Winter 2017-18 banter thread

[Cobalt]

Sorry if I'm barging in, but while Dulles is certainly not the average for DC, Reagan really isn't either. They always have lower totals than surrounding areas, even to areas all around them. Pretty sure they measured the lowest in most of the region during the Blizzard of 2016, measuring 17.8" while multiple areas in DC proper had near 2 feet. IMO the official measurements should be at the White House. They seem to represent DC as a whole more. 

[Cobalt]

On 2/12/2018 at 3:27 PM, LongBeachSurfFreak said:

That area has been in a rut the last few years after the epic 09/10 season. In fact they may have had more snow that one season then they have had since.

We actually had quite the nice stretch from 13/14 through 15/16. Pretty sure it was the snowiest 3 year stretch on record for Dulles. With a HECS to boot.
 

13/14: 52.8

14/15: 36.9

15/16: 34.3

Compared to DCA:

13/14: 32.0

14/15: 18.3

15/16: 22.2

It's just that the DC heat island really makes those totals low, when in reality it was quite the epic 3 year stretch. 

[NorthShoreWx]

58 minutes ago, Cobalt said:

Sorry if I'm barging in, but while Dulles is certainly not the average for DC, Reagan really isn't either. 

Good point!

[CPcantmeasuresnow]

8 hours ago, Cobalt said:

Sorry if I'm barging in, but while Dulles is certainly not the average for DC, Reagan really isn't either. They always have lower totals than surrounding areas, even to areas all around them. Pretty sure they measured the lowest in most of the region during the Blizzard of 2016, measuring 17.8" while multiple areas in DC proper had near 2 feet. IMO the official measurements should be at the White House. They seem to represent DC as a whole more. 

But at least Reagan airport is actually in WDC while Dulles is 32 miles WNW of WDC in NW Virginia.

I think most airports are bad with snow totals. JFK and LGA have been very inconsistent through the years. The latest travesty of course being the January 4 storm from this year where both LaGuardia and JFK airports reported official totals 3 to 5 inches lower than places a mile away from the airport. Don't even get me started on the Central Park totals through the years. The reason the Conservancy is now measuring was because the Central Park zoo had the monkeys doing the measurements half the time and they're not very good with rulers. And of course there were the years that Baltimore was over inflating their numbers and the National Weather Service had to go in after the fact and lower some of them. It sounds like such a simple thing to stick a ruler in the ground and get an accurate measurement but this seems to allude so many places through the years and still does.

[CIK62]

What about the Brooklyn Eagle reporting that snow measurements in a large, open, flatland area in Bensonhurst showed 3 feet of snow w/o drifts in the Blizzard of '88?

[CPcantmeasuresnow]

16 minutes ago, CIK62 said:

What about the Brooklyn Eagle reporting that snow measurements in a large, open, flatland area in Bensonhurst showed 3 feet of snow w/o drifts in the Blizzard of '88?

And Central Park reported 21.0 inches from the Blizzard of 88. Still one of the great under measurements of all time. You would think with all of the pictures of Manhattan the day after that clearly show that 3 feet of snow fell they would have adjusted this over the years. New Haven had 45 inches Brooklyn 36 Albany 48 and Midtown 21. Sorry not buying it.

[Brian5671]

21 minutes ago, CPcantmeasuresnow said:

And Central Park reported 21.0 inches from the Blizzard of 88. Still one of the great under measurements of all time. You would think with all of the pictures of Manhattan the day after that clearly show that 3 feet of snow fell they would have adjusted this over the years. New Haven had 45 inches Brooklyn 36 Albany 48 and Midtown 21. Sorry not buying it.

I would love to see a replica of this storm today-it's really the one event we have not experienced during this stormy stretch the last 20 yrs...

agree though, probably 30-40 inches region wide.   And that was after a rainy start to the storm.   Had to be one hell of a block or something to keep it stalled.

[LongBeachSurfFreak]

9 minutes ago, Brian5671 said:

I would love to see a replica of this storm today-it's really the one event we have not experienced during this stormy stretch the last 20 yrs...

agree though, probably 30-40 inches region wide.   And that was after a rainy start to the storm.   Had to be one hell of a block or something to keep it stalled.

It’s definitly the ultimate storm in recorded history. It’s a whole order of magnitude bigger and more impactful then anything since. 

I would love for a radar loop of that storm and the hurricane of 38

[Brian5671]

1 minute ago, LongBeachSurfFreak said:

It’s definitly the ultimate storm in recorded history. It’s a whole order of magnitude bigger and more impactful then anything since. 

I would love for a radar loop of that storm and the hurricane of 38

imagine the Blizz of 88 showing up on models today-would we even believe it?

[JerseyWx]

30 minutes ago, CPcantmeasuresnow said:

And Central Park reported 21.0 inches from the Blizzard of 88. Still one of the great under measurements of all time. You would think with all of the pictures of Manhattan the day after that clearly show that 3 feet of snow fell they would have adjusted this over the years. New Haven had 45 inches Brooklyn 36 Albany 48 and Midtown 21. Sorry not buying it.

The problem is, once they screw up and blow the measurement the first time, there really is no going back IMO.  Any adjustments later on will be based on extrapolating data from surrounding areas which, while it may provide a correction, can never truly be perfect.  Plus, these other measurements may not have been taken using official guidelines either.  When they upped the total for the 2016 Blizzard, it really bugged me.  I agree with you though, any official reporting station should be able to follow NWS guidelines and produce a proper measurement.

[LongBeachSurfFreak]

2 minutes ago, Brian5671 said:

imagine the Blizz of 88 showing up on models today-would we even believe it?

Probably not. The combination of wind snow and cold is unprecedented for the time of year. It truly was a dangerous storm and would shut the city down for days  

[bluewave]

21 minutes ago, Brian5671 said:

I would love to see a replica of this storm today-it's really the one event we have not experienced during this stormy stretch the last 20 yrs...

agree though, probably 30-40 inches region wide.   And that was after a rainy start to the storm.   Had to be one hell of a block or something to keep it stalled.

Yeah, it got stuck under a really strong block to the north causing it to loop and snow itself out over the region.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Brian5671]

interesting how far OTS it was initially-I can see why forecasters back then thought it would slide OTS

[donsutherland1]

20 minutes ago, JerseyWx said:

The problem is, once they screw up and blow the measurement the first time, there really is no going back IMO.  Any adjustments later on will be based on extrapolating data from surrounding areas which, while it may provide a correction, can never truly be perfect.  Plus, these other measurements may not have been taken using official guidelines either.  When they upped the total for the 2016 Blizzard, it really bugged me.  I agree with you though, any official reporting station should be able to follow NWS guidelines and produce a proper measurement.

Unless I'm mistaken, the 2016 figure was not adjusted upward due to measurement problems, but simply to include a measurement that had been registered at Central Park but not transmitted to the NWS.

[donsutherland1]

39 minutes ago, Brian5671 said:

I would love to see a replica of this storm today-it's really the one event we have not experienced during this stormy stretch the last 20 yrs...

agree though, probably 30-40 inches region wide.   And that was after a rainy start to the storm.   Had to be one hell of a block or something to keep it stalled.

There was a huge block and also tremendous cross-polar flow that the intense storm tapped.

[NorthShoreWx]

21 minutes ago, JerseyWx said:

The problem is, once they screw up and blow the measurement the first time, there really is no going back IMO.  Any adjustments later on will be based on extrapolating data from surrounding areas which, while it may provide a correction, can never truly be perfect.  Plus, these other measurements may not have been taken using official guidelines either.  When they upped the total for the 2016 Blizzard, it really bugged me.  I agree with you though, any official reporting station should be able to follow NWS guidelines and produce a proper measurement.

The problem with extrapolating, is that it smooths out the snowfall with no knowledge of how banding influenced the totals.  You could legitimately have half as much snow as someplace 10 miles away.

One thing I have read about 1888 observations in NYC was that no additional snowfall was recorded during the storm over a period of time when it was observed that snow was falling.  This could be accurate if snow depth was compacting faster than it was accumulating, but in a multi-day event, you should indeed wipe the board once per day.  I.e., day 2 snowfall should be unrelated to what happens to the depth of day 1 snowfall.

This actually happened 90 years later in NYC on 2/7/78 when snow continued into the afternoon.  The 17.7" at Central Park (or did they cheat and use 30 Rock for that one?) represented the maximum snow depth over the 36 hours of snow fall...so it is likely that it was under-measured by a bit.  If it had all fallen within a 24 hour window on the same calendar day, then 17.7" would be accurate,

[CPcantmeasuresnow]

26 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Unless I'm mistaken, the 2016 figure was not adjusted upward due to measurement problems, but simply to include a measurement that had been registered at Central Park but not transmitted to the NWS.

Correct.

The last 0.7 inches which took it from 26.8 to 27.5 was never transmitted. They finally figured that out after someone researched it and found there was no additional snow recorded at the NWS while it was still accumulating the last few hours and being recorded by the COnservancy.

[CPcantmeasuresnow]

50 minutes ago, NorthShoreWx said:

The problem with extrapolating, is that it smooths out the snowfall with no knowledge of how banding influenced the totals.  You could legitimately have half as much snow as someplace 10 miles away.

One thing I have read about 1888 observations in NYC was that no additional snowfall was recorded during the storm over a period of time when it was observed that snow was falling.  This could be accurate if snow depth was compacting faster than it was accumulating, but in a multi-day event, you should indeed wipe the board once per day.  I.e., day 2 snowfall should be unrelated to what happens to the depth of day 1 snowfall.

This actually happened 90 years later in NYC on 2/7/78 when snow continued into the afternoon.  The 17.7" at Central Park (or did they cheat and use 30 Rock for that one?) represented the maximum snow depth over the 36 hours of snow fall...so it is likely that it was under-measured by a bit.  If it had all fallen within a 24 hour window on the same calendar day, then 17.7" would be accurate,

More than a bit.

Anyone in the know that was in the city for that storm says it was much closer to two feet give or take an inch or two than the 17.7 which was officially, and I use that term laughing like a madman inside, measured.

I was outside the city at the time but just knew from the way they were not reporting totals they were going to blow it big time. They succeeded.

[JerseyWx]

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

Unless I'm mistaken, the 2016 figure was not adjusted upward due to measurement problems, but simply to include a measurement that had been registered at Central Park but not transmitted to the NWS.

You are right Don.  I guess that example didn't support my argument very well.  However, I remember around 2015-ish the NWS changed totals at the end of the season based on extrapolating observations and looking at past radar depictions.

Here is their exact wording:

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.

1 hour ago, NorthShoreWx said:

The problem with extrapolating, is that it smooths out the snowfall with no knowledge of how banding influenced the totals.  You could legitimately have half as much snow as someplace 10 miles away.

One thing I have read about 1888 observations in NYC was that no additional snowfall was recorded during the storm over a period of time when it was observed that snow was falling.  This could be accurate if snow depth was compacting faster than it was accumulating, but in a multi-day event, you should indeed wipe the board once per day.  I.e., day 2 snowfall should be unrelated to what happens to the depth of day 1 snowfall.

This actually happened 90 years later in NYC on 2/7/78 when snow continued into the afternoon.  The 17.7" at Central Park (or did they cheat and use 30 Rock for that one?) represented the maximum snow depth over the 36 hours of snow fall...so it is likely that it was under-measured by a bit.  If it had all fallen within a 24 hour window on the same calendar day, then 17.7" would be accurate,

Definitely agree. You are essentially trying to fill in missing data, which of course takes away from any unique weather features that area could have experienced. This is why each station has one chance to measure correctly, otherwise it's done.  

[uncle W]

duration storms compact more than quick hitters...the 1978 storm was measured when it ended...it had 36 hours to compact...same goes for the blizzard of 96 and other 24 or more hour snowfalls...something doesn't look right in the local climate data...it has 18" snow depth 7am on the 7th...it snowed at least an inch from 7am to around 3pm...if 17.7" fell on top of a trace 18" is correct...but what happened to the snow after 7am?...

https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/orders/IPS/IPS-942F1FFC-803D-4424-BCD9-FAFA33A86CCB.pdf

 

[CPcantmeasuresnow]

50 minutes ago, JerseyWx said:

You are right Don.  I guess that example didn't support my argument very well.  However, I remember around 2015-ish the NWS changed totals at the end of the season based on extrapolating observations and looking at past radar depictions.

Here is their exact wording:

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.

Definitely agree. You are essentially trying to fill in missing data, which of course takes away from any unique weather features that area could have experienced. This is why each station has one chance to measure correctly, otherwise it's done.  

I agree to a point, the only problem is when the same area in this case Central Park, keeps taking measurements that were obviously incorrect and had nothing to do with microclimate, banding, or any other such features that may have been going on then you do have to go in and correct it. Central Park was notorious for mostly under measurements, for many many years that's why the Conservancy now does the measurements. Wiith a few exceptions they do seem to be doing a better job than the Central Park zoo ever did.

The measurements at the zoo were a running joke among local area meteorologists for years but no one did anything about it until two years ago.

[NorthShoreWx]

33 minutes ago, uncle W said:

duration storms compact more than quick hitters...the 1978 storm was measured when it ended...it had 36 hours to compact...same goes for the blizzard of 96 and other 24 or more hour snowfalls...something doesn't look right in the local climate data...it has 18" snow depth 7am on the 7th...it snowed at least an inch from 7am to around 3pm...if 17.7" fell on top of a trace 18" is correct...but what happened to the snow after 7am?...

https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/orders/IPS/IPS-942F1FFC-803D-4424-BCD9-FAFA33A86CCB.pdf

 

The 18:1 ratios on the 6th are also suspect.  There was a lot of wind in Central Park that day:

 

 

 

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, JerseyWx said:

You are right Don.  I guess that example didn't support my argument very well.  However, I remember around 2015-ish the NWS changed totals at the end of the season based on extrapolating observations and looking at past radar depictions.

Here is their exact wording:

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.

Definitely agree. You are essentially trying to fill in missing data, which of course takes away from any unique weather features that area could have experienced. This is why each station has one chance to measure correctly, otherwise it's done.  

Thanks for sharing these reports. It is unfortunate that measurements aren’t always performed correctly. Such a problem undermines the integrity of the climate record.

[NJwx85]

3 hours ago, bluewave said:

Yeah, it got stuck under a really strong block to the north causing it to loop and snow itself out over the region.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The closest modern example I can think of was the Feb 25-26 2010 Snowicane, except that the loop was much closer to the coast.

[NJwx85]

Still to this day, one of the greatest snowstorms of my lifetime, with perhaps the strangest, rain/snow line you will ever see. 

[CPcantmeasuresnow]

1 minute ago, NJwx85 said:

Still to this day, one of the greatest snowstorms of my lifetime, with perhaps the strangest, rain/snow line you will ever see. 

Same here.

35 inches IMBY while 40 miles due east in Danbury it rained for much of the storm.

[bluewave]

12 minutes ago, NJwx85 said:

The closest modern example I can think of was the Feb 25-26 2010 Snowicane, except that the loop was much closer to the coast.

Imagine how much snow Boxing Day or Feb 13 would have dumped if they performed a loop like that.

[Stormlover74]

WTF? who writes this?

.SATURDAY NIGHT...Snow. A chance of rain in the evening, then
rain after midnight. Moderate snow accumulation. Lows in the
lower 30s. Southeast winds around 5 mph, becoming north after
midnight. Chance of precipitation 80 percent. 

[dWave]

18 minutes ago, CPcantmeasuresnow said:

Same here.

35 inches IMBY while 40 miles due east in Danbury it rained for much of the storm.

 

22 minutes ago, NJwx85 said:

Still to this day, one of the greatest snowstorms of my lifetime, with perhaps the strangest, rain/snow line you will ever see. 

While I sympathize with eastern LI, it gives me great joy to see Boston in heavy rain with snow in NYC and Jersey shore

[Brian5671]

10 minutes ago, Stormlover74 said:

WTF? who writes this?

.SATURDAY NIGHT...Snow. A chance of rain in the evening, then
rain after midnight. Moderate snow accumulation. Lows in the
lower 30s. Southeast winds around 5 mph, becoming north after
midnight. Chance of precipitation 80 percent. 

looks like one of those  point and click disasters...