2025-2026 ENSO

[LibertyBell]

5 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Commando pilgrims.

Yes, this is why they were called minutemen....

[TheClimateChanger]

18 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Thanks, in the Pennsylvania Weather Book it was reported that both New York City and Philadelphia had 100 inches of snow and constant snowcover from Thanksgiving to St Patrick's Day a few times in the 1800s (and likely in the 1700s too).  I forgot what years they pointed to but they likely included 1804-1805, 1835-1836 and a few others.  In the 1700s 1782-83 should be included in that list since there was a huge volcanic eruption in Iceland that year and Washington's diary mentions a dozen blizzards in Morristown NJ and the ink in his pen freezing there lol.

I love these old historic accounts.

 

By the way, Roger posted snowfall records from Providence RI going back to 1831 in a pdf file in the CC subforum, that may be of some interest.

 

I was recently reading Leonard Hill's meteorological journal for East Bridgewater, Massachusetts, which extends from 1806-1869. One thing I found interesting was the observations from 1816.

Interesting observations: April 28 - "sun red"; April 29 - "sun red"; April 30 - "spots on the sun -- very red"; May 1 - "sun red"; May 5 - "sun red"; May 6 - "spots on sun";  May 18 - "sun red"; May 19 - "red spots on sun"; June 1 - "red sun"; June 21 - "spots on sun; sun red"; August 19 - "spots on sun"

We can also see the likely cause of the failed harvest. While the journal probably seems quite a bit colder to us, it looks like most of the weather wasn't too out of the ordinary for the journalist's time. An April with 4" of snow on April 12, that lingers for a few days, with some additional light snows on April 18 & 20, are described as "mild" and "little snow." But we see there was a heavy killing frost on June 10. Afterwards, it seems like crops were progressing okay, albeit perhaps a bit droughty, but in the end of September, a hard freeze struck before the crop was ready probably owing to having been replanted after the June frost?

[TheClimateChanger]

Just now, TheClimateChanger said:

I was recently reading Leonard Hill's meteorological journal for East Bridgewater, Massachusetts, which extends from 1806-1869. One thing I found interesting was the observations from 1816.

Interesting observations: April 28 - "sun red"; April 29 - "sun red"; April 30 - "spots on the sun -- very red"; May 1 - "sun red"; May 5 - "sun red"; May 6 - "spots on sun";  May 18 - "sun red"; May 19 - "red spots on sun"; June 1 - "red sun"; June 21 - "spots on sun; sun red"; August 19 - "spots on sun"

We can also see the likely cause of the failed harvest. While the journal probably seems quite a bit colder to us, it looks like most of the weather wasn't too out of the ordinary for the journalist's time. An April with 4" of snow on April 12, that lingers for a few days, with some additional light snows on April 18 & 20, are described as "mild" and "little snow." But we see there was a heavy killing frost on June 10. Afterwards, it seems like crops were progressing okay, albeit perhaps a bit droughty, but in the end of September, a hard freeze struck before the crop was ready probably owing to having been replanted after the June frost?

 

While there are other references to a "red sun" - not as frequent as these - strewn throughout the journal. The instances where sunspots were visible to the naked eye are the only instances noted in the entire journal. The sunspot activity might be a bit of a surprise as this was during the height of the Dalton Minimum. However, this does correspond with the maximum for Solar Cycle VI, which occurred in April 1816. So, there must have a fair amount of sunspot activity at that time despite the relative minimum of solar activity.

[LibertyBell]

1 hour ago, TheClimateChanger said:

While there are other references to a "red sun" - not as frequent as these - strewn throughout the journal. The instances where sunspots were visible to the naked eye are the only instances noted in the entire journal. The sunspot activity might be a bit of a surprise as this was during the height of the Dalton Minimum. However, this does correspond with the maximum for Solar Cycle VI, which occurred in April 1816. So, there must have a fair amount of sunspot activity at that time despite the relative minimum of solar activity.

Sunspots visible with the naked eye are extraordinary!  The sun is blindingly bright, you usually need a solar filter to see them (for example-- last year.)

I would add that them being visible by day (and the extreme cold in the summer) might also be related to the eruption of Tambora which occurred around then? Wasn't 1816 the year without a summer? The volcanic eruption could have the dual effect of cooling the climate and dimming the sun -- which would make the sunspots easier to see with the naked eyes (still not recommended-- looking at the sun directly except during a total solar eclipse at totality will damage your eyes.)

 

 

By the way yesterday was the one year anniversary of the total solar eclipse-- it seems like a century ago lol.

[TheClimateChanger]

Just now, LibertyBell said:

Sunspots visible with the naked eye are extraordinary!  The sun is blindingly bright, you usually need a solar filter to see them (for example-- last year.)

I would add that them being visible by day (and the extreme cold in the summer) might also be related to the eruption of Tambora which occurred around then? Wasn't 1816 the year without a summer? In volcanic eruption could have the dual effect of cooling the climate and dimming the sun -- which would make the sunspots easier to see with the naked eyes (still not recommended-- looking at the sun directly except during a total solar eclipse at totality will damage your eyes.)

 

 

By the way yesterday was the one year anniversary of the total solar eclipse-- it seems like a century ago lol.

Yeah, that's why I was pointing out those observations. 1816 is known as the "year without a summer" due to the Tambora eruption the year prior.

[LibertyBell]

2 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Yeah, that's why I was pointing out those observations. 1816 is known as the "year without a summer" due to the Tambora eruption the year prior.

It's fascinating that Tambora could be the reason that sunspots would be visible by the unaided eye. I hadn't thought of that.

[bluewave]

2 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

The zookeeper at Central Park is another story, you know they haven't properly measured a snowfall when the amounts are reported as 1.0, 6.0, 10.0, etc.  In one winter they had like 5 snowfall reports that ended with a .0 at the end.

Sometimes they don't even measure all the way to the end of the storm. I remember one event pretty clearly (the 10.0 event) where they made the last measurement at 7 PM and it kept snowing until well after midnight and the 7 PM measurement was taken as the final total.

Can't be bothered to wake up in the middle of the night to make a final measurement I guess.

 

There's also the thing about adjusting snowfall totals days or weeks after an event but that's another story altogether lol.

 

The recent issue with the Central Park snowfall measurements isn’t about 12 or 24 hour measurements like they did from the late 1800s into the mid 1900s vs more frequent measurements today. It’s that the warmer recent winters caused the snowfall to melt before the 6 hr measurements were taken. So they waited until several hours after the snow stopped to measure when some of it already melted. They should have at least measured when the snowfall stopped instead of waiting hours and hours to measure after when the temps went above freezing.

[michsnowfreak]

2 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

I'm not going to make too much of this but we had a suspect adjustment made just this past season and I checked with one of the CT Mets who makes seasonal snowfall maps for New England and for our area too and he found it weird too and had no explanation for it.

The jist of it is this, there was an event where JFK measured 2.6 inches and NYC measured only 1.2 inches (this was one of those storms where the zookeeper made his final measurement hours before the storm ended.)  No way could this be right we all had 2-4 inches in this storm.  Wouldn't want to make a big deal about this but a bunch of people wrote to the NWS about the discrepancy between JFK and NYC and one of our forum members who took a walk in Central Park said it was definitely more than 1.2 inches there and probably between 2.5-3 inches (matching some of the other local reports.)  Anyway, what did NWS do? They didn't adjust the 1.2 amount at NYC upwards to match the local reports, what they actually did was adjust the JFK downward from 2.6 to 1.0.  LOL

I actually didn't expect them to adjust the Central Park number upward, but to actually adjust the JFK downward from 2.6 to 1.0 was REALLY WEIRD.

This is just another example of how all observers are different and you cant make blanket assumptions about past or present.

[michsnowfreak]

2 hours ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Yea, any measurement derived from hourly clearing should be tossed. Agreed.

I too agree, and never has hourly clearing been standard, so if that was being done, again, that is fault of the individual observer.

[michsnowfreak]

2 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Most historic snow totals are undoubtedly understated. And I would argue that extends even beyond 1980. Here is DuBois, PA for February 1993. Note the depth goes from 0 to 15 inches, even though only 14.0" was recorded as having fallen. It gets even worse when you consider 0.8" of that fell before depth reached zero. So, from February 10 to February 26, the depth increased by 15" even though only 13.2" of snow was recorded. 

I will say it again. The same snow measurement guidelines for first-order stations have been in place since 1950. Any station is going to have had multiple observers and likely site changes since then, but the guidelines are the same. To pick out one here and there is irrelevant. I can find tons of spotter/coop data that clearly undermeasures snow by an insane amount, whether you are talking in 2025 or 1905. Dubois, PA is obviously not a first order station, they have a limited data set from the mid-1960s to mid-1990s.

Even pre-1950, I have looked at plenty of station data at first-order stations and the snow depth is not just the snowfall added to the previous snow depth. Ive analyzed snowfall in great detail - more than any other aspect of weather (and ive analyzed them all), and i find it appears quite accurate since 1900 or so. 

 

[40/70 Benchmark]

40 minutes ago, bluewave said:

The recent issue with the Central Park snowfall measurements isn’t about 12 or 24 hour measurements like they did from the late 1800s into the mid 1900s vs more frequent measurements today. It’s that the warmer recent winters caused the snowfall to melt before the 6 hr measurements were taken. So they waited until several hours after the snow stopped to measure when some of it already melted. They should have at least measured when the snowfall stopped instead of waiting hours and hours to measure after when the temps went above freezing.

It doesn't matter, the point it is that modern measurements aren't universally inflated.

[michsnowfreak]

20 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

It doesn't matter, the point it is that modern measurements aren't universally inflated.

You and I have both mentioned it, but it kind of gets lost in the shuffle (and I know we have all strayed OT on this thread lol)...but the main differences you will find are in the really big storms or the massive fluffy lake events.

The difference in your more run-of-the mill snowfalls is negligible, and if its a snowfall on the order of 10-1 to 13-1 ratio with minimal wind, you would probably see no difference at all.

[bluewave]

58 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

It doesn't matter, the point it is that modern measurements aren't universally inflated.

They are only universally inflated relative to the earlier era since the measurement methodology changed.

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

As anyone who has followed my blogs for WU over the past ten years has no doubt noticed, I am always interested in the actual data-derived records so far as weather events are concerned. In my previous post, I looked at record snowfalls for all the states and several cities for various periods of time (24 hours, monthly, etc.). In the conclusion to that blog, I wrote a bit on how climate change may be affecting snowfall in the United States. The basic conclusion was that no one really understands much about this.

So, as a follow-up to that, I decided to look at how much snow has actually been measured decade by decade at 40 different cities/sites across the contiguous U.S. since 1900. I only included places that see winter snowfall regularly (i.e., in most years), meaning along and north of a line from North Carolina through Tennessee, Oklahoma and the mountainous regions of the West.

A constraining factor in choosing the sites is that they must all have a continuous monthly snowfall record dating back to at least 1900, something that a surprisingly few do. There is no complete record for Nashville, Tennessee; Roanoke, Virginia; Sheridan, Wyoming; and Seattle, Washington, among other cities that would seem to be obvious choices. For instance, in the high mountain areas of the West there are virtually no sites with a continuous period of record (POR) back to 1900, aside from Flagstaff, Arizona; Donner Summit in the high Sierra of California; and Red Lodge, Montana (which I did not include because of its obscurity).

Inherent problems with the data

As noted in my previous blog, the methods of snow measurement in the U.S. have changed over time. An articleauthored by Matt Kelsch of NCAR/UCAR and official COOP observer for Boulder, Colorado, explains how in the oldest of snow records (mostly predating 1950) a simple 10-to-1 snow-to-liquid ratio was often used to estimate the snowfall (i.e., 1” of melted precipitation = 10” of snow). As it turns out, the average ratio for the contiguous U.S. is roughly 12:1 or 13:1, and that ratio can vary greatly from place to place and storm to storm, even within a single storm.

At some point—and that point in time was different among the various weather observation sites—actual snowfall began to be measured using a stick-like ruler, with the snow measurements made either at the end of each snowfall or at one or more regular times each day (e.g., at 7 a.m. or 7 p.m.).

At some point (and this is the problem with my data: that this “point” in time varied from site to site between the 1950s and 1990s), snowboards came into use (see Mr. Kelsch’s description of these in his writeup).

The use of snowboards led to snowfall being more accurately measured, but it also increased the amount of snow attributed to any given storm. This is because snowfall measurements were now being made as often as every six hours (when the snow board would be cleared to make way for the next six-hour measurement) instead of just once or twice a day. Since deep snow settles as it falls, this method increases the amount of snow measured.

As an observer who has used both techniques during his now-29-year COOP tenure in Boulder, Mr. Kelsch estimates that for extreme snowfalls the use of six-hourly snowboard measurements can result in snow totals that are 15 to 20 percent greater than what is actually measured on the ground. The potential for confusion became evident after New York’s official Central Park site reported a 24-hour snowfall of 26.8” on January 22-23, 2016, a new all-time record for New York City. That total was adjusted upward even higher, to 27.5”, after an NWS review found and corrected an error in the transmitted snow report. However, local weather-minded residents living near the site in Central Park (and there are many of those!) measured only 18” to 22” on the ground at the end of the storm.

At Newark International Airport, observations from the same storm showed a preliminary record of 28.1”. That total was declared invalid by the NWS because the private contractor who measured the snowfall took snowboard measurements once per hour, as opposed to the standard six-hour interval. The revised total of 24.0” fell short of the record of 25.6” set on Dec. 26, 1947.

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.

There is also the issue of observation sites moving from one location to another over time. This is one reason why Marquette, Michigan, is not in my list: their average annual snowfall almost doubled when the NWS office moved from the town to the hills several miles south.

The bottom line is that comparing old snowfall measurements with new ones is comparing apples to oranges and, unfortunately, makes looking for historical trends (especially when talking about climate change) a hapless enterprise.

 

 

 

[LibertyBell]

2 hours ago, bluewave said:

They are only universally inflated relative to the earlier era since the measurement methodology changed.

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

 

As anyone who has followed my blogs for WU over the past ten years has no doubt noticed, I am always interested in the actual data-derived records so far as weather events are concerned. In my previous post, I looked at record snowfalls for all the states and several cities for various periods of time (24 hours, monthly, etc.). In the conclusion to that blog, I wrote a bit on how climate change may be affecting snowfall in the United States. The basic conclusion was that no one really understands much about this.

So, as a follow-up to that, I decided to look at how much snow has actually been measured decade by decade at 40 different cities/sites across the contiguous U.S. since 1900. I only included places that see winter snowfall regularly (i.e., in most years), meaning along and north of a line from North Carolina through Tennessee, Oklahoma and the mountainous regions of the West.

A constraining factor in choosing the sites is that they must all have a continuous monthly snowfall record dating back to at least 1900, something that a surprisingly few do. There is no complete record for Nashville, Tennessee; Roanoke, Virginia; Sheridan, Wyoming; and Seattle, Washington, among other cities that would seem to be obvious choices. For instance, in the high mountain areas of the West there are virtually no sites with a continuous period of record (POR) back to 1900, aside from Flagstaff, Arizona; Donner Summit in the high Sierra of California; and Red Lodge, Montana (which I did not include because of its obscurity).

 

Inherent problems with the data

As noted in my previous blog, the methods of snow measurement in the U.S. have changed over time. An articleauthored by Matt Kelsch of NCAR/UCAR and official COOP observer for Boulder, Colorado, explains how in the oldest of snow records (mostly predating 1950) a simple 10-to-1 snow-to-liquid ratio was often used to estimate the snowfall (i.e., 1” of melted precipitation = 10” of snow). As it turns out, the average ratio for the contiguous U.S. is roughly 12:1 or 13:1, and that ratio can vary greatly from place to place and storm to storm, even within a single storm.

At some point—and that point in time was different among the various weather observation sites—actual snowfall began to be measured using a stick-like ruler, with the snow measurements made either at the end of each snowfall or at one or more regular times each day (e.g., at 7 a.m. or 7 p.m.).

At some point (and this is the problem with my data: that this “point” in time varied from site to site between the 1950s and 1990s), snowboards came into use (see Mr. Kelsch’s description of these in his writeup).

 

The use of snowboards led to snowfall being more accurately measured, but it also increased the amount of snow attributed to any given storm. This is because snowfall measurements were now being made as often as every six hours (when the snow board would be cleared to make way for the next six-hour measurement) instead of just once or twice a day. Since deep snow settles as it falls, this method increases the amount of snow measured.

As an observer who has used both techniques during his now-29-year COOP tenure in Boulder, Mr. Kelsch estimates that for extreme snowfalls the use of six-hourly snowboard measurements can result in snow totals that are 15 to 20 percent greater than what is actually measured on the ground. The potential for confusion became evident after New York’s official Central Park site reported a 24-hour snowfall of 26.8” on January 22-23, 2016, a new all-time record for New York City. That total was adjusted upward even higher, to 27.5”, after an NWS review found and corrected an error in the transmitted snow report. However, local weather-minded residents living near the site in Central Park (and there are many of those!) measured only 18” to 22” on the ground at the end of the storm.

At Newark International Airport, observations from the same storm showed a preliminary record of 28.1”. That total was declared invalid by the NWS because the private contractor who measured the snowfall took snowboard measurements once per hour, as opposed to the standard six-hour interval. The revised total of 24.0” fell short of the record of 25.6” set on Dec. 26, 1947.

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.

There is also the issue of observation sites moving from one location to another over time. This is one reason why Marquette, Michigan, is not in my list: their average annual snowfall almost doubled when the NWS office moved from the town to the hills several miles south.

The bottom line is that comparing old snowfall measurements with new ones is comparing apples to oranges and, unfortunately, makes looking for historical trends (especially when talking about climate change) a hapless enterprise.

 

 

 

I beg to differ about this storm, Chris.  JFK not only had over 30 inches in this storm they also had 3 inches of LE and 30 inches of snow depth in this storm.  I think we should a) either take the average of all city locations or b) take the highest amount.

I noticed in really big storms NYC consistently undermeasures compared to the airports. Newark is in NJ so I would not use their data at all.

 

The potential for confusion became evident after New York’s official Central Park site reported a 24-hour snowfall of 26.8” on January 22-23, 2016, a new all-time record for New York City. That total was adjusted upward even higher, to 27.5”, after an NWS review found and corrected an error in the transmitted snow report. However, local weather-minded residents living near the site in Central Park (and there are many of those!) measured only 18” to 22” on the ground at the end of the storm.

At Newark International Airport, observations from the same storm showed a preliminary record of 28.1”. That total was declared invalid by the NWS because the private contractor who measured the snowfall took snowboard measurements once per hour, as opposed to the standard six-hour interval. The revised total of 24.0” fell short of the record of 25.6” set on Dec. 26, 1947.

[bluewave]

6 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

I beg to differ about this storm, Chris.  JFK not only had over 30 inches in this storm they also had 3 inches of LE and 30 inches of snow depth in this storm.  I think we should a) either take the average of all city locations or b) take the highest amount.

I noticed in really big storms NYC consistently undermeasures compared to the airports.

 

The potential for confusion became evident after New York’s official Central Park site reported a 24-hour snowfall of 26.8” on January 22-23, 2016, a new all-time record for New York City. That total was adjusted upward even higher, to 27.5”, after an NWS review found and corrected an error in the transmitted snow report. However, local weather-minded residents living near the site in Central Park (and there are many of those!) measured only 18” to 22” on the ground at the end of the storm.

At Newark International Airport, observations from the same storm showed a preliminary record of 28.1”. That total was declared invalid by the NWS because the private contractor who measured the snowfall took snowboard measurements once per hour, as opposed to the standard six-hour interval. The revised total of 24.0” fell short of the record of 25.6” set on Dec. 26, 1947.

But mesoscale banding and sharp snowfall gradients are nothing new with the biggest snowstorms. The commentary is more about changing measurement methods over time. So if many older snowstorms occurred today the amounts would be higher than the what appear in the records. Since there still hasn’t been a snowfall reanalysis to correct the old low biases. 

[LibertyBell]

3 hours ago, bluewave said:

But mesoscale banding and sharp snowfall gradients are nothing new with the biggest snowstorms. The commentary is more about changing measurement methods over time. So if many older snowstorms occurred today the amounts would be higher than the what appear in the records. Since there still hasn’t been a snowfall reanalysis to correct the old low biases. 

By the way, when you do a deep dive into the greatest NYC area winter events, you learn that the top one isn't March 1888 or December 1947 or even January 2016 (which is my personal favorite snowstorm of all time), the real number one is February 1920.  Based on your charts and the total LE over three days of over 4.5" LE and 1"+ LE every day for three days (the only winter storm to do this), this has to be the greatest winter storm this area has seen in recorded history.  It's too bad it was a mixed event so the snowfall total was *only* 17 inches (or is that 17 inches of sleet, heh).  What was the highest temperature during this storm and what percentage of it was snow?

 

[FPizz]

10 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

While there are other references to a "red sun" - not as frequent as these - strewn throughout the journal. The instances where sunspots were visible to the naked eye are the only instances noted in the entire journal. The sunspot activity might be a bit of a surprise as this was during the height of the Dalton Minimum. However, this does correspond with the maximum for Solar Cycle VI, which occurred in April 1816. So, there must have a fair amount of sunspot activity at that time despite the relative minimum of solar activity.

Might the red sun be from fires?  Sun looked red here from those Canada fires.  Not the best pic, but you get the point

 

[etudiant]

8 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

By the way, when you do a deep dive into the greatest NYC area winter events, you learn that the top one isn't March 1888 or December 1947 or even January 2016 (which is my personal favorite snowstorm of all time), the real number one is February 1920.  Based on your charts and the total LE over three days of over 4.5" LE and 1"+ LE every day for three days (the only winter storm to do this), this has to be the greatest winter storm this area has seen in recorded history.  It's too bad it was a mixed event so the snowfall total was *only* 17 inches (or is that 17 inches of sleet, heh).  What was the highest temperature during this storm and what percentage of it was snow?

 

LE is an unambiguous measure of precipitation, unlike snowfall depths. Is there any good rationale for using the latter as a standard of comparison?

[40/70 Benchmark]

17 hours ago, bluewave said:

They are only universally inflated relative to the earlier era since the measurement methodology changed.

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

 

As anyone who has followed my blogs for WU over the past ten years has no doubt noticed, I am always interested in the actual data-derived records so far as weather events are concerned. In my previous post, I looked at record snowfalls for all the states and several cities for various periods of time (24 hours, monthly, etc.). In the conclusion to that blog, I wrote a bit on how climate change may be affecting snowfall in the United States. The basic conclusion was that no one really understands much about this.

So, as a follow-up to that, I decided to look at how much snow has actually been measured decade by decade at 40 different cities/sites across the contiguous U.S. since 1900. I only included places that see winter snowfall regularly (i.e., in most years), meaning along and north of a line from North Carolina through Tennessee, Oklahoma and the mountainous regions of the West.

A constraining factor in choosing the sites is that they must all have a continuous monthly snowfall record dating back to at least 1900, something that a surprisingly few do. There is no complete record for Nashville, Tennessee; Roanoke, Virginia; Sheridan, Wyoming; and Seattle, Washington, among other cities that would seem to be obvious choices. For instance, in the high mountain areas of the West there are virtually no sites with a continuous period of record (POR) back to 1900, aside from Flagstaff, Arizona; Donner Summit in the high Sierra of California; and Red Lodge, Montana (which I did not include because of its obscurity).

 

Inherent problems with the data

As noted in my previous blog, the methods of snow measurement in the U.S. have changed over time. An articleauthored by Matt Kelsch of NCAR/UCAR and official COOP observer for Boulder, Colorado, explains how in the oldest of snow records (mostly predating 1950) a simple 10-to-1 snow-to-liquid ratio was often used to estimate the snowfall (i.e., 1” of melted precipitation = 10” of snow). As it turns out, the average ratio for the contiguous U.S. is roughly 12:1 or 13:1, and that ratio can vary greatly from place to place and storm to storm, even within a single storm.

At some point—and that point in time was different among the various weather observation sites—actual snowfall began to be measured using a stick-like ruler, with the snow measurements made either at the end of each snowfall or at one or more regular times each day (e.g., at 7 a.m. or 7 p.m.).

At some point (and this is the problem with my data: that this “point” in time varied from site to site between the 1950s and 1990s), snowboards came into use (see Mr. Kelsch’s description of these in his writeup).

 

The use of snowboards led to snowfall being more accurately measured, but it also increased the amount of snow attributed to any given storm. This is because snowfall measurements were now being made as often as every six hours (when the snow board would be cleared to make way for the next six-hour measurement) instead of just once or twice a day. Since deep snow settles as it falls, this method increases the amount of snow measured.

As an observer who has used both techniques during his now-29-year COOP tenure in Boulder, Mr. Kelsch estimates that for extreme snowfalls the use of six-hourly snowboard measurements can result in snow totals that are 15 to 20 percent greater than what is actually measured on the ground. The potential for confusion became evident after New York’s official Central Park site reported a 24-hour snowfall of 26.8” on January 22-23, 2016, a new all-time record for New York City. That total was adjusted upward even higher, to 27.5”, after an NWS review found and corrected an error in the transmitted snow report. However, local weather-minded residents living near the site in Central Park (and there are many of those!) measured only 18” to 22” on the ground at the end of the storm.

At Newark International Airport, observations from the same storm showed a preliminary record of 28.1”. That total was declared invalid by the NWS because the private contractor who measured the snowfall took snowboard measurements once per hour, as opposed to the standard six-hour interval. The revised total of 24.0” fell short of the record of 25.6” set on Dec. 26, 1947.

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.

There is also the issue of observation sites moving from one location to another over time. This is one reason why Marquette, Michigan, is not in my list: their average annual snowfall almost doubled when the NWS office moved from the town to the hills several miles south.

The bottom line is that comparing old snowfall measurements with new ones is comparing apples to oranges and, unfortunately, makes looking for historical trends (especially when talking about climate change) a hapless enterprise.

 

 

 

No, you and the article are wrong. I understand that you keep finding articles to support your position, but it quite simply isn't the case. Snowfall measuring today is sloppy and yes, sometimes UNDERmeasured. Additonally, many snowfall measurements are not made using the 6 hour method.

[40/70 Benchmark]

17 hours ago, bluewave said:

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.

I also have an issue with this assmption because utilizing only low level temperatures to estimate snowfall ratios is crude at best, and inaccurate at worst. The mid levels also need to considered and while the mid levels were likely favorable as well during that event given the synoptics of the offshore low relative to NYC, it should at least be mentioned.

[40/70 Benchmark]

17 hours ago, michsnowfreak said:

You and I have both mentioned it, but it kind of gets lost in the shuffle (and I know we have all strayed OT on this thread lol)...but the main differences you will find are in the really big storms or the massive fluffy lake events.

The difference in your more run-of-the mill snowfalls is negligible, and if its a snowfall on the order of 10-1 to 13-1 ratio with minimal wind, you would probably see no difference at all.

I said this earlier, but the best way to measure snowfall is to give two numbers....total snowfall (6 hour swipe) and snow depth. Problem solved.

[LibertyBell]

18 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I also have an issue with this assmption because utilizing only low level temperatures to estimate snowfall ratios is crude at best, and inaccurate at worst. The mid levels also need to considered and while the mid levels were likely favorable as well during that event given the synoptics of the offshore low relative to NYC, it should at least be mentioned.

There are also other factors, Ray, like high winds are not conducive to high ratios, among other factors.  We can use other 2" LE storms as our guide, I've not found the ratio to be more than 12:1 in any case so I think that should be the upper bound here.

What do you think of that massive three day event in February 1920 with 4.5" LE though? It was a mixed event but 17" of snow/sleet out of that is still historic and Manhattan looked like it was invaded by icebergs from the images I've seen lol.

 

[LibertyBell]

2 hours ago, etudiant said:

LE is an unambiguous measure of precipitation, unlike snowfall depths. Is there any good rationale for using the latter as a standard of comparison?

It maddens me that this historic storm is never mentioned as one of the all time greatest so I will keep mentioning it: February 1920, three days of heavy wintry precip, more than 1.00" LE each day for three days, 4.50" plus total LE, 17" of frozen precip, Manhattan looked like it was invaded by icebergs.

The only reason it didn't cause the same or more level of destruction as March 1888 did is because the city finally decided to bury the powerlines after March 1888 happened.

 

[40/70 Benchmark]

5 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

There are also other factors, Ray, like high winds are not conducive to high ratios, among other factors.  We can use other 2" LE storms as our guide, I've not found the ratio to be more than 12:1 in any case so I think that should be the upper bound here.

What do you think of that massive three day event in February 1920 with 4.5" LE though? It was a mixed event but 17" of snow/sleet out of that is still historic and Manhattan looked like it was invaded by icebergs from the images I've seen lol.

 

I'm not familiar with that event. 

Yes, winds are another factor....high winds fragment the dendrites, which hinders accumulation.

[40/70 Benchmark]

BTW, a warming climate also holds more moisture, so its not outlandish to think that the modern snowfall ceiling along the north east coast is actually higher than it was 50-100 years ago...however, I understand the limitations and agree that moderate snowfalls are growing less frequent due to said warmth. 

[LibertyBell]

1 minute ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

BTW, a warming climate also holds more moisture, so its not outlandish to think that the modern snowfall ceiling along the north east coast is actually higher than it was 50-100 years ago...however, I understand the limitations and agree that moderate snowfalls are growing less frequent due to said warmth. 

Yes this was actually mentioned in regards to the January 2016 behemoth, it was stated that the snowfall was 20% higher than it would have been in a pre ACC world.

 

[bluewave]

1 hour ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

No, you and the article are wrong. I understand that you keep finding articles to support your position, but it quite simply isn't the case. Snowfall measuring today is sloppy and yes, sometimes UNDERmeasured. Additonally, many snowfall measurements are not made using the 6 hour method.

You simply aren’t reading my posts throughly. Instead you reply to me with responses based on how you want to answer determined by your predispositions. Waiting longer to measure the snow in the old days in fact resulted in lower measurements due to settling and compaction. So over time until the 1950s at some observing sites the 1990s snowfall measurements were taken post compaction. These days the measurements are done pre compaction.

The resultant difference results in today’s measurements yielding 15 to 20% higher readings than the older ones. So guess what happens when you boost the older snowfall totals to account for this disparity in measurements? More stations than are already in long term snowfall decline show a steeper decline. The no trend stations show a downtrend. And stations with an increase have a lesser increase.

As per the warmer atmosphere holds more moisture discussion you raised you are correct in one sense. Yes the warmer atmosphere and SSTs boosted snowfall totals during the 2010s. Plus we had a record number of benchmark storm tracks. So the snowfall totals during the 2010s were legit.

But the older measurements would show higher totals using todays more frequent measurements. Remember we are talking about comparing the first order sites from the old times to new times. Since spotters and coop observers come and go over time and change locations.

Plus the atmosphere was much colder in the older days. This allowed for less mixed precipitation and a greater percentage of total precipitation to fall as snow. So this in effect tried to balance out the less available moisture in a colder world. Plus the ratios were generally higher in those days since the atmosphere in the key dendritic growth layers was also colder.

So using melted down snowfall gauge measurements and applying a simple 10:1 for events like the 1888 blizzard is a primitive way to measure snow based on modern understandings of meteorology. Just because no formal reanalysis of earlier snowfall hasn’t been done yet like has been done for hurricanes based on modern wind measuring analysis and correction doesn’t mean that those old measurements are untouchable and pristine as you suggest. 

[40/70 Benchmark]

26 minutes ago, bluewave said:

You simply aren’t reading my posts throughly. Instead you reply to me with responses based on how you want to answer determined by your predispositions. Waiting longer to measure the snow in the old days in fact resulted in lower measurements due to settling and compaction. So over time until the 1950s at some observing sites the 1990s snowfall measurements were taken post compaction. These days the measurements are done pre compaction.

The resultant difference results in today’s measurements yielding 15 to 20% higher readings than the older ones. So guess what happens when you boost the older snowfall totals to account for this disparity in measurements? More stations than are already in long term snowfall decline show a steeper decline. The no trend stations show a downtrend. And stations with an increase have a lesser increase.

As per the warmer atmosphere holds more moisture discussion you raised you are correct in one sense. Yes the warmer atmosphere and SSTs boosted snowfall totals during the 2010s. Plus we had a record number of benchmark storm tracks. So the snowfall totals during the 2010s were legit.

But the older measurements would show higher totals using todays more frequent measurements. Remember we are talking about comparing the first order sites from the old times to new times. Since spotters and coop observers come and go over time and change locations.

Plus the atmosphere was much colder in the older days. This allowed for less mixed precipitation and a greater percentage of total precipitation to fall as snow. So this in effect tried to balance out the less available moisture in a colder world. Plus the ratios were generally higher in those days since the atmosphere in the key dendritic growth layers was also colder.

So using melted down snowfall gauge measurements and applying a simple 10:1 for events like the 1888 blizzard is a primitive way to measure snow based on modern understandings of meteorology. Just because no formal reanalysis of earlier snowfall hasn’t been done yet like has been done for hurricanes based on modern wind measuring analysis and correction doesn’t mean that those old measurements are untouchable and pristine as you suggest. 

I think you need to appreciate that someone can in fact read your posts thouroughly and simply disagree. I understand the concept and your contention. I think you are overstating this because I know for a fact that many modern measurements are arrived at in the same manner as they wer eback then,,,ie no 6 hour clear. Obviously I'm not dismissing it entirely because no one was using the 6 hour method back then and some are today, but the bottom line is that modern measuring techniques are not consistent and in some instances underportray snowfall because they are not taken in a meticulous manner.

With regard to the second bolded excerpt, you actually didn't read my post throughly enough. The inference is that the "ceiling" for snowfall in a given event may be somewhat higher today due to the increase in moisture...ie in larger events when there is no mixing and SG is optimal.

Third point....I am not suggesting that older measurements are "untouchable and pristine"....in fact, I am suggesting the opposite. I am leaving open for the possibility that under certain circumstances they may have been more prone to error in either direction.

As for "predispositions"...perhaps I should start a poll in which people can chime in anonymously as to whether or not they think you have any...I have a very strong predispositon as to what that perfunctory analysis would reveal.

[40/70 Benchmark]

You mention mixing and I am glad you did......say KBOS receives 13" of snowfall in December, and then the coastal front sweeps in and changes it to rain with the temperature spiking to near 50 degrees between measurements. There are many instances in which the observer will not take the initative to procure they truely accurate measurement of total snowall, despite a few inches being lost.

[40/70 Benchmark]

I know for a fact that this happens...and yes, I am sure it did back then, but the point is this fact buttresses the assertion that the inflation of contemporary measuring techiques is exaggerated.

Obviously that hypothetical scenario is dramtized and realtively uncommon, but it happens often to a lesser extent and is that extreme on occassion. These larger events in which the aforementioned scenario is most likley to take place are also the type of events that are purported to exageratre modern season totals becaus ehtye can offer the largest discrepancy between measuring techniques....it goes both ways. Larger events with immense amounts of precipitation over a protracted period of time present unique challenges for the oberserver.