2025-2026 ENSO

[LibertyBell]

58 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

1955-1956 is probably the closest example.

any similarities between that and 2017-18?

 

[Stormchaserchuck1]

38 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

what made 2010-11 so cold and so snowy in a moderate to strong la nina? we had very strong nao blocking for 2 years (2009-10 and 2010-11), maybe there was a carryover effect (la ninas after el ninos tend to be snowy.)

 

We had a strong -NAO that Winter. It was actually our last -NAO Winter.. every Winter 11-12 to 24-25 has been +NAO. Can you believe that? 14 years in a row. Gawx has correlated increase in -NAO activity with Solar Min.. 09-10 and 10-11 were both at a Solar Min, but there were probably other factors impacting to -NAO, too. 

[LibertyBell]

14 minutes ago, Stormchaserchuck1 said:

We had a strong -NAO that Winter. It was actually our last -NAO Winter.. every Winter 11-12 to 24-25 has been +NAO. Can you believe that? 14 years in a row. Gawx has correlated increase in -NAO activity with Solar Min.. 09-10 and 10-11 were both at a Solar Min, but there were probably other factors impacting to -NAO, too. 

it's absolutely amazing especially considering how much snow and cold there was in 2013-14 and 2014-15 (likely from the -EPO).  We have other snowy/cold winters since then too, another example was 2017-18 (cold and snowy in January and March and even early April) and 2020-21.

 

[Stormchaserchuck1]

19 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

it's absolutely amazing especially considering how much snow and cold there was in 2013-14 and 2014-15 (likely from the -EPO).  We have other snowy/cold winters since then too, another example was 2017-18 (cold and snowy in January and March and even early April) and 2020-21.

NAO is highly correlated to precipitation too, so if the Pacific can line up right in +NAO, it's a good pattern for snow. 

-NAO: -0.5 correlation with temperatures (3/4 times below average)

-NAO: -0.5 correlation with precipitation (3/4 times below average)

-EPO: -0.6 correlation with temperatures (4/5 times below average)

-EPO: -0.1 correlation with precipitation (6/11 times below average)

So a -EPO/+NAO is actually net -temperatures (-0.1) and +precip (+0.3). That's a cold/snowy pattern! (13-14, 14-15)

[40/70 Benchmark]

1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

any similarities between that and 2017-18?

 

Both east-based.

[michsnowfreak]

2 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

That's very interesting, we used to have a lot of below zero temperatures right up to the 80s.  Since then it's only been in 1994 and 2016 that it happened and that's it.  We used to average a below zero temperature every other year, now it's like once a decade lol.

 

Some of the intense arctic shots have been concentrating more in the Plains/Midwest than the east coast. These arctic blasts typically are much colder to our west. The Great Lakes buffer the cold a bit, so in some of the biggest arctic blast we will see a "modification" of the air that often entails brisk winds and lake clouds and flakes, sometimes you get this fine arctic powder than just comes down and coats everything in glitter, despite nothing on radar, with temps being anywhere from 0F to -10F or so, whereas areas west of the lakes will be crystal clear and like -20 to -25F or something. 

One thing that I notice is that the arctic airmasses are windier. I mean, you still get radiational cooling on clear, calm nights (esp with snowcover) but the temps dont tank as much in the metro area as they will in the rural areas. But these arctic blasts are almost always giving us below zero temps with gusty winds, creating brutal wind chills, and we usually get a quick one or two even in the milder winters. Since the much advertised "winter pattern shift" beginning in 2016, we have still seen -30F or colder wind chills in Jan 2019, Dec 2022, Jan 2024, & Jan 2025.

The coldest Ive felt was on Jan 6, 2014. It was about -14F with wind chills near -50F, and I took my gloves off to take this sunset pic and in the seconds I had my hands exposed they burned when I went inside. Not in my wildest dreams did I imagine that winter was only just beginning.

[FPizz]

4 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

That's very interesting, we used to have a lot of below zero temperatures right up to the 80s.  Since then it's only been in 1994 and 2016 that it happened and that's it.  We used to average a below zero temperature every other year, now it's like once a decade lol.

 

Since I've been into weather from the mid-80s on, my area doesn't go below zero very often.  This year, we did it 4 or 5 times.  That is the most that I remember in a season in a long long time. 

[LibertyBell]

2 hours ago, FPizz said:

Since I've been into weather from the mid-80s on, my area doesn't go below zero very often.  This year, we did it 4 or 5 times.  That is the most that I remember in a season in a long long time. 

You live in a great radiational cooling area, I'm envious.  We only get cold air here via CAA.

Our temps closely match JFK.  

[LibertyBell]

2 hours ago, FPizz said:

Since I've been into weather from the mid-80s on, my area doesn't go below zero very often.  This year, we did it 4 or 5 times.  That is the most that I remember in a season in a long long time. 

Our best Arctic outbreaks that I can remember are:

January 1977

Christmas 1980

January 1982

January 1984

January 1985*

January 1994

February 2016

*this was our top Arctic outbreak

[LibertyBell]

4 hours ago, michsnowfreak said:

Some of the intense arctic shots have been concentrating more in the Plains/Midwest than the east coast. These arctic blasts typically are much colder to our west. The Great Lakes buffer the cold a bit, so in some of the biggest arctic blast we will see a "modification" of the air that often entails brisk winds and lake clouds and flakes, sometimes you get this fine arctic powder than just comes down and coats everything in glitter, despite nothing on radar, with temps being anywhere from 0F to -10F or so, whereas areas west of the lakes will be crystal clear and like -20 to -25F or something. 

One thing that I notice is that the arctic airmasses are windier. I mean, you still get radiational cooling on clear, calm nights (esp with snowcover) but the temps dont tank as much in the metro area as they will in the rural areas. But these arctic blasts are almost always giving us below zero temps with gusty winds, creating brutal wind chills, and we usually get a quick one or two even in the milder winters. Since the much advertised "winter pattern shift" beginning in 2016, we have still seen -30F or colder wind chills in Jan 2019, Dec 2022, Jan 2024, & Jan 2025.

The coldest Ive felt was on Jan 6, 2014. It was about -14F with wind chills near -50F, and I took my gloves off to take this sunset pic and in the seconds I had my hands exposed they burned when I went inside. Not in my wildest dreams did I imagine that winter was only just beginning.

Wow, I love this sunset image.  Have you ever seen pink snow? I have on two occasions-- January 2004 (sunrise) and February 2009 (sunset).

 

Heavy falling snow turns pink through a sunrise or sunset.

 

[bluewave]

21 hours ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Absolutely agree with the underlined portion.

 

As for the last portion, you keep acting like this is standardized and it is not. The fact of the matter is that the predominate type of snowfall measurtement has moved away from the 6 hour swipe method with the exception of the major airports. The majority of spotters are not clearing and are discouraged from doing so. In March 2018, I had a 31.5" snowfall total discounted by the NWS because it was obtained but the 6 hour clear method...they accepted another report from that same town of 25", which was uncoincidentally was my final depth.

Snowfall totals from the late 1800s to around 1980 in reality were in reality 15-20% higher using today’s measurement techniques. So while the snows during the 2010s were impressive, they would have been 15-20% lower using the old measurement standards. So in reality the 2010s were a transient decadal increase against a long term decline in snowfall.
 

https://news.ucar.edu/14009/snowfall-measurement-flaky-history

As a hydrometeorological instructor in UCAR’s COMET program and a weather observer for the National Weather Service, I am keenly interested in weather trends. In this case, climate change is an important factor to explore, since we know that the heaviest precipitation events have intensified in many parts of the world (see related story: Torrents and droughts and twisters - oh my!).

But when we turn to snowstorms in the Northeast, or elsewhere in the U.S., there is an additional factor at work when comparing modern numbers with historical ones. Quite simply, our measuring techniques have changed, and we are not necessarily comparing apples to apples. In fact, the apparent trend toward bigger snowfalls is at least partially the result of new—and more accurate—ways of measuring snowfall totals. Climate studies carefully select a subset of stations with consistent snow records, or avoid the snowfall variable altogether.

Official measurement of snowfall these days uses a flat, usually white, surface called a snowboard (which pre-dates the popular winter sport equipment of the same name). The snowboard depth measurement is done ideally every 6 hours, but not more frequently, and the snow is cleared after each measurement. At the end of the snowfall, all of the measurements are added up for the storm total. 

NOAA’s cooperative climate observers and thousands of volunteers with the Community Collaborative Rain, Hail and Snow (CoCoRaHS), a nationwide observer network, are trained in this method. This practice first became standard at airports starting in the 1950s, but later at other official climate reporting sites, such as Manhattan’s Central Park, where 6-hourly measurements did not become routine until the 1990s.

Earlier in our weather history, the standard practice was to record snowfall amounts less frequently, such as every 12 or 24 hours, or even to take just one measurement of depth on the ground at the end of the storm.

You might think that one or two measurements per day should add up to pretty much the same as measurements taken every 6 hours during the storm. It’s a logical assumption, but you would be mistaken. Snow on the ground gets compacted as additional snow falls. Therefore, multiple measurements during a storm typically result in a higher total than if snowfall is derived from just one or two measurements per day.

That can make quite a significant difference. It turns out that it’s not uncommon for the snow on the ground at the end of a storm to be 15 to 20 percent less than the total that would be derived from multiple snowboard measurements.  As the cooperative climate observer for Boulder, Colorado, I examined the 15 biggest snowfalls of the last two decades, all measured at the NOAA campus in Boulder. The sum of the snowboard measurements averaged 17 percent greater than the maximum depth on the ground at the end of the storm. For a 20-inch snowfall, that would be a boost of 3.4 inches—enough to dethrone many close rivals on the top-10 snowstorm list that were not necessarily lesser storms!

Another common practice at the cooperative observing stations prior to 1950 did not involve measuring snow at all, but instead took the liquid derived from the snow and applied a 10:1 ratio (every inch of liquid equals ten inches of snow). This is no longer the official practice and has become increasingly less common since 1950. But it too introduces a potential low bias in historic snowfalls because in most parts of the country (and in the recent blizzard in the Northeast) one inch of liquid produces more than 10 inches of snow.

This means that many of the storms from the 1980s or earlier would probably appear in the record as bigger storms if the observers had used the currently accepted methodology. Now, for those of you northeasterners with aching backs from shoveling, I am not saying that your recent storm wasn’t big in places like Boston, Portland, or Long Island. But I am saying that some of the past greats—the February Blizzard of 1978, the Knickerbocker storm of January 1922, and the great Blizzard of March 1888—are probably underestimated.

So keep in mind when viewing those lists of snowy greats: the older ones are not directly comparable with those in recent decades. It’s not as bad as comparing apples to oranges, but it may be like comparing apples to crabapples.

Going forward, we can look for increasingly accurate snow totals. Researchers at NCAR and other organizations are studying new approaches for measuring snow more accurately (see related story: Snowfall, inch by inch).  

But we can’t apply those techniques to the past. For now, all we can say is that snowfall measurements taken more than about 20 or 30 years ago may be unsuitable for detecting trends – and perhaps snowfall records from the past should not be melting away quite as quickly as it appears.

Update • January 29, 2015 | Thanks to thoughtful feedback by several colleagues, this article has been updated. Paragraph 3 now includes a description of how climate studies handle the data inconsistencies. Paragraph 9 was added to describe the pre-1950s practice, no longer in wide use, of recording liquid water content only, and not snow depth.

[LibertyBell]

2 minutes ago, bluewave said:

Snowfall totals from the late 1800s to around 1980 in reality were in reality 15-20% higher using today’s measurement techniques. So while the snows during the 2010s were impressive, they would have been 15-20% lower using the old measurement standards. So in reality the 2010s were a transient decadal increase against a long term decline in snowfall. 
 

https://news.ucar.edu/14009/snowfall-measurement-flaky-history

As a hydrometeorological instructor in UCAR’s COMET program and a weather observer for the National Weather Service, I am keenly interested in weather trends. In this case, climate change is an important factor to explore, since we know that the heaviest precipitation events have intensified in many parts of the world (see related story: Torrents and droughts and twisters - oh my!).

But when we turn to snowstorms in the Northeast, or elsewhere in the U.S., there is an additional factor at work when comparing modern numbers with historical ones. Quite simply, our measuring techniques have changed, and we are not necessarily comparing apples to apples. In fact, the apparent trend toward bigger snowfalls is at least partially the result of new—and more accurate—ways of measuring snowfall totals. Climate studies carefully select a subset of stations with consistent snow records, or avoid the snowfall variable altogether.

Official measurement of snowfall these days uses a flat, usually white, surface called a snowboard (which pre-dates the popular winter sport equipment of the same name). The snowboard depth measurement is done ideally every 6 hours, but not more frequently, and the snow is cleared after each measurement. At the end of the snowfall, all of the measurements are added up for the storm total. 

NOAA’s cooperative climate observers and thousands of volunteers with the Community Collaborative Rain, Hail and Snow (CoCoRaHS), a nationwide observer network, are trained in this method. This practice first became standard at airports starting in the 1950s, but later at other official climate reporting sites, such as Manhattan’s Central Park, where 6-hourly measurements did not become routine until the 1990s.

Earlier in our weather history, the standard practice was to record snowfall amounts less frequently, such as every 12 or 24 hours, or even to take just one measurement of depth on the ground at the end of the storm.

You might think that one or two measurements per day should add up to pretty much the same as measurements taken every 6 hours during the storm. It’s a logical assumption, but you would be mistaken. Snow on the ground gets compacted as additional snow falls. Therefore, multiple measurements during a storm typically result in a higher total than if snowfall is derived from just one or two measurements per day.

That can make quite a significant difference. It turns out that it’s not uncommon for the snow on the ground at the end of a storm to be 15 to 20 percent less than the total that would be derived from multiple snowboard measurements.  As the cooperative climate observer for Boulder, Colorado, I examined the 15 biggest snowfalls of the last two decades, all measured at the NOAA campus in Boulder. The sum of the snowboard measurements averaged 17 percent greater than the maximum depth on the ground at the end of the storm. For a 20-inch snowfall, that would be a boost of 3.4 inches—enough to dethrone many close rivals on the top-10 snowstorm list that were not necessarily lesser storms!

Another common practice at the cooperative observing stations prior to 1950 did not involve measuring snow at all, but instead took the liquid derived from the snow and applied a 10:1 ratio (every inch of liquid equals ten inches of snow). This is no longer the official practice and has become increasingly less common since 1950. But it too introduces a potential low bias in historic snowfalls because in most parts of the country (and in the recent blizzard in the Northeast) one inch of liquid produces more than 10 inches of snow.

This means that many of the storms from the 1980s or earlier would probably appear in the record as bigger storms if the observers had used the currently accepted methodology. Now, for those of you northeasterners with aching backs from shoveling, I am not saying that your recent storm wasn’t big in places like Boston, Portland, or Long Island. But I am saying that some of the past greats—the February Blizzard of 1978, the Knickerbocker storm of January 1922, and the great Blizzard of March 1888—are probably underestimated.

So keep in mind when viewing those lists of snowy greats: the older ones are not directly comparable with those in recent decades. It’s not as bad as comparing apples to oranges, but it may be like comparing apples to crabapples.

Going forward, we can look for increasingly accurate snow totals. Researchers at NCAR and other organizations are studying new approaches for measuring snow more accurately (see related story: Snowfall, inch by inch).  

But we can’t apply those techniques to the past. For now, all we can say is that snowfall measurements taken more than about 20 or 30 years ago may be unsuitable for detecting trends – and perhaps snowfall records from the past should not be melting away quite as quickly as it appears.

Update • January 29, 2015 | Thanks to thoughtful feedback by several colleagues, this article has been updated. Paragraph 3 now includes a description of how climate studies handle the data inconsistencies. Paragraph 9 was added to describe the pre-1950s practice, no longer in wide use, of recording liquid water content only, and not snow depth.

January 1996 was also vastly underestimated, especially at NYC.

 

[bluewave]

4 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

January 1996 was also vastly underestimated, especially at NYC.

 

Nothing compared to the under-measurement during the blizzard of 1888.

https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/US-Snowfall-1900-2019-Decade-Decade-Look

Another example: The great Blizzard of March 1888 brought Central Park 2.10” of melted precipitation, resulting in the official 21.0” snowfall reported. Since temperatures during the height of the blizzard were in the low teens, it is likely that the ratio was much greater than 10 to 1, and thus the actual snowfall considerably more than the 21.0” officially reported.

[LibertyBell]

11 minutes ago, bluewave said:

Nothing compared to the under-measurement during the blizzard of 1888.

https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/US-Snowfall-1900-2019-Decade-Decade-Look

Another example: The great Blizzard of March 1888 brought Central Park 2.10” of melted precipitation, resulting in the official 21.0” snowfall reported. Since temperatures during the height of the blizzard were in the low teens, it is likely that the ratio was much greater than 10 to 1, and thus the actual snowfall considerably more than the 21.0” officially reported.

why can't we just adjust these storms with a sliding scale snow to liquid ratio based on temperatures during the storm?

Chris, offhand do you have a list of the top 5 liquid equivalent all snow events?

January 2016 must be number one, it was 3 inches LE at JFK.

[40/70 Benchmark]

22 minutes ago, bluewave said:

Snowfall totals from the late 1800s to around 1980 in reality were in reality 15-20% higher using today’s measurement techniques. So while the snows during the 2010s were impressive, they would have been 15-20% lower using the old measurement standards. So in reality the 2010s were a transient decadal increase against a long term decline in snowfall.
 

https://news.ucar.edu/14009/snowfall-measurement-flaky-history

As a hydrometeorological instructor in UCAR’s COMET program and a weather observer for the National Weather Service, I am keenly interested in weather trends. In this case, climate change is an important factor to explore, since we know that the heaviest precipitation events have intensified in many parts of the world (see related story: Torrents and droughts and twisters - oh my!).

But when we turn to snowstorms in the Northeast, or elsewhere in the U.S., there is an additional factor at work when comparing modern numbers with historical ones. Quite simply, our measuring techniques have changed, and we are not necessarily comparing apples to apples. In fact, the apparent trend toward bigger snowfalls is at least partially the result of new—and more accurate—ways of measuring snowfall totals. Climate studies carefully select a subset of stations with consistent snow records, or avoid the snowfall variable altogether.

Official measurement of snowfall these days uses a flat, usually white, surface called a snowboard (which pre-dates the popular winter sport equipment of the same name). The snowboard depth measurement is done ideally every 6 hours, but not more frequently, and the snow is cleared after each measurement. At the end of the snowfall, all of the measurements are added up for the storm total. 

NOAA’s cooperative climate observers and thousands of volunteers with the Community Collaborative Rain, Hail and Snow (CoCoRaHS), a nationwide observer network, are trained in this method. This practice first became standard at airports starting in the 1950s, but later at other official climate reporting sites, such as Manhattan’s Central Park, where 6-hourly measurements did not become routine until the 1990s.

Earlier in our weather history, the standard practice was to record snowfall amounts less frequently, such as every 12 or 24 hours, or even to take just one measurement of depth on the ground at the end of the storm.

You might think that one or two measurements per day should add up to pretty much the same as measurements taken every 6 hours during the storm. It’s a logical assumption, but you would be mistaken. Snow on the ground gets compacted as additional snow falls. Therefore, multiple measurements during a storm typically result in a higher total than if snowfall is derived from just one or two measurements per day.

That can make quite a significant difference. It turns out that it’s not uncommon for the snow on the ground at the end of a storm to be 15 to 20 percent less than the total that would be derived from multiple snowboard measurements.  As the cooperative climate observer for Boulder, Colorado, I examined the 15 biggest snowfalls of the last two decades, all measured at the NOAA campus in Boulder. The sum of the snowboard measurements averaged 17 percent greater than the maximum depth on the ground at the end of the storm. For a 20-inch snowfall, that would be a boost of 3.4 inches—enough to dethrone many close rivals on the top-10 snowstorm list that were not necessarily lesser storms!

Another common practice at the cooperative observing stations prior to 1950 did not involve measuring snow at all, but instead took the liquid derived from the snow and applied a 10:1 ratio (every inch of liquid equals ten inches of snow). This is no longer the official practice and has become increasingly less common since 1950. But it too introduces a potential low bias in historic snowfalls because in most parts of the country (and in the recent blizzard in the Northeast) one inch of liquid produces more than 10 inches of snow.

This means that many of the storms from the 1980s or earlier would probably appear in the record as bigger storms if the observers had used the currently accepted methodology. Now, for those of you northeasterners with aching backs from shoveling, I am not saying that your recent storm wasn’t big in places like Boston, Portland, or Long Island. But I am saying that some of the past greats—the February Blizzard of 1978, the Knickerbocker storm of January 1922, and the great Blizzard of March 1888—are probably underestimated.

So keep in mind when viewing those lists of snowy greats: the older ones are not directly comparable with those in recent decades. It’s not as bad as comparing apples to oranges, but it may be like comparing apples to crabapples.

Going forward, we can look for increasingly accurate snow totals. Researchers at NCAR and other organizations are studying new approaches for measuring snow more accurately (see related story: Snowfall, inch by inch).  

But we can’t apply those techniques to the past. For now, all we can say is that snowfall measurements taken more than about 20 or 30 years ago may be unsuitable for detecting trends – and perhaps snowfall records from the past should not be melting away quite as quickly as it appears.

Update • January 29, 2015 | Thanks to thoughtful feedback by several colleagues, this article has been updated. Paragraph 3 now includes a description of how climate studies handle the data inconsistencies. Paragraph 9 was added to describe the pre-1950s practice, no longer in wide use, of recording liquid water content only, and not snow depth.

I don't care what the article states, I know for a fact that it isn't standardized. Again...I have had a 6 hourly measurement discarded by BOX, so perhaps they need to read your article.

[LibertyBell]

Just now, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I don't care what the article states, I know for a fact that it isn't standardized.

We could standardize it by simply using a sliding scale snowfall to liquid ratio depending on temperatures.  It won't always be accurate but it will be consistent.

[40/70 Benchmark]

1 minute ago, LibertyBell said:

We could standardize it by simply using a sliding scale snowfall to liquid ratio depending on temperatures.  It won't always be accurate but it will be consistent.

A significant, if not majority of the spotter snowfall reports that comporise the official NWS snowfall total maps are depth measurements. I know this for a fact...I'm sure you can find an article that claims that the sun if brown if you look long enough, but that doesn't make it so.

[LibertyBell]

10 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

A significant, if not majority of the spotter snowfall reports that comporise the official NWS snowfall total maps are depth measurements. I know this for a fact...I'm sure you can find an article that claims that the sun if brown if you look long enough, but that doesn't make it so.

I agree with you, I only know a few people who clear a snowboard every 6 hours.  Maybe the NWS just wanted everyone to use the same method so they told everyone to just measure the snow at the end of the storm (or just after it changes over in a mixed event) because they knew most wouldn't bother to measure every 6 hours and clear a board?

 

[40/70 Benchmark]

10 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

I agree with you, I only know a few people who clear a snowboard every 6 hours.  Maybe the NWS just wanted everyone to use the same method so they told everyone to just measure the snow at the end of the storm (or just after it changes over in a mixed event) because they knew most wouldn't bother to measure every 6 hours and clear a board?

 

Yea, I'm not sure why, but I know that the NWS is now discouraging spotters from doing the swipe and clear method. I have all of the respect in the world for Chris and I'm not trying to be rude, but I deal with the NWS regularly and they defer to the lower depth measurements in larger events when theere is a noticeable contrast. It doesn't matter in 95% of the storms, but obviously it does in upper tier events. 

Even the airports that do the 6 hour method are often not meticulous enough...they frequently underreport in mixed events because they measure after some has melted...its very common.

[LibertyBell]

2 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Yea, I'm not sure why, but I know that the NWS is now discouraging spotters from doing the swipe and clear method. I have all of the respect in the world for Chris and I'm not trying to be rude, but I deal with the NWS regularly and they defer to the lower depth measurements in larger events when theere is a noticeable contrast. It doesn't matter in 95% of the storms, but obviously it does in upper tier events. 

Even the airports that do the 6 hour method are often not meticulous enough...they frequently underreport in mixed events because they measure after some has melted...its very common.

Going back to the April Fools Day storm, did you measure it both ways back then too, Ray? Was there a difference? I think that was an even bigger storm for you than March 2018 was wasn't it?

[40/70 Benchmark]

I think even if someone has every intention of considering data 100% objectively, there can be some level of inherent confirmation bias at play with one has their mind made up on an issue. 

[40/70 Benchmark]

4 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Going back to the April Fools Day storm, did you measure it both ways back then too, Ray? Was there a difference? I think that was an even bigger storm for you than March 2018 was wasn't it?

I wasn't dilligent at all back then as a sophomore in HS...I went to bed a bit after midnight, at which point my last measurement was around 1'. I think the total snowfall was very comparable to the March 2018 event, but the April fools event was cement and the depth may have been a bit greater. It was definitely more impressive than the quickly sublimating powder of March 2018. The April Fools day event plastered everything.

[bluewave]

16 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Yea, I'm not sure why, but I know that the NWS is now discouraging spotters from doing the swipe and clear method. I have all of the respect in the world for Chris and I'm not trying to be rude, but I deal with the NWS regularly and they defer to the lower depth measurements in larger events when theere is a noticeable contrast. It doesn't matter in 95% of the storms, but obviously it does in upper tier events. 

The issue isn’t your experience with the measurements during recent times but how snowfall was measured before your time from the late 1800s to the 1950 to 1980 period. 

[40/70 Benchmark]

9 minutes ago, bluewave said:

The issue isn’t your experience with the measurements during recent times but how snowfall was measured before your time from the late 1800s to the 1950 to 1980 period. 

Its the same thing......the issue is measuring technique back then relative to now...and I'm telling you that the swipe method isn't as consistent and prominent as you are implying.

I also would question how reliable measurements were 100 to 150 years ago in general........I think the better argument from your POV would be perhaps some of the higher totals were missed back then because the array of reports was probably not as dense and expansive, so perhaps some of the higher measurements were missed.

[LibertyBell]

18 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I wasn't dilligent at all back then as a sophomore in HS...I went to bed a bit after midnight, at which point my last measurement was around 1'. I think the total snowfall was very comparable to the March 2018 event, but the April fools event was cement and the depth may have been a bit greater. It was definitely more impressive than the quickly sublimating powder of March 2018. The April Fools day event plastered everything.

I wonder how the LE totals from the two storms would compare?

Maybe 3" LE from the 1997 event but less than that from the 2018 event?

[LibertyBell]

6 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Its the same thing......the issue is measuring technique back then relative to now...and I'm telling you that the swipe method isn't as consistent and prominent as you are implying.

I also would question how reliable measurements were 100 to 150 years ago in general........I think the better argument from your POV would be perhps some of the higher totals were missed back then because the array of reports was probably not as dense and expansive, so perhaps some of the higher measurements were missed.

I definitely question some of these measurements for the March 1888 superblizzard.

21 inches in Central Park

26 inches in southern Brooklyn

35 inches in northern Queens

38 inches on the north shore of Long Island

44 inches on the south shore of CT

 

[40/70 Benchmark]

1 minute ago, LibertyBell said:

I wonder how the LE totals from the two storms would compare?

Maybe 3" LE from the 1997 event but less than that from the 2018 event?

Oh, no contest as far as LE....my ratios were probably near 20:1 during the height of March 2018. 1997 was probably 10:1, at best. The latter was far more impressive.

[40/70 Benchmark]

11 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

I definitely question some of these measurements for the March 1888 superblizzard.

21 inches in Central Park

26 inches in southern Brooklyn

35 inches in northern Queens

38 inches on the north shore of Long Island

44 inches on the south shore of CT

 

Yea, you're telling me that some folks back in 1888...life in complete dissaray from the storm, didn't hop off off their horse and buggies and measure in a drift? Yea, little Joey has typhoid, Mary is lost in the storm and Billy, with the gimpy leg, is frost bitten and dying from the measles.....but let me be extra meticulous with my measurement and be certain I'm not measuring in a drift so that Chris can go back to the future and prove it doesn't snow anymore .

Gotcha-

[LibertyBell]

Just now, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Yea, you're telling me that some folks back in 1888...life in complete dissaray from the storm, didn't hop off off their horse and buggies and measure in drift? Yea, little Joey has typhoid, Mary is lost in the storm and Billy with the gimpy leg is frost bitten and dying from the measles.....but let me be extra meticulous with my measurement and be certain I'm not measuring a drift.

Gotcha-

Yeah I don't know which way to go with those measurements, some may be too low, others may be too high.  I could see it going either way.

Also, over 440 people died in that storm in NYC alone so they likely weren't thinking too much about making proper measurements.

 

[40/70 Benchmark]

4 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Yeah I don't know which way to go with those measurements, some may be too low, others may be too high.  I could see it going either way.

Also, over 440 people died in that storm in NYC alone so they likely weren't thinking too much about making proper measurements.

 

Absolutely....which is my point. Measurements are a crap shoot....they are now and certainly were then, so its difficult to say anything with absolute certitude except that technique remains inconsistent today.