my knowledge, the article is indeed wrong; they are referring to the old standards which were changed a couple of years ago.  Very interesting that the Sterling MIC doesn't even know that.  NWS is going to have to clarify for everyone what the standard is.  Hopefully the discussion around the DCA measurements will be a catalyst.  As it stands, it sounds like IAD over-reported their snowfall based on having used the wrong (previous) set of standards.

 

Maybe Ray Martin will chime in; he is generally well informed about these types of regs, although if I'm not mistaken, the Sterling MIC is his boss now?

 

I don't care which way it is, as long as it is consistent.  We are all supposed to be measuring the same way and at present there isn't even close to uniformity.

 

The issue of compaction is addressed by recording the maximum depth.  I don't know when the standard of wiping a board every 6 hours was first instituted, but prior to that it was max depth.  The blizzard of 1978 in NYC is a good example.  The total of 17.7" was reached over 6 hours before the snowfall ended.

[WeatherFox]

Popping in to say congrats to the NYC weenie crew.  Glad you guys got to pull this rabbit out of the hat! 

Thanx!

[NorthShoreWx]

I agree that local totals are inflated. The 26 in commack and dix hills are too high. I guess the 23 in smithtown also.

By the way, great maps and analysis on your site, really enjoy your maps.

How far east of the sunken meadow parkway are you? I live just east of larkfield road so im probably at least 4 or 5 miles to your west, which can make a big difference when it comes to sitting under a band v sucking subsidence.

 

I live not far from the town golf course, about 3 or 4 miles east of the SM parkway.  I am about 8 miles from the intersection of Larkfield and Route 25.