Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,605
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    ArlyDude
    Newest Member
    ArlyDude
    Joined

Midwest/Ohio Valley/Great Lakes Snow January 24-26


Baum
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Frog Town said:

Bust here in Toledo with 3" so far.  Looking like maybe another inch.  Antecedent conditions were just a killer plus sitting at 33 degrees for the entire event.  Hard to overcome a January like we had.  

Sorry to hear that, 5” in Waterville however it’s compacting pretty good

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hoosier said:

I was wondering about amounts around there.  Saw that IND just reported a snow depth of 2" but wasn't sure how much actually fell.  0.67" precip so far.

IND had 2.8" on 0.68" liquid, for a ratio barely over 4:1

That's not much higher than you would see with a typical sleet ratio.  

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well this event was a nice overachiever here. We actually got more than the winter storm warning areas in ILX area. 4.6in official total at Peoria but some 5in reports near me. Snow has really compacted down already though. Looks like a few inches now but nice to see the ground covered and everything coated. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Hoosier said:

3.5" is the biggest calendar day snow at ORD since 2/2/22

This seems inflated, a result of IMO poor standard operating procedure for snowfall measurements. Should be every 12 hours, not 6. If snow depth is down to 2” within basically 12 hours of an event starting, how can a reasonable person say that 3.5” actually fell?
 

If the snow compacts/melts 24 hours after the event ends, that’s another thing. But during the event…it just doesn’t pass the reasonability test.

Again, I’m not questioning the measurer - just the SOP. 

When one looks at the historical records after today’s snowfall, it will only look like a slightly below normal snowfall month through 1/25. But that’s ridiculous, because it has hardly snowed in January and has been extremely mild. The worst January ever, but it won’t look that bad in the historical records. When situations like that can be allowed to happen, it should cause the experts to revisit the measuring methodology. 

  • Haha 3
  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, beavis1729 said:

This seems inflated, a result of IMO poor standard operating procedure for snowfall measurements. Should be every 12 hours, not 6. If snow depth is down to 2” within basically 12 hours of an event starting, how can a reasonable person say that 3.5” actually fell?
 

If the snow compacts/melts 24 hours after the event ends, that’s another thing. But during the event…it just doesn’t pass the reasonability test.

Again, I’m not questioning the measurer - just the SOP. 

When one looks at the historical records after today’s snowfall, it will only look like a slightly below normal snowfall month through 1/25. But that’s ridiculous, because it has hardly snowed in January and has been extremely mild. The worst January ever, but it won’t look that bad in the historical records. When situations like that can be allowed to happen, it should cause the experts to revisit the measuring methodology. 

you need to take a long break.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Powerball said:

Looking at posts on Twitter, roads in/around Detroit don't seem to be as bad as you'd expect.

That's perhaps the saving grace with temps around 32-34*F.

Main roads with salt had little impacts. Anything else was a rutted and packed ice adventure on my evening commute. Very awesome scene out there this evening with snow just caked on everything. Had about 5" of super dense compacted snow on the car in Livonia. Plows were working business lots like crazy and there was 8 or 10" between lanes here in Canton. This one's a winner despite the warmth of it. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, beavis1729 said:

This seems inflated, a result of IMO poor standard operating procedure for snowfall measurements. Should be every 12 hours, not 6. If snow depth is down to 2” within basically 12 hours of an event starting, how can a reasonable person say that 3.5” actually fell?
 

If the snow compacts/melts 24 hours after the event ends, that’s another thing. But during the event…it just doesn’t pass the reasonability test.

Again, I’m not questioning the measurer - just the SOP. 

When one looks at the historical records after today’s snowfall, it will only look like a slightly below normal snowfall month through 1/25. But that’s ridiculous, because it has hardly snowed in January and has been extremely mild. The worst January ever, but it won’t look that bad in the historical records. When situations like that can be allowed to happen, it should cause the experts to revisit the measuring methodology. 

So if it snowed 1” and melts by observation time it shouldn’t count as snow? 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, beavis1729 said:

This seems inflated, a result of IMO poor standard operating procedure for snowfall measurements. Should be every 12 hours, not 6. If snow depth is down to 2” within basically 12 hours of an event starting, how can a reasonable person say that 3.5” actually fell?
 

If the snow compacts/melts 24 hours after the event ends, that’s another thing. But during the event…it just doesn’t pass the reasonability test.

Again, I’m not questioning the measurer - just the SOP. 

When one looks at the historical records after today’s snowfall, it will only look like a slightly below normal snowfall month through 1/25. But that’s ridiculous, because it has hardly snowed in January and has been extremely mild. The worst January ever, but it won’t look that bad in the historical records. When situations like that can be allowed to happen, it should cause the experts to revisit the measuring methodology. 

I actually feel during snow events they should measure every hour to get a better sense of how much fell before compaction/melting takes too much effect.
 

If it doesn’t rain for the first 30 days of July but 4” falls on the 31st should that not be counted because then it wont show how dry the month was? 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Officially 4.6" here in Toledo.  A true paste job.  Fought dry air intrusions through the event but had about an hour of +sn.  

Warm ground and temps hovering around 33 gave us a SLR of around 6-8:1

Appears that was a bit higher just to our North and West.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, beavis1729 said:

This seems inflated, a result of IMO poor standard operating procedure for snowfall measurements. Should be every 12 hours, not 6. If snow depth is down to 2” within basically 12 hours of an event starting, how can a reasonable person say that 3.5” actually fell?
 

If the snow compacts/melts 24 hours after the event ends, that’s another thing. But during the event…it just doesn’t pass the reasonability test.

Again, I’m not questioning the measurer - just the SOP. 

When one looks at the historical records after today’s snowfall, it will only look like a slightly below normal snowfall month through 1/25. But that’s ridiculous, because it has hardly snowed in January and has been extremely mild. The worst January ever, but it won’t look that bad in the historical records. When situations like that can be allowed to happen, it should cause the experts to revisit the measuring methodology. 

Just wait until the end of the month when ORD finishes near or above average in January snowfall, despite the month being like +8 lol.  Never been anything like that in January for Chicago, as the warmest Januaries all had well below average smowfall... with many producing barely any snow.  January 1914 might be a comparison, but this January looks likely to finish even warmer.

I'm not sure how the 6 hour thing came about, but it is what it is.  I think it's a reasonable frequency for measurements in most circumstances.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NEILwxbo said:

So if it snowed 1” and melts by observation time it shouldn’t count as snow? 

It’s not black and white - it’s a balance. Just seems strange that 3.5 inches “falls” continuously over 12 hours (not just in the first 2-3 hours), but the depth after those same 12 hours is only 2”.

Part of the frustration is our climo. If ORD’s average seasonal snowfall is only 37” even with this way of measuring, it only feels like 30-35” actually fell when you look at the depth after it snows.

Example - If we receive 15” of snow in December, there should be at least 10” on the ground at the end of the month. Of course there is some melting and compaction…but the depth should build up throughout the winter. We don’t live in Dallas. It’s so hard to maintain a clean snowpack here…and today just sent me over the edge because we finally get the first decent snow of the season…but we can’t even maintain snow cover while the snow is still falling! I’d even be upset if 3.5” dropped to a 2” depth within 5 days after the snow ended…but what happened today is just ridiculous. It’s January, not April.

If snow can’t manage to stay on the ground *while it’s actually falling*…then, yes, that should be considered when determining how much snow is recorded in the books. 

It’s just a rant from a frustrated weenie  - not a big deal. Just ******* tired of dreadful winters over and over again. I grew up in the 70s and 80s - that is what I’m used to. 

  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s not black and white - it’s a balance. Just seems strange that 3.5 inches “falls” continuously over 12 hours (not just in the first 2-3 hours), but the depth after those same 12 hours is only 2”.
Part of the frustration is our climo. If ORD’s average seasonal snowfall is only 37” even with this way of measuring, it only feels like 30-35” actually fell when you look at the depth after it snows.
Example - If we receive 15” of snow in December, there should be at least 10” on the ground at the end of the month. Of course there is some melting and compaction…but the depth should build up throughout the winter. We don’t live in Dallas. It’s so hard to maintain a clean snowpack here…and today just sent me over the edge because we finally get the first decent snow of the season…but we can’t even maintain snow cover while the snow is still falling! I’d even be upset if 3.5” dropped to a 2” depth within 5 days after the snow ended…but what happened today is just ridiculous. It’s January, not April.
If snow can’t manage to stay on the ground *while it’s actually falling*…then, yes, that should be considered when determining how much snow is recorded in the books. 
It’s just a rant from a frustrated weenie  - not a big deal. Just ******* tired of dreadful winters over and over again. I grew up in the 70s and 80s - that is what I’m used to. 
First off, and I'll say this respectfully, try not to stress about weather related things that you can't control. Variability is the hallmark of our winter weather here, regardless of background climate warming context. You're pining for a winter climate that does not exist at this latitude west of the lake.

Now, regarding the measurement, why shouldn't the depth have compacted to 2" by 6pm today? It was a relatively wet snow and the temperature reached the mid 30s. Saying the measurement seems inflated because essentially you're annoyed that we didn't hold onto the max depth is...not a great argument about the measurement being inflated.

A 6 hour board clearing method will often come in higher than measurements of volunteer observers who we can't require to do 6 hour board clearing snow obs, but it does a better job capturing snow that does occur. It also accounts for some compaction. The 6 hour board clearing method has been used for decades at official climate sites and I don't anticipate that changing.

If you want people to respect the posts you make more, rant less about things out of your control, post more about the forecast, ask questions about certain setups if you have any, and enjoy the weather you prefer when we do get it.




  • Like 9
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...