The Little Storm That Could - March 3/4

[LibertyBell]

4 hours ago, BombsAway1288 said:

Ain’t that the truth. I’m right next to them in Eastie (Jeffries Point). Pulled an all nighter and crashed at 10am. 

12.5” final here. What a bogus report from Logan as usual. Just looking over the radarloop you can see Logan was pretty much under heavy stuff all night. 

Based on the consistent undermeasurements since November (Logan is doing the same thing JFK has been doing for years), I feel the "actual" snowfall should be somewhere around 35-40" for the season, so Raindance's prediction would actually be pretty close.

[BombsAway1288]

1 hour ago, OceanStWx said:

The time listed is just the time of the LAST report, it doesn't say anything about the number of measurements. BOS being an LCD site means that the contract observer is measuring every 6 hours. 

Also ASOS liquid is considered the standard, with only rare circumstances requiring contract observer liquid being used for the official ob. So the fact that the ASOS measured 1.06" is likely just coincidence, because the treatment plant's 8" gauge would likely be different by a small number and their observer wouldn't be hitting refresh on the web to find out how much BOS measured to estimate snowfall. 

Thanks for the info!

[OceanStWx]

13 hours ago, ORH_wxman said:

Right before this, it was also in Winthrop, but it was at least further north more on land and not at a treatment plant in the middle of the atlantic ocean.

Actually Joe D rows a dinghy out into the harbor with a portable snow board and 8" gauge during every snow storm now. 

13 hours ago, TheSnowman said:

Diamond Hill is even over 600.  But Tower Hill Rd. where Many houses are, are in the 450 range.  

And I cleared once of course.  6 hours in at 2:30.  Had 6.5”.  Had 10.5” after.  Then a little after 8:30 from 3 hours of heavy mood snows with nothing on radar haha.  

I really wouldn't waste too much time worrying about whether you're in the PNS or not, especially the final PNS. We use those to generate our observed snowfall maps. And outliers make the map look like shit, even if you're an outlier because of elevation. We remove reports all the time to smooth the map out. It's not an indictment of your measuring technique (except when it is *cough* Lunenburg *cough*). 

[Baroclinic Zone]

6 hours ago, OceanStWx said:

Actually Joe D rows a dinghy out into the harbor with a portable snow board and 8" gauge during every snow storm now. 

I really wouldn't waste too much time worrying about whether you're in the PNS or not, especially the final PNS. We use those to generate our observed snowfall maps. And outliers make the map look like shit, even if you're an outlier because of elevation. We remove reports all the time to smooth the map out. It's not an indictment of your measuring technique (except when it is *cough* Lunenburg *cough*). 

How is that crazy SOB.  Haven't seen him in years.

[donsutherland1]

6 hours ago, TheSnowman said:

Yes.  Absolutely.  Ray has insight into this as well.  

it's sad that the scientific integrity of data is subordinate to non-scientific factors.

[CoastalWx]

6 hours ago, OceanStWx said:

Actually Joe D rows a dinghy out into the harbor with a portable snow board and 8" gauge during every snow storm now. 

I really wouldn't waste too much time worrying about whether you're in the PNS or not, especially the final PNS. We use those to generate our observed snowfall maps. And outliers make the map look like shit, even if you're an outlier because of elevation. We remove reports all the time to smooth the map out. It's not an indictment of your measuring technique (except when it is *cough* Lunenburg *cough*). 

Is there a way to keep them if they do make sense? If the data is viable...I would think just to leave it in. I know it would help with those maps...but for scientific purposes you could just keep it in. 

[OceanStWx]

13 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

Is there a way to keep them if they do make sense? If the data is viable...I would think just to leave it in. I know it would help with those maps...but for scientific purposes you could just keep it in. 

Our internal storm report system logs it all. We can even log null events if we are cold calling spotters.

It’s just that the maps look so bad when there are high and low bullseyes everywhere. And snow is so subjective to begin with that you end up with a lot of reports not jiving with each other.

[Damage In Tolland]

3 minutes ago, OceanStWx said:

Our internal storm report system logs it all. We can even log null events if we are cold calling spotters.

It’s just that the maps look so bad when there are high and low bullseyes everywhere. And snow is so subjective to begin with that you end up with a lot of reports not jiving with each other.

That’s a really dumb policy considering meteorology is science and elevation differences are everywhere and the reason for the differences is scientific in nature.  And for an organization that touts they are scientific , that’s pretty sad that they would cherry pick to make pretty maps.

[Baroclinic Zone]

It's just a snowfall amount.  I don't thing the general public gives two shits about the actual amount that falls as much as they care about the day-to-day impacts of the snowfall itself.  Conveying the latter is more important to me then whether or not a reporting station measures ever 6 hours and reports 6 vs 10.

[NeonPeon]

31 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said:

That’s a really dumb policy considering meteorology is science and elevation differences are everywhere and the reason for the differences is scientific in nature.  And for an organization that touts they are scientific , that’s pretty sad that they would cherry pick to make pretty maps.

Only if those data weren't used appropriately scientifically, which there's no evidence of.

Data granularity can either impede or assist the speedy communication of information.  There's a science to that as well, and it isn't meteorology.

[tamarack]

10 hours ago, DavisStraight said:

There was a 2-3 inch difference in my area but there's also a 300+ feet in elevation variance. I was 14 at 715, lot of reports of 16 in the area in Connecticut and towns east of me.

Elevation can be huge in marginal events.  Almost 33 years ago we were visiting a friend in Blairstown, NJ, near the Del. Water Gap.  Her house was at 1200' and late evening on April 22 the cold rain began mixing with SN.  When it stopped at 8 next morning we had 13" of paste from a mongo deformation band.  2 miles away at 700' the small downtown had 5" of slop.

No elevation factor at my place - light/mod snow midnight to dawn brought 5.0", just another storm here but noteworthy for a couple reasons.  First, there was no mixing, a rarity this season.  Next, it was just the 2nd 3"+ snowfall with a ratio above 10:1; 1st 2.5" had 0.29" LE but much nicer flakes for the 2nd half gave another 2.5 on 0.19" LE.  Also memorable because much of snow-starved SNE got a real dump.

[powderfreak]

15 hours ago, HIPPYVALLEY said:

Fuk, there can be 1-2" differences between my house on the far N side of Greenfield (almost in Colrain) and far S side (almost in Deerfield).  In fact, for quite a while, when I was submitting my NWS reports I would state exactly where I was because downtown could often have 1" less snow (or sometimes 1" more) even though I am only about 200' higher.

There can be a 12" difference in town up here, lol.  Hell you can do 1" per mile or even more.  

A couple inch difference in towns is nothing at all.  

[Cold Miser]

11 hours ago, OceanStWx said:

Actually Joe D rows a dinghy out into the harbor with a portable snow board and 8" gauge during every snow storm now. 

I really wouldn't waste too much time worrying about whether you're in the PNS or not, especially the final PNS. We use those to generate our observed snowfall maps. And outliers make the map look like shit, even if you're an outlier because of elevation. We remove reports all the time to smooth the map out. It's not an indictment of your measuring technique (except when it is *cough* Lunenburg *cough*). 

If this is true, it is the funniest, and most weenie-ish thing I've ever read.

[tamarack]

4 hours ago, Damage In Tolland said:

That’s a really dumb policy considering meteorology is science and elevation differences are everywhere and the reason for the differences is scientific in nature.  And for an organization that touts they are scientific , that’s pretty sad that they would cherry pick to make pretty maps.

Not if done with some intelligence added.  Think of a hypothetical town that's 400' along the river and 800' on low hills.  In a marginal event the lower elevations are reporting 10-12" while the hilltops run 14-16"; then an obs of 19" comes from a known-to-be-riverside location - it's probably not cherrypicking to toss that one. 

Knowledge of local geography is crucial.  In the messy event of late Feb 2010, the Farmington co-op at 420' recorded 8.8" from 3"+ LE at temps low-mid 30s.  Five miles to the west and 200-250' higher, the cocorahs observer in Temple reported 26.4", exactly 3 times as much.  That observer's reporting, for as long as I've been in the program (started 8/09) appears to give logical/reasonable amounts of snow/rain.  (Unfortunately not snow depth - imagine it gets quite high there.)  

[40/70 Benchmark]

Pretty detailed discussion about why I feel the heaviest snows verified southeast of my forecast. Basically, had the system been about 12 hours further along in its evolution, the H7 low would have been closed off, and that forcing would have been displaced to the north. But since it had only closed up to H85mb, the most intense forcing focused at that level...which is obviously further southeast.

https://easternmassweather.blogspot.com/2019/03/march-4-verification.html

[40/70 Benchmark]

In hindsight, I should have just shifted First Call from early Thursday a bit to the south.

[OceanStWx]

13 hours ago, Damage In Tolland said:

That’s a really dumb policy considering meteorology is science and elevation differences are everywhere and the reason for the differences is scientific in nature.  And for an organization that touts they are scientific , that’s pretty sad that they would cherry pick to make pretty maps.

I know you're trolling but...

There's a reason why you yourself forecast 4-7 with lollis to 10" during events. You know there will be areas that get higher, but you don't know exactly where. Local flow, local elevation, etc will all effect snowfall amounts. But so will measurements. Cory was measuring (not clearing) frequently, and reported his highest snowfall depth which is totally within the guidelines. But if someone measured when the snow ended only, or an hour after, or an hour before, snowfall could be inches different. And mapping software just isn't equipped to handle that level of detail when you have to fill in areas of no obs compared to areas with 3 very different obs in the same town. We could create that map and put it on the website and you would complain it looks like swiss cheese with all the circles in it, but that's what happens when you include every outlying ob. 

There is zero issue with a map that says 8-12" over a large area but including lollis to 16".

[mreaves]

24 minutes ago, OceanStWx said:

I know you're trolling but...

There's a reason why you yourself forecast 4-7 with lollis to 10" during events. You know there will be areas that get higher, but you don't know exactly where. Local flow, local elevation, etc will all effect snowfall amounts. But so will measurements. Cory was measuring (not clearing) frequently, and reported his highest snowfall depth which is totally within the guidelines. But if someone measured when the snow ended only, or an hour after, or an hour before, snowfall could be inches different. And mapping software just isn't equipped to handle that level of detail when you have to fill in areas of no obs compared to areas with 3 very different obs in the same town. We could create that map and put it on the website and you would complain it looks like swiss cheese with all the circles in it, but that's what happens when you include every outlying ob. 

There is zero issue with a map that says 8-12" over a large area but including lollis to 16".

Pffffffffft! 4-7 with lollies to 10” he’s never that reasonable, unless consensus is a rainer. 

[203whiteout]

On 3/4/2019 at 8:45 PM, The 4 Seasons said:

Snow totals around the state from the 3 offices and reports from here.

Measured between 9”/10” right on the beach in Black Rock, Bridgeport (South Coast CT). Not much wind either. Amazing basically nothing all Met winter (dec-feb) yet over 8” of wet snow on my boat in November which was still in the water at the dock btw and then almost a foot and a half over the weekend (both storms) in March smh. Anyways decent storm for all of SNE with exception of Cape. CT overachieved in just about every county. March sun angle is doing damage even with cold temps 

[The 4 Seasons]

Final totals for CT vs. FX, sorry it took 9 months.