2025-2026 ENSO

[40/70 Benchmark]

I have no doubt the 1888 blizzard was absolutely exceptional, but I defintely have some shred of doubt regarding a measurement of 44", ON THE LEVEL, at the end of the storm on the CT shore. That implies total snowfall of somewhere around 50"....tough to swallow.

[michsnowfreak]

13 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

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

Our temps closely match JFK.  

I always wish i lived in a good radiational cooling area. I live blocks away from the Detroit River so the water kind of buffers my lows and makes them similar to DTW. But some of the radiational cooling spots in SE MI can really tank. The DTX NWS is a great example of this. It is a radiational cooling magnet in a rural area of Detroits far NW suburbs. They have data since 2000, so looking at the past 25 years of data, the average between there and DTW (Detroit Metro Apt) officially is very different.

Annual days at or below 0F: DTW- 3, DTX- 10
Annual days at or below 32F: DTW- 117, DTX- 150
First freeze avg: DTW- Oct 27th, DTX- Oct 8th 
Last freeze avg: DTW- Apr 24th, DTX- May 12th 
 

Radiational cooling is apparent all year long too. Even in the heat of summer, DTX NWS will fall into the 40s several times in July & August, whereas DTW typically does not see 40s in July or August.

[michsnowfreak]

14 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

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.

 

Sounds beautiful! I dont recall seeing that, though I have seen a snowbow and as said above, those brutal cold mornings it can be sifting glitter from a mostly blue sky, that is a sight to see and it glitters unlike any camera can capture, tho ive tried.

[LibertyBell]

2 minutes ago, michsnowfreak said:

Sounds beautiful! I dont recall seeing that, though I have seen a snowbow and as said above, those brutal cold mornings it can be sifting glitter from a mostly blue sky, that is a sight to see and it glitters unlike any camera can capture, tho ive tried.

a snow bow or a moon bow are pretty rare! Do you have to be near the lake to see them?

[LibertyBell]

41 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I have no doubt the 1888 blizzard was absolutely exceptional, but I defintely have some shred of doubt regarding a measurement of 44", ON THE LEVEL, at the end of the storm on the CT shore. That implies total snowfall of somewhere around 50"....tough to swallow.

I wish we could get LE numbers for these high amounts lol

[LibertyBell]

6 minutes ago, michsnowfreak said:

I always wish i lived in a good radiational cooling area. I live blocks away from the Detroit River so the water kind of buffers my lows and makes them similar to DTW. But some of the radiational cooling spots in SE MI can really tank. The DTX NWS is a great example of this. It is a radiational cooling magnet in a rural area of Detroits far NW suburbs. They have data since 2000, so looking at the past 25 years of data, the average between there and DTW (Detroit Metro Apt) officially is very different.

Annual days at or below 0F: DTW- 3, DTX- 10
Annual days at or below 32F: DTW- 117, DTX- 150
First freeze avg: DTW- Oct 27th, DTX- Oct 8th 
Last freeze avg: DTW- Apr 24th, DTX- May 12th 
 

Radiational cooling is apparent all year long too. Even in the heat of summer, DTX NWS will fall into the 40s several times in July & August, whereas DTW typically does not see 40s in July or August.

This morning was likely our last freezing or below low for the season, 31.5 F at my location. 31F at NYC and 32F at JFK

[michsnowfreak]

2 hours 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.

How does everyone know they didnt just measure snow and apply a 10-1 ratio, rather than the other way around? Ive seen old weather logs and they are incredibly detailed, but there is no reference to how or if they melted the snow. You are assuming that they melted it and applied a 10-1 ratio, yet they frequently would say there was "21" on the level with higher drifts" or something like that. 

Though its been long since discounted, the original "rule of thumb" was 10" of snow holds 1" of water, so in the 1800s, it would be a hell of a lot easier to measure the snow with a ruler/yardstick and assume the 10-1 ratio, rather than not do the simple task of measuring it with a ruler but waiting around for hours if not a day for the snow to melt in a can indoors. 

[LibertyBell]

2 hours 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.

Chris do you have LE numbers for New Haven, CT, your current location, where that 44" amount was reported?

[40/70 Benchmark]

13 minutes ago, michsnowfreak said:

I always wish i lived in a good radiational cooling area. I live blocks away from the Detroit River so the water kind of buffers my lows and makes them similar to DTW. But some of the radiational cooling spots in SE MI can really tank. The DTX NWS is a great example of this. It is a radiational cooling magnet in a rural area of Detroits far NW suburbs. They have data since 2000, so looking at the past 25 years of data, the average between there and DTW (Detroit Metro Apt) officially is very different.

Annual days at or below 0F: DTW- 3, DTX- 10
Annual days at or below 32F: DTW- 117, DTX- 150
First freeze avg: DTW- Oct 27th, DTX- Oct 8th 
Last freeze avg: DTW- Apr 24th, DTX- May 12th 
 

Radiational cooling is apparent all year long too. Even in the heat of summer, DTX NWS will fall into the 40s several times in July & August, whereas DTW typically does not see 40s in July or August.

I am in a decent radiational cooling spot...not exceptional, but good....

[michsnowfreak]

1 hour 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.

Thats another thing (bolded). The old days of weather observing showed extremely meticulous observations. Again, I have seen some of the old weather log books myself and they are incredible. Many days have a narrative that you will never see when just looking at the raw data (A narrative on Dec 25, 1901: Night of the 24 - 25 cloudy; moist snow continued, heaviest between hours of 1:30 and 4:30 am, ended at 6 am. amount of precipitation .62 inches. The street cars ran all night to keep the tracks open. The snow adhered to trees etc, and made a very beautiful scene. Depth of snow on ground at 8 am, 5.5 inches).

Fast forward to today, and you are talking everything is automated with exception of snow, and while most NWS offices work diligently to ensure they have good/well trained snow observers, they are subject to error like anyone else, and often are not actual NWS mets. So this acting like we have perfect measurements today and discounting old stuff is not silly.

And once again, Im not sure where this 1950-1980 stuff is coming from. Nearly ALL first order sites have followed the 6-hour rule since 1950 (spotters are another story). 

[40/70 Benchmark]

4 minutes ago, michsnowfreak said:

Thats another thing (bolded). The old days of weather observing showed extremely meticulous observations. Again, I have seen some of the old weather log books myself and they are incredible. Many days have a narrative that you will never see when just looking at the raw data (A narrative on Dec 25, 1901: Night of the 24 - 25 cloudy; moist snow continued, heaviest between hours of 1:30 and 4:30 am, ended at 6 am. amount of precipitation .62 inches. The street cars ran all night to keep the tracks open. The snow adhered to trees etc, and made a very beautiful scene. Depth of snow on ground at 8 am, 5.5 inches).

Fast forward to today, and you are talking everything is automated with exception of snow, and while most NWS offices work diligently to ensure they have good/well trained snow observers, they are subject to error like anyone else, and often are not actual NWS mets. So this acting like we have perfect measurements today and discounting old stuff is not silly.

And once again, Im not sure where this 1950-1980 stuff is coming from. Nearly ALL first order sites have followed the 6-hour rule since 1950 (spotters are another story). 

This is what I am getting at with the inconsistency.....then why did NWS toss my total? The OCM reportd that it was tossed for using "the old school way" of measuring.

Its so inconsistent.

[michsnowfreak]

56 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I have no doubt the 1888 blizzard was absolutely exceptional, but I defintely have some shred of doubt regarding a measurement of 44", ON THE LEVEL, at the end of the storm on the CT shore. That implies total snowfall of somewhere around 50"....tough to swallow.

I always thought when they said "on the level" it was implying that was the measurement, then they would notate the higher drifts. I definitely doubt some of the totals back then, but I always look at it as having some information is better than others.

I use 1900 as about the baseline for when I can really trust observations. The 1870s-1890s data is imo not perfect BUT is a great tool for us to piece together what each individual winter was like. Looking at the data here in Detroit for 1880-81 and 1881-82 is almost unbelievable in that 1880-81 was the most severe winter on record (until 2013-14 came along :)) and 1881-82 the warmest (still to this day). But the Laura Ingalls Wilder books (granted, this was in Dakota Territory I believe) detail this, one book being called "The Long Winter" which discusses the blizzard parade from Oct to Apr 1880-81, and the next book, while not concentrating on the weather as much references how warm and without snow 1881-82 was.

[michsnowfreak]

21 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

a snow bow or a moon bow are pretty rare! Do you have to be near the lake to see them?

Im not sure but probably has to have some sort of lake influence, because again, it has to do with just getting that sifting arctic powder falling in below zero air, which isnt really a synoptic feature, and the sky is otherwise mostly or partly clear. Picture when a powder snow is sitting on tree branches and the wind blows it off and it comes off in fine mists of powder/flakes. Its like that. Thats sort of what im trying to describe, and the sun hits it and makes a "snowbow" of colors. Ive seen it a few times but it isnt common.

[40/70 Benchmark]

5 minutes ago, michsnowfreak said:

I always thought when they said "on the level" it was implying that was the measurement, then they would notate the higher drifts. I definitely doubt some of the totals back then, but I always look at it as having some information is better than others.

I use 1900 as about the baseline for when I can really trust observations. The 1870s-1890s data is imo not perfect BUT is a great tool for us to piece together what each individual winter was like. Looking at the data here in Detroit for 1880-81 and 1881-82 is almost unbelievable in that 1880-81 was the most severe winter on record (until 2013-14 came along :)) and 1881-82 the warmest (still to this day). But the Laura Ingalls Wilder books (granted, this was in Dakota Territory I believe) detail this, one book being called "The Long Winter" which discusses the blizzard parade from Oct to Apr 1880-81, and the next book, while not concentrating on the weather as much references how warm and without snow 1881-82 was.

Right....and 44" was the measurement on the CT shore, which I find a bit suspect.

[michsnowfreak]

8 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

This is what I am getting at with the inconsistency.....then why did NWS toss my total? The OCM reportd that it was tossed for using "the old school way" of measuring.

Its so inconsistent.

Wow thats definitely weird. I think just like in any other field, all NWS mets/employees are different and maybe the one you had had a soapbox or something. I assumed when you said they tossed it you just meant they didnt use it, but to actually note that "old school" thing is wild. 

But inconsistency is the key word here. Regardless of what they do with coop/spotter reports, the official sites all clear every 6 hours. The OPL at DTX is awesome and friendly, Im going to ask her some time about the spotter stuff and see what her take or understanding on it is. 

[LibertyBell]

2 hours 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.

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.

 

[LibertyBell]

7 minutes 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.

 

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.

[TheClimateChanger]

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. 

[TheClimateChanger]

Compare that today, and you get nonsense like this. The board clearing procedure is too difficult for FAA contractors.

Extreme Snowfall Reports: How Reliable Are They? | Weather Underground

In December 2017, Erie reported 51" of snow in 24 hours, setting a new state record. The record was later disallowed and the numbers adjusted because they were clearing the board hourly and measuring a bunch of snow that was blowing and drifting onto the board. The original measurements had 26.5" of snow falling on December 26, with the depth dropping from 28" on the morning of the 26th to 23" on the morning of the 27th. Now I know fake effect snow sublimates away like crazy, but c'mon. 

And I know similar errors have taken place at EWR and BWI in the recent past.

December 25-27, 2017:

See here for the same type of error at BWI:

Last Winter's Record Snow Miscalculated At BWI-Marshall - CBS Baltimore

[bluewave]

59 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Chris do you have LE numbers for New Haven, CT, your current location, where that 44" amount was reported?

Not sure but New Haven probably would have had over 110” rather than the 95” report  in 1779-1780 if they measured as frequently as today since the snowfall at the end of storms compacted 15-20% vs more frequent measurements of today.

https://www.nps.gov/morr/learn/historyculture/hard-winter-news.htm

A teacher in Yale College (New Haven, Connecticut) recorded approximately twenty days with snowfall, and a total of 95 inches of snow that winter. People walked across the Sound from Stanford, Connecticut to Long Island. Others walked from Rhode Island mainland to Block Island. Chesapeake Bay and the York River in Virginia froze over for the first time since Europeans settled there. Many people mentioned in letters that they could not remember a winter as bad.

 

 

[TheClimateChanger]

IMO, in heavy blowing and drifting conditions, the board measurements should always be compared with a number of readings from the ground to ensure it is reasonable - could undercount or overcount depending on the conditions (windspeed, wind direction, surroundings, whether there was already a significant amount of snow on the ground, etc.).

[40/70 Benchmark]

30 minutes ago, michsnowfreak said:

Wow thats definitely weird. I think just like in any other field, all NWS mets/employees are different and maybe the one you had had a soapbox or something. I assumed when you said they tossed it you just meant they didnt use it, but to actually note that "old school" thing is wild. 

But inconsistency is the key word here. Regardless of what they do with coop/spotter reports, the official sites all clear every 6 hours. The OPL at DTX is awesome and friendly, Im going to ask her some time about the spotter stuff and see what her take or understanding on it is. 

At first they accepted it, but then the next day they ommited it. It was a different OCM for a local news station that explained why and then opined that he believed. My opinion is that they have a trained spotter in the same town just a couple of miles away who does not use the swipe method. When he came in with 25", which was my depth at the end of the storm, they had to accept that.

This is what I mean by the inconsistency.

[40/70 Benchmark]

9 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Compare that today, and you get nonsense like this. The board clearing procedure is too difficult for FAA contractors.

Extreme Snowfall Reports: How Reliable Are They? | Weather Underground

In December 2017, Erie reported 51" of snow in 24 hours, setting a new state record. The record was later disallowed and the numbers adjusted because they were clearing the board hourly and measuring a bunch of snow that was blowing and drifting onto the board. The original measurements had 26.5" of snow falling on December 26, with the depth dropping from 28" on the morning of the 26th to 23" on the morning of the 27th. Now I know fake effect snow sublimates away like crazy, but c'mon. 

And I know similar errors have taken place at EWR and BWI in the recent past.

December 25-27, 2017:

See here for the same type of error at BWI:

Last Winter's Record Snow Miscalculated At BWI-Marshall - CBS Baltimore

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

[40/70 Benchmark]

18 minutes 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 can buy that....what I don't buy is that more modern totals are consistently over reported.

[LibertyBell]

10 minutes ago, bluewave said:

Not sure but New Haven probably would have had over 110” rather than the 95” report  in 1779-1780 if they measured as frequently as today since the snowfall at the end of storms compacted 15-20% vs more frequent measurements of today.

https://www.nps.gov/morr/learn/historyculture/hard-winter-news.htm

A teacher in Yale College (New Haven, Connecticut) recorded approximately twenty days with snowfall, and a total of 95 inches of snow that winter. People walked across the Sound from Stanford, Connecticut to Long Island. Others walked from Rhode Island mainland to Block Island. Chesapeake Bay and the York River in Virginia froze over for the first time since Europeans settled there. Many people mentioned in letters that they could not remember a winter as bad.

 

 

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.

 

[40/70 Benchmark]

33 minutes 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.

 

Perfect example. You can't base an opinion on that assumption that amounts are over measured today....the issue is that quality and consistency of said measurements.

[40/70 Benchmark]

2 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, that may be of some interest.

 

"The morning dawned with snow above thy weenie approaching the northern extent of thy knickers"

[LibertyBell]

1 minute ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

"The morning dawned with snow above thy weenie approaching the northern extent of thy knickers"

I wonder if they even wore knickers back then LOL

[40/70 Benchmark]

1 minute ago, LibertyBell said:

I wonder if they even wore knickers back then LOL

Commando pilgrims.

[40/70 Benchmark]

I round my measurements to the nearest 1/4"...I mean, at the end of the day its an inexact science...snowfall measurements vary...there is no use trying to be any more concise than that. I try to do half inch measurements, but sometimes I can't justify it.