March 22-23 Storm Thread: Cabins and Pony-Os?

[OceanStWx]

10 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said:

Not so clear to many here . What is LCD by the way.  You govt guys and your acronyms lol. 

Local Climatological Data

Basically all your old Weather Surveillance Offices before they condensed them into WFOs (i.e. the Big Four BOS, PVD, BDL, ORH were all staffed by NWS or contractors at one point). 

Even that record isn't perfect though. We lost our AUG observer for snow about 10 years ago and have never found a replacement willing to do 6 hourly measurements.

[Baroclinic Zone]

1 hour ago, OceanStWx said:

 

Very emotional about snow measurement. My overall feelings are meh, it's not that important whether you do 24 and clear or every 6 and clear. If Ray called me with a report, I trust that he's being meticulous about it. I don't know who was working at BOX that day, but they didn't feel it was representative enough to include (or it just simply got lost in all the reports - it happens).

But like I said you can stick your ruler on the board as many times and often as you like during a storm, you just can only report the maximum depth in that measurement period. So have at it before wind and compaction/melting takes place, that is still a valid ob. Even if you only clear it after 24 hours. Getting into semantics about what actually is fallen snow is silly though. I don't shovel un-compacted snow in the morning. The only argument for shorter intervals when it comes to impacts is for plowing. If you are trying to keep a road clear, then what's coming down hour by hour is important. 

I’m with you, it’s just snow. Emotional about whether someone saw 18” or 24”.  At the end of the day, you know what you measured is right. 

[CapturedNature]

32 minutes ago, OceanStWx said:

It's not really confusing though. We pay LCD observers to take 6 hourly measurements, we ask coops to take 24 hourly measurements. Finding volunteers to take 4 observations a day just isn't feasible for the NWS.

LCD sites have always had 6 hourly measurements because there were mets there taking obs for synoptic hours, we continue that practice for consistency. Coops have never been required to take 6 hourly obs, so the standard is 24 hours (greatest depth of new snow during that time whenever it is that they choose to measure). The standard is 24 hours, but some don't like that because it's less snow than if you did every 6 hours. If you choose to do 6 hours that's fine, but CoCoRaHS and coop guidance is pretty clear that it is the maximum depth of new snow in a 24 hour period.

They should be measuring at the end of a snowfall.  If there are multiple "falls" then they are added together.  The 6 hour measurement didn't start until the 90s at some point and records have been skewed ever since.  A measurement every 24 hours is just as bad though.  One inflates the number and the other deflates it.  A measurement for each snowfall records what fell which is why I always measure when the snow stops falling.  I get that clearing the board at the 24 hour mark also inflates the total but at least I know what fell on a given day.

 

 

[CapturedNature]

5 minutes ago, Baroclinic Zone said:

I’m with you, it’s just snow. Emotional about whether someone saw 18” or 24”.  At the end of the day, you know what you measured is right. 

Snow measurement is serious business in New England! 

[Baroclinic Zone]

Just now, MetHerb said:

Snow measurement is serious business in New England! 

Apparently.  So emotional.  

[OceanStWx]

Just now, MetHerb said:

They should be measuring at the end of a snowfall.  If there are multiple "falls" then they are added together.  The 6 hour measurement didn't start until the 90s at some point and records have been skewed ever since.  A measurement every 24 hours is just as bad though.  One inflates the number and the other deflates it.  A measurement for each snowfall records what fell which is why I always measure when the snow stops falling.  I get that clearing the board at the 24 hour mark also inflates the total but at least I know what fell on a given day.

But that is the standard. We ask coops to measure as close to the end of snow as possible, since that is always the greatest depth of new snowfall. Of course people work and that's not always possible. 

Likewise, as you say if you get multiple events that each melt before the next one starts, you sum the totals. 

[Ginx snewx]

32 minutes ago, Baroclinic Zone said:

Apparently.  So emotional.  

You didn't grasp the science aspect,  its ok.

[dendrite]

A nice look on vis of Tolland his morning with the clear skies.

https://weather.cod.edu/satrad/?parms=local-Rhode_Island-02-48-1-100-1&checked=counties-map&colorbar=undefined

[OceanStWx]

14 minutes ago, dendrite said:

A nice look on vis of Tolland his morning with the clear skies.

https://weather.cod.edu/satrad/?parms=local-Rhode_Island-02-48-1-100-1&checked=counties-map&colorbar=undefined

Kevin as the snow melts from all sides.

[40/70 Benchmark]

2 hours ago, OceanStWx said:

 

Very emotional about snow measurement. My overall feelings are meh, it's not that important whether you do 24 and clear or every 6 and clear. If Ray called me with a report, I trust that he's being meticulous about it. I don't know who was working at BOX that day, but they didn't feel it was representative enough to include (or it just simply got lost in all the reports - it happens).

But like I said you can stick your ruler on the board as many times and often as you like during a storm, you just can only report the maximum depth in that measurement period. So have at it before wind and compaction/melting takes place, that is still a valid ob. Even if you only clear it after 24 hours. Getting into semantics about what actually is fallen snow is silly though. I don't shovel un-compacted snow in the morning. The only argument for shorter intervals when it comes to impacts is for plowing. If you are trying to keep a road clear, then what's coming down hour by hour is important. 

Sorry, you are wrong. The majority of the time it is not important, but when you swipe and clear just before a 4 hour period of 3-4"/hr fluff? It makes a profound difference. And no, they didn't lose anything....they had my 31" posted, then took it out because the cohras from town had like 24.8"...which was the deph, but the six hour clear that I used was much different bc tbere was so much compaction.

[40/70 Benchmark]

Nothing is percect...its not feasible to always be able to capture the max depth, either...especially in a season like this with so many turnovers. But measuring snow FALL and depth are two different concepts. I correctly measured a 31" snowfall by utilizing the method employed by paid observers.

[Ginx snewx]

Just now, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Nothing is percect...its not feasible to always be able to capture the max depth, either...especially in a season like this with so many turnovers. But measuring snow FALL and depth are two different concepts. I correctly measured a 31" snowfall by utilizing the method employed by paid observers.

They don't really care, kind of obvious what the attitude is. 

[OceanStWx]

23 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Nothing is percect...its not feasible to always be able to capture the max depth, either...especially in a season like this with so many turnovers. But measuring snow FALL and depth are two different concepts. I correctly measured a 31" snowfall by utilizing the method employed by paid observers.

You did. And I personally wouldn't have kicked your report out, but that can't be changed now.

But I'm also not wrong about what the policy is. I realize that intense snow rates can really pile up when you shorten your clearing window, but intense snow rates will still pile up even if you aren't clearing the board. If you put a ruler in the ground every hour during 3"/hr snow rates, I guarantee you you'll get a decent total within a couple inches of clearing every 6 hours. If you aren't there to stick a ruler in on the board at that time that's bad luck, but it's totally within the rules for the coops. Most of our volunteers aren't dedicated snow weenies, they just like the weather, or do it because we ask their employers for assistance. If we could get everyone from AMWx to spread out across the CWA and do measurements for us we would do that, but alas nobody wants to live in Eustis year-round. 

[Damage In Tolland]

1 hour ago, dendrite said:

A nice look on vis of Tolland his morning with the clear skies.

https://weather.cod.edu/satrad/?parms=local-Rhode_Island-02-48-1-100-1&checked=counties-map&colorbar=undefined

I think it’s safe to safe to say , we will never see an event like that ever again. An 8 town 6 hour private blizzard . A 38 cane is probably more likely than that setup Friday night 

[40/70 Benchmark]

1 hour ago, OceanStWx said:

You did. And I personally wouldn't have kicked your report out, but that can't be changed now.

But I'm also not wrong about what the policy is. I realize that intense snow rates can really pile up when you shorten your clearing window, but intense snow rates will still pile up even if you aren't clearing the board. If you put a ruler in the ground every hour during 3"/hr snow rates, I guarantee you you'll get a decent total within a couple inches of clearing every 6 hours. If you aren't there to stick a ruler in on the board at that time that's bad luck, but it's totally within the rules for the coops. Most of our volunteers aren't dedicated snow weenies, they just like the weather, or do it because we ask their employers for assistance. If we could get everyone from AMWx to spread out across the CWA and do measurements for us we would do that, but alas nobody wants to live in Eustis year-round. 

I said you are wrong that it isn't important, not what the policy is. The six hour swipe and max depth methods yield drastically different results in our most historic events. Not sure how that isn't important.

[40/70 Benchmark]

1 hour ago, Damage In Tolland said:

I think it’s safe to safe to say , we will never see an event like that ever again. An 8 town 6 hour private blizzard . A 38 cane is probably more likely than that setup Friday night 

Norlun troughs...not as rare as you think.

[Damage In Tolland]

Just now, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Norlun troughs...not as rare as you think.

That wasn’t a Norlun . Not at all. The Mets discussed in length here yesterday what caused it 

[40/70 Benchmark]

3 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said:

That wasn’t a Norlun . Not at all. The Mets discussed in length here yesterday what caused it 

I'm not saying that is what it was. I am saying that norlun troughs produce private blizzards even severe than that.

[wxmanmitch]

Looks like I ignited quite a debate on measuring snow, lol. I don't ordinarily clear the board as much as I did with this storm and I did report my depth change (11") to ALY on Twitter alongside with my 13" total that was obtained from clearing the board. They put the 13" in their PNS.

I'll do the 6 hour clears for longer duration events from now on on one of my boards and do 24 hour clears on the other with maximum depth.

[40/70 Benchmark]

Just now, wxmanmitch said:

Looks like I ignited quite a debate on measuring snow, lol. I don't ordinarily clear the board as much as I did with this storm and I did report my depth change (11") to ALY on Twitter alongside with my 13" total that was obtained from clearing the board. They put the 13" in their PNS.

I'll do the 6 hour clears for longer duration events from now on.

That is what I am going to do in events greater than 12" from now on...report  new snowfall and depth, and let them disseminate as they wish.

[Hoth]

2 hours ago, Damage In Tolland said:

I think it’s safe to safe to say , we will never see an event like that ever again. An 8 town 6 hour private blizzard . A 38 cane is probably more likely than that setup Friday night 

Dunno about that. We've had maybe 3 canes of '38 caliber since settlement in the 1600s. I bet what you saw has a higher return period than that. Not sure what that period is, but have to think it's more common than a direct hit from a cat 3+ cane.

[OceanStWx]

29 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I said you are wrong that it isn't important, not what the policy is. The six hour swipe and max depth methods yield drastically different results in our most historic events. Not sure how that isn't important.

I honestly think you are exaggerating how much totals are inflated by measuring the greatest depth of new snow and measuring and clearing every 6 hours. If you went out every hour and measured new snow, reporting the greatest number you saw, but didn't clear the board until 24 hours your total is not going to be that far off 6 hour clearings. If rates are extreme and you stick a ruler in frequently enough, you'll capture a higher total before compaction. In fact that number may be higher than if you waited until the end of the 6 hour period to measure. 

1 minute ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

That is what I am going to do in events greater than 12" from now on...report  new snowfall and depth, and let them disseminate as they wish.

Depth and new snow are fundamentally different. One is the amount on the ground, the other is what has accumulated on your snow board over the event. I'm not saying that we're looking for a report of the change in snow depth. We're looking for the greatest amount of new snow on your board over the course of the event. 

[40/70 Benchmark]

59 minutes ago, OceanStWx said:

I honestly think you are exaggerating how much totals are inflated by measuring the greatest depth of new snow and measuring and clearing every 6 hours. If you went out every hour and measured new snow, reporting the greatest number you saw, but didn't clear the board until 24 hours your total is not going to be that far off 6 hour clearings. If rates are extreme and you stick a ruler in frequently enough, you'll capture a higher total before compaction. In fact that number may be higher than if you waited until the end of the 6 hour period to measure. 

Depth and new snow are fundamentally different. One is the amount on the ground, the other is what has accumulated on your snow board over the event. I'm not saying that we're looking for a report of the change in snow depth. We're looking for the greatest amount of new snow on your board over the course of the event. 

No I am not, in that type of event. Sorry, but you are incorrect. A fluff bomb accumulating at 3-4"/hr compacts a great deal as it falls. I got 31" via the swipe and clear method, but that actual depth was like 25". Is it a big deal in the vast majority of events? No....but it is in are most important and historic events, although my 31" snowfall last season was admittedly an extreme example because I swiped and cleared just before the heaviest rates began. This season it was not a factor because I didn't get any really large events. I would say a reasonable expectation is for a one inch difference per 10" snowfall...ie a 10" snowfall yields a 9" max depth, 20" and 18", 30" and 27", etc...

Simple as that.

 

I understand very well what depth and snowfall are, and my point is that what cohras are reporting is new snow DEPTH.

[OceanStWx]

9 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

No I am not, in that type of event. Sorry, but you are incorrect. A fluff bomb accumulating at 3-4"/hr compacts a great deal as it falls. I got 31" via the swipe and clear method, but that actual depth was like 25". Is it a big deal in the vast majority of events? No....but it is in are most important and historic events, although my 31" snowfall last season was admittedly an extreme example because I swiped and cleared just before the heaviest rates began. This season it was not a factor because I didn't get any really large events. I would say a reasonable expectation is for a one inch difference per 10" snowfall...ie a 10" snowfall yields a 9" max depth, 20" and 18", 30" and 27", etc...

Simple as that.

 

I understand very well what depth and snowfall are, and my point is that what cohras are reporting is new snow DEPTH.

CoCoRaHS and coops are reporting new snowfall. And a fluff bomb that compacts as it falls, to Brian's point, isn't that just part of what happens to snow. We're not measuring every flake as it stacks up, we're measuring what people have to deal with.

You guys asked what officially is new snowfall, and I gave the answer. It seems that some don't like the answer because it may take away a few inches at the end of the year. You're fine to clear the board every 6 hours, it won't be any different than a LCD site, but any more than that and you're not giving us a number comparable to the rest of our reports. 

[40/70 Benchmark]

41 minutes ago, OceanStWx said:

CoCoRaHS and coops are reporting new snowfall. And a fluff bomb that compacts as it falls, to Brian's point, isn't that just part of what happens to snow. We're not measuring every flake as it stacks up, we're measuring what people have to deal with.

You guys asked what officially is new snowfall, and I gave the answer. It seems that some don't like the answer because it may take away a few inches at the end of the year. You're fine to clear the board every 6 hours, it won't be any different than a LCD site, but any more than that and you're not giving us a number comparable to the rest of our reports. 

Chris, I cleared the board every 6 hours. One of the clears happened to be JUST before the most intense part of the event, so there was a particularly large discrepancy between snowfall and depth, thus my measurement was tossed. Your claim that it will not be any different is complete and utter BS in a very large event, and the issue is magnified dependent upon when the board is clesred. The fact that LCD and cohras measure differently is what I don't like, so stop twisting my argument because you don't understand. 

[OceanStWx]

2 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Chris, I cleared the board every 6 hours. One of the clears happened to be JUST before the most intense part of the event, so there was a particularly large discrepancy between snowfall and depth, thus my measurement was tossed. Your claim that it will not be any different is complete and utter BS in a very large event, and the issue is magnified dependent upon when the board is clesred. The fact that LCD and cohras measure differently is what I don't like, so stop twisting my argument because you don't understand. 

LCD sites measure differently because we've always had synoptic hour observations there. CoCoRaHS was created a decade ago. We don't ask volunteers to measure every 6 hours. 

Your measurement technique during the storm is fine. I don't decide what BOX keeps and what they don't. But I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying wait to measure in 24 hour increments. You can measure as often as you like without clearing, but you can only report the highest snowfall amount in that observation window (whether it's 6 or 24 hours). 

If we really want to get into semantics about what snowfall really is, it's the amount of snow that fell from first flake to last. So really we should measure when the event ends. The only real reason people argue about measurement techniques is not because they want to be accurate, it's because they want to have higher totals.

[Damage In Tolland]

Fight fight fight 

[BombsAway1288]

2 hours ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Norlun troughs...not as rare as you think.

Bingo! I had a norlun event back in NJ, I think it was Jan 2011, that gave me and my surrounding towns, up into Westchester County, NY and extreme SW Fairfield County, CT that gave us 6"-9" in what is probably the same amount of square mileage that the NE CT had last night. 

Many other norluns have done the same to many in New England over the years. Whatever happened in NE CT Friday night in terms of whatever synoptic setup was there probably won't happen for a while but a norlun setup can def do the same type of damage in small areas like what happened in Tolland County the other night

[40/70 Benchmark]

11 minutes ago, OceanStWx said:

LCD sites measure differently because we've always had synoptic hour observations there. CoCoRaHS was created a decade ago. We don't ask volunteers to measure every 6 hours. 

Your measurement technique during the storm is fine. I don't decide what BOX keeps and what they don't. But I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying wait to measure in 24 hour increments. You can measure as often as you like without clearing, but you can only report the highest snowfall amount in that observation window (whether it's 6 or 24 hours). 

If we really want to get into semantics about what snowfall really is, it's the amount of snow that fell from first flake to last. So really we should measure when the event ends. The only real reason people argue about measurement techniques is not because they want to be accurate, it's because they want to have higher totals.

No, I get what you are saying...but getting the max depth method is even more impractical for people than swiping every 6 hours. Regardless, my issue is not which method is used, but that the methodology is not homogeneous between sites....and my frustration is compounded by you dismissing the reality that this inconsistency can lead to large variations in measurements. This has zero to do with wanting higher totals, just use the same damn methodology.

[40/70 Benchmark]

5 minutes ago, BombsAway1288 said:

Bingo! I had a norlun event back in NJ, I think it was Jan 2011, that gave me and my surrounding towns, up into Westchester County, NY and extreme SW Fairfield County, CT that gave us 6"-9" in what is probably the same amount of square mileage that the NE CT had last night. 

Many other norluns have done the same to many in New England over the years. Whatever happened in NE CT Friday night in terms of whatever synoptic setup was there probably won't happen for a while but a norlun setup can def do the same type of damage in small areas like what happened in Tolland County the other night

That may be about as extreme and localized event that you will see in sne, but ME gets those fairly frequently due to norluns.