Last Hurrah Obs Thread: 3/13-15/23

[powderfreak]

8 minutes ago, STILL N OF PIKE said:

Simply amazing that Mansfield scores 30” i mean lol 

Your favorite hotel this evening with 3-4 feet on the ground in the courtyard.

[CoastalWx]

21 minutes ago, powderfreak said:

Your favorite hotel this evening with 3-4 feet on the ground in the courtyard.

How much OTG  prior? 18”?

[CoastalWx]

26 minutes ago, powderfreak said:

No, the plot is about 700ft lower and to the north. The COOP stake is off the upper Toll Road. The High Road plot is over off the Gondola top. It’s generally more sheltered.  They both though are in the zone that gets buried.  There’s a whole upper East side bowl almost that stretches like 1+ mile across the top 1,000-1,500ft that just gets crushed to me.

I’m seeing Smuggs reporting 34”, Bolton 32”, Max River Glen 32”… I don’t know how they measured or if they did, but I take pride in knowing we do Mansfield right with consistent data points.

To be honest, the one thing I’ve always told people here is it isn’t even about the amount of snowfall in inches. It’s about measuring it in the same location all the time so you know what the value means. Like if the plot has 5”, people know how that skis around the mountain.  If it has 17”, it’s holy shit good.  But the trick to developing a meaningful snow value for skiing and riding is to be consistent with the location.  Not skiing around and taking numbers from wherever trail you thought was deepest.

The Summit stake is the same. Depths vary all over the place. But that is the same exact location all the time so we know what the value means.  To me that’s how you tell a story, it has to be consistent.

All true. I trust your measurements more than any other ski area. Glad you guys got nailed. Seems like it’s been awhile there. 

[Amped]

5 hours ago, Ginx snewx said:

 

If I extrapolate the rate it snowed here this winter,  it will take us 65 years to get that much snow

[klw]

This has to the last of the storm.  1.1" during the day brings me to 15.2" for the storm

[mreaves]

Just now, klw said:

This has to the last of the storm.  1.1" during the day brings me to 15.2" for the storm

About the same here. Nice overperformer. 

[klw]

Just now, mreaves said:

About the same here. Nice overperformer. 

I just noticed today's inch gets me to the second place spot in my 7 seasons here.

[weathafella]

2 hours ago, BRSno said:

Wow, top 10 worse so far?

I think it’s #4 presuming there’s no more this season.

1936-37:  9.0

2011-12: 9.3

1972-73: 10.3

2022-23: 12.4

1979-80: 12.5

[STILL N OF PIKE]

This was just a monster storm for interior elevations , looking at the PNS ..what Past storm has been bigger for S VT and Monads ? 

[klw]

5 minutes ago, STILL N OF PIKE said:

This was just a monster storm for interior elevations , looking at the PNS ..what Past storm has been bigger for S VT and Monads ? 

March 14, 2017 perhaps.

https://www.fairbanksmuseum.org/eye-on-the-sky/2017-03-14

1888

https://www.woodstockvt.com/the-town/blog/the-biggest-snowstorm-in-vermont-history#:~:text=From The Blog The biggest snowstorm in Vermont history&text=Whether it's referred to as,extreme blizzards in American history.

Dec 21, 2020

https://snowbrains.com/peru-vermont-record-snowfall/

2/14/07

 

[mreaves]

16 minutes ago, STILL N OF PIKE said:

This was just a monster storm for interior elevations , looking at the PNS ..what Past storm has been bigger for S VT and Monads ? 

December 2020 had a lot of similar totals in S VT. 

[STILL N OF PIKE]

4 minutes ago, mreaves said:

December 2020 had a lot of similar totals in S VT. 

That was that 25 mile wide death band from SW of BGM to S Central VT to Central NH 

[klw]

My memory from the Vermont Weather Book is that Peru VT had 55 inches in a multiday storm but I can't find a link online.

[HIPPYVALLEY]

38 minutes ago, STILL N OF PIKE said:

This was just a monster storm for interior elevations , looking at the PNS ..what Past storm has been bigger for S VT and Monads ? 

I bet in terms of qpf to snow this is a contender for #1 in some locales. 
30”-40” of dense is incredible. 

[backedgeapproaching]

5 minutes ago, HIPPYVALLEY said:

I bet in terms of qpf to snow this is a contender for #1 in some locales. 
30”-40” of dense is incredible. 

Yea, this was a good swath of 30-40" totals, not just 1 or 2 one-offs.

1888 for sure basd on what we know i think for sure. Not sure of many other modern day storms? There are also alot more people reporting totals now, so pre social media and cocorahs there would be 1 or 2 random COOPs reporting for a large area sometimes.

[CPcantmeasuresnow]

56 minutes ago, STILL N OF PIKE said:

That was that 25 mile wide death band from SW of BGM to S Central VT to Central NH 

Yes Binghamton actually set their all time record from one storm in that event. I believe it was 40.0 inches even. 

[mreaves]

1 hour ago, STILL N OF PIKE said:

That was that 25 mile wide death band from SW of BGM to S Central VT to Central NH 

Yes, completely different setup but many of the same areas had similar totals. 

[The 4 Seasons]

Snowfall totals for the entire tri-state region, Connecticut and southern New England!

This was a beast to put together and probably the most difficult maps i've ever had to do and took nearly 12 hours. We had such and extremely tight gradient and elevation component which is always hard to represent on a 2D map. 

Will be putting together a season-to-date map to update for the last two events. 

If you have an updated number for the season, let me know. I'll check the New England Snow page but some of you aren't on there @tavwtby@TalcottWx@Connecticut Appleman@JKEisMan@FXWX and anyone else from Litchfield/New London counties 

[The 4 Seasons]

Forecast verification. Could have been better the gradient was much tighter, nearly a razors edge and elevation oriented. NW CT was slightly too low and NE CT a bit too high. All things considered i don't think it was too bad. From what i saw we were one of the lowest out there, especially for southern half of CT. We issued a short-fused update after the storm was underway and snow already falling in NW CT which was much better with the gradient but i'm only using the final call for verification. 

Grade: C+

 

Updated map at 2am Tuesday:

[Modfan2]

4 hours ago, The 4 Seasons said:

Forecast verification. Could have been better the gradient was much tighter, nearly a razors edge and elevation oriented. NW CT was slightly too low and NE CT a bit too high. All things considered i don't think it was too bad. From what i saw we were one of the lowest out there, especially for southern half of CT. We issued a short-fused update after the storm was underway and snow already falling in NW CT which was much better with the gradient but i'm only using the final call for verification. 

Grade: C+

 

Updated map at 2am Tuesday:

We had a trace in Brooklyn

[gonegalt]

17 hours ago, tamarack said:

Reminds me of the SNE bomb of Feb. 1978.  Lived in Fort Kent at that time and we had 2" while some EMA/RI spots had over 3 feet.
And seeing a post from The County is excellent.

Would have been posting longer but lost my password. Northern Maine nearly always misses out on SNE stall/loop bombs- all puked out and filling east by the time we see any. Oh well, if one likes long-lived snow, rather be here!
Moved here from Carrabassett in '02. So much more winter!!

[tunafish]

11 hours ago, powderfreak said:

No, the plot is about 700ft lower and to the north. The COOP stake is off the upper Toll Road. The High Road plot is over off the Gondola top. It’s generally more sheltered.  They both though are in the zone that gets buried.  There’s a whole upper East side bowl almost that stretches like 1+ mile across the top 1,000-1,500ft that just gets crushed to me.

I’m seeing Smuggs reporting 34”, Bolton 32”, Max River Glen 32”… I don’t know how they measured or if they did, but I take pride in knowing we do Mansfield right with consistent data points.

To be honest, the one thing I’ve always told people here is it isn’t even about the amount of snowfall in inches. It’s about measuring it in the same location all the time so you know what the value means. Like if the plot has 5”, people know how that skis around the mountain.  If it has 17”, it’s holy shit good.  But the trick to developing a meaningful snow value for skiing and riding is to be consistent with the location.  Not skiing around and taking numbers from wherever trail you thought was deepest.

The Summit stake is the same. Depths vary all over the place. But that is the same exact location all the time so we know what the value means.  To me that’s how you tell a story, it has to be consistent.

Our stakes are not comparable (obviously). 

My wife is hinting at wanting me to relinquish my NWS stake and associated duties after this season.  

You've articulated key points as to why it's important to have consistency over time, which I will now use to refute my wife's subtle attempts to crush my weenie obsession.

[gonegalt]

16 hours ago, Heisy said:

Congrats to those who cashed in. I enjoyed watching from the side lines. Down here in snow helladelphia we have 0 snow for the season. Maybe a trace but does that really count? This is the first time in my life that I’ve gone an entire year without seeing an inch of snow since 0 chases this year. Life happens. You bet I’ll be going whenever, wherever next year!


.

Enjoy your posts. Get out of Philly.

[Cold Miser]

6 hours ago, The 4 Seasons said:

Forecast verification. Could have been better the gradient was much tighter, nearly a razors edge and elevation oriented. NW CT was slightly too low and NE CT a bit too high. All things considered i don't think it was too bad. From what i saw we were one of the lowest out there, especially for southern half of CT. We issued a short-fused update after the storm was underway and snow already falling in NW CT which was much better with the gradient but i'm only using the final call for verification. 

Grade: C+

 

Updated map at 2am Tuesday:

Can you put a circle of white in the Killingly/ Dayville area to indicate the 0.0 that I received.

Thanks in advance for your continued recording of this disaster of a season. 

[Damage In Tolland]

This is insane. 

 

[CoastalWx]

6 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said:

This is insane. 

 

I would have deleted by entire life if I lived there. Everything. Just completely non-existent to the government and everyone I know. 

[Damage In Tolland]

5 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

I would have deleted by entire life if I lived there. Everything. Just completely non-existent to the government and everyone I know. 

Lol. Just bury your own body in S VT?

[HIPPYVALLEY]

14 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said:

This is insane. 

 

We’ll, it should not come as a surprise with that type of topography. 
Right on the Hudson, back up to big mountains on an easterly flow storm = 

[40/70 Benchmark]

Decent Forecast for Very Difficult & Protracted Major Winter Storm | Eastern Mass Weather

I attribute the forecast not working out east due to less than QPF than modeled on the backside, and not temps....though I know many are claiming victory over less snow due to thermal fields.....having the first 1"+ QPF fall as rain was expected. The primary took longer to shift mid level energy to the coast than modeled.

Final Grade: B-

 

[40/70 Benchmark]

TBH, I flipped to snow a little earlier than I had expected. I think others who may have flipped later than expected were due to more meager fall rates as a result of banded nature on backside.