SnowGoose69 Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 1 minute ago, ag3 said: LGA ended with 7". So after 4pm, they received 2.4" more snow. NYC somehow only ended with 5.1". Only .8" after 4pm. Bad measurement. It was 6.0 here, it was 5.8 at 7pm and then another 0.2 fell. I have no idea why it always seems they miss that 7pm measurement. Its always that particular one that seems wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmillz25 Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 Just now, ag3 said: LGA: 7.0" JFK: 8.2" NYC: 5.1" ISP: 9.7" BDR: 5.7" EWR: 5.8" NYC should be closer to 6.5" from what it looks like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ag3 Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 2 minutes ago, SnowGoose69 said: It was 6.0 here, it was 5.8 at 7pm and then another 0.2 fell. I have no idea why it always seems they miss that 7pm measurement. Its always that particular one that seems wrong. If they measured at 7pm, they had the same powder snow falling that Queens had until 10pm. LGA added .7" of powder after 7pm and JFK over 1" more after 7pm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ag3 Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 Just now, dmillz25 said: NYC should be closer to 6.5" from what it looks like Yes. It's a steady west to east gradient. EWR, NYC, LGA, JFK, ISP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle W Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 7 minutes ago, ag3 said: LGA ended with 7". So after 4pm, they received 2.4" more snow. NYC somehow only ended with 5.1". Only .8" after 4pm. Bad measurement. it's a disgrace...almost 150 years of record ruined by none weather people... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowGoose69 Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 4 minutes ago, uncle W said: it's a disgrace...almost 150 years of record ruined by none weather people... Even prior to 1993 the NYC measurements were not great for whatever reason. That was NWS staff back then too I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluewave Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 4 minutes ago, SnowGoose69 said: Even prior to 1993 the NYC measurements were not great for whatever reason. That was NWS staff back then too I believe. Probably just need to average the local sites out to get a better representation of snowfall. We already look past the artificially low high temps there due to the vegetation. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/lcd/lcd.html?_page=0&state=NY&_target1=Next+> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmillz25 Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 9.5" is the season total so far in NYC correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ag3 Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 20 minutes ago, bluewave said: Probably just need to average the local sites out to get a better representation of snowfall. We already look past the artificially low high temps there due to the vegetation. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/lcd/lcd.html?_page=0&state=NY&_target1=Next+> NYC got less then JFK and LGA though. Further west. If EWR received 5.8", KNYC was probably 6"-6.5". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ag3 Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 32 minutes ago, uncle W said: it's a disgrace...almost 150 years of record ruined by none weather people... Not only that. It was the 1st 6"+ snowfall with a +Ao, +Nao and neutral PNA. But it won't show in the KNYC records. But at least 2 NYC stations, JFK and LGA verified that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluewave Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 12 minutes ago, ag3 said: NYC got less then JFK and LGA though. Further west. If EWR received 5.8", KNYC was probably 6"-6.5". We should probably just take the highest snowfall total out of EWR..NYC..JFK..LGA for classification in reaching various benchmarks like 6" 12" storms for the metro. Local sites like ISP and BNL for Long Island. That way people don't worry so much about Central Park in classification of our local winter storms. So this will go down as reaching the 6" benchmark for NYC snowstorms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle W Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 1 hour ago, bluewave said: We should probably just take the highest snowfall total out of EWR..NYC..JFK..LGA for classification in reaching various benchmarks like 6" 12" storms for the metro. Local sites like ISP and BNL for Long Island. That way people don't worry so much about Central Park in classification of our local winter storms. So this will go down as reaching the 6" benchmark for NYC snowstorms. someone other than myself could go over past snowstorms from the four big obs sites and do an average for area snowstorms...Reading old stories of the 1800's and early 1900 snowstorms from old newspapers show that measurements from that era are much different than what was recorded for Central Park...1892-93 had 77" and 1893-94 had 37" in February...January 1893 had a 17" snowstorm in lower Manhattan but much less in the park... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle W Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 maybe they didn't do a six hour measurement and just put the ruler in the ground when ever they felt like... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPcantmeasuresnow Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 3 hours ago, ag3 said: LGA: 7.0" JFK: 8.2" NYC: 5.1" - RIDICULOUS ISP: 9.7" BDR: 5.7" EWR: 5.8" When the under count at Central Park is this obvious like this one is I always send an e-mail to NOAA pointing it out and they do always respond. Usually they say they are aware and sometimes they even adjust the amounts several days later. If more people would do this they might stay more on top of it. Send your e-mail to [email protected] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 For purposes of illustration concerning the visibility yesterday during the most intense snow band in my area, below is a photo from the heavy snow and another from this morning. I wasn't exactly in the same spot (the trees on the left were on the right in this morning's shot), but the location of the trees should provide some context into the distance and visibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongBeachSurfFreak Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 I measured 6" at Columbia 2 miles north of the park measurement site Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluewave Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 45 minutes ago, uncle W said: someone other than myself could go over past snowstorms from the four big obs sites and do an average for area snowstorms...Reading old stories of the 1800's and early 1900 snowstorms from old newspapers show that measurements from that era are much different than what was recorded for Central Park...1892-93 had 77" and 1893-94 had 37" in February...January 1893 had a 17" snowstorm in lower Manhattan but much less in the park... We could do that. And anyone who wants to compile the snowfall data from spotters at points between the official sites also. I am a bit disappointed that the NWS seemed to have erased the old OKX LSR's from 2000-2010. There is now only very sparse data until 2010 and after. Maybe they ran out of room on the OKX official site. http://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/wx/afos/list.phtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluewave Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 16 minutes ago, CPcantmeasuresnow said: When the under count at Central Park is this obvious like this one is I always send an e-mail to NOAA pointing it out and they do always respond. Usually they say they are aware and sometimes they even adjust the amounts several days later. If more people would do this they might stay more on top of it. Send your e-mail to [email protected] Would be nice if they adjusted the temperatures there and published them to account for the vegetation shading the sensor. I wonder if they kept an old back up temperature sensor above the canopy on top of the castle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPcantmeasuresnow Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 1 minute ago, bluewave said: Would be nice if they adjusted the temperatures there and published them to account for the vegetation shading the sensor. Since they always under count snowfall totals, maybe this is their way of compensating on the other side. Incompetence in one area breeds incompetence in all areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluewave Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 18 minutes ago, CPcantmeasuresnow said: Since they always under count snowfall totals, maybe this is their way of compensating on the other side. Incompetence in one area breeds incompetence in all areas. It's too bad that ASOS wasn't put in a section of the park with a clearing away from vegetation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rjay Posted January 8, 2017 Author Share Posted January 8, 2017 36 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said: For purposes of illustration concerning the visibility yesterday during the most intense snow band in my area, below is a photo from the heavy snow and another from this morning. I wasn't exactly in the same spot (the trees on the left were on the right in this morning's shot), but the location of the trees should provide some context into the distance and visibility. Great stuff Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rjay Posted January 8, 2017 Author Share Posted January 8, 2017 7 minutes ago, bluewave said: It's too bad that ASOS wasn't put in a section of the park with a clearing away from vegetation. Yup. Ridiculous. They really don't do anything right when it comes to trying to provide the most accurate wx statistics for NYC. There's no way this site should be used for the climatology of NYC. I'd be ok if they just starting using LGA at this point. Until they clear away the vegetation for accurate temperature readings and start measuring snowfalls correctly, I see no reason the NWS should use this site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JERSEYSNOWROB Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 11 minutes ago, Rjay said: Yup. Ridiculous. They really don't do anything right when it comes to trying to provide the most accurate wx statistics for NYC. There's no way this site should be used for the climatology of NYC. I'd be ok if they just starting using LGA at this point. Until they clear away the vegetation for accurate temperature readings and start measuring snowfalls correctly, I see no reason the NWS should use this site. And to think Philly's official stats comes from Jersey!!! (National Park, NJ which is across the river from the airport) So they could just as easily change NYC as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jm1220 Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 Some pictures from last night after the snow ended. I'm pretty sure we ended with 8-9", I'll probably go with 8.5". Thankfully Upton dropped the bogus 4.5" total from Island Park. As you can see drifting made measurements tough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmillz25 Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 Just now, jm1220 said: Some pictures from last night after the snow ended. I'm pretty sure we ended with 8-9", I'll probably go with 8.5". Thankfully Upton dropped the bogus 4.5" total from Island Park. As you can see drifting made measurements tough. First storm since you've been back right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jm1220 Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 1 minute ago, dmillz25 said: First storm since you've been back right? The first signficant one. I was here for the minor events last month. Total for the season here is 12-13". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmillz25 Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 Just now, jm1220 said: The first signficant one. I was here for the minor events last month. Total for the season here is 12-13". Yeah that's what I meant. Hopefully we get more chances after this **** show of a pattern we're about to go into Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJwx85 Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 Finished here with right around 1.5". I guess it's better than nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 6 hours ago, Rjay said: Great stuff Don Thanks Rjay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowBlitzkrieg Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.