NESIS rating? Boxing Day Blizzard

[Amped]

http://www.ncdc.noaa...ocs/squires.pdf

Just for your reference...if you look at their maps, as I can't beging to understand their calculation methods, they are using data points not only from the north east, but from Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, NC..so on. I would imagine that those do get included in the final factoring of the score.

Well than it does better because of the 4+ are with a few 10+s in the carolinas.

[ORH_wxman]

Can't see this coming close to a 4. People often under estimate how important it is to get the snow decently into the interior. Also DC-BWI essentially being left out is a killer.

This is basically a Dec 2000 on steroids...and Dec 2000 was a high end cat 1. So I'd expect this to be a low 3...but it wouldn't shock me if Don Sutherland was correct and it was a 2. I think the southeast areas though should bump it to a 3.

[RIC Airport]

Even though DC area was shut out, one can't forget the huge totals (12-18") over the tidewater area of VA. This was Norfolk's 3rd biggest snowstorm on record with 14.2". Extreme SE VA, the greater Hampton Roads area, has roughly 2.5 million residents. A hypothetical eastcoast snowstorm would completely shut that area off and would not count as being impacted. So, this rather large, underated population center should make up somewhat for the DC area.

As others have alluded to, a lot of inland areas were not impacted or received less than 4" of snow. This is evident in the Richmond area as 6.6" was recorded as storm total at the airport on the city's eastend, but the far western suburbs and much of the piedmont of VA received less than 4".

[Coach McGuirk]

Can't see this coming close to a 4. People often under estimate how important it is to get the snow decently into the interior. Also DC-BWI essentially being left out is a killer.

This is basically a Dec 2000 on steroids...and Dec 2000 was a high end cat 1. So I'd expect this to be a low 3...but it wouldn't shock me if Don Sutherland was correct and it was a 2. I think the southeast areas though should bump it to a 3.

Yeah, I was kind of wondering if this storm should be classified as a Miller A or a Miller B.

What are your thoughts?

[nzucker]

Yeah, I was kind of wondering if this storm should be classified as a Miller A or a Miller B.

What are your thoughts?

Miller A...it formed in the Gulf.

[Coach McGuirk]

Miller A...it formed in the Gulf.

But the main surface low formed off the east coast, if I recall.

[Ger]

Yeah, I was kind of wondering if this storm should be classified as a Miller A or a Miller B.

What are your thoughts?

Uh, Miller A....Duh...did you not see the thing lifting up from the Gulf? Just because it screwed DC/Baltimore doesn't mean it's a Miller B

[nzucker]

But the main surface low formed off the east coast, if I recall.

It formed in the Northeast Gulf if I recall correctly...it tracked like 1005mb over the FL Panhandle to 990s off HSE.

[Ger]

But the main surface low formed off the east coast, if I recall.

The "main surface" lows in any Miller-type system (A, B and whatever else) is off the east coast. I think you mean to say that you think this system REDEVELOPED like a Miller B does when it makes the energy-transfer jump to the coast: if that's what you mean, you are still wrong. This storm did not redevelop or make any jump. It lifted out the Gulf, crossed the FL panhandle, and moved along the east coast.

[Ger]

Even though DC area was shut out, one can't forget the huge totals (12-18") over the tidewater area of VA. This was Norfolk's 3rd biggest snowstorm on record with 14.2". Extreme SE VA, the greater Hampton Roads area, has roughly 2.5 million residents. A hypothetical eastcoast snowstorm would completely shut that area off and would not count as being impacted. So, this rather large, underated population center should make up somewhat for the DC area.

As others have alluded to, a lot of inland areas were not impacted or received less than 4" of snow. This is evident in the Richmond area as 6.6" was recorded as storm total at the airport on the city's eastend, but the far western suburbs and much of the piedmont of VA received less than 4".

This is going to be a high-end 3. The megalopolis-centric NESIS is going to heavily penalize this storm for not giving anything to DC/Baltimore. That's good for a drop from 5 to 4 right there. And No, the Norfolk area won't reconcile the snub. (Just as the February 5/6 snub of NYC-north weakened its score). Ok, next. Accumulations were quite impressive but the heaviest totals (let's say 24"+) was mostly confined to a relatively small geographic area. Philadelphia measured 12", but many of its suburbs measured substantially less; NYC showed wide disparities with less than 15" at JFK and LGA (or maybe just LGA) but CPK rang up 20". Boston did well at 18", but not all of SNE was as fortunate as some areas contended with a dry slot. The big winners, obviously, were southern, central and north central New Jersey.

A storm garnering a four should be expected to produce more consistently high totals across a bigger geographic area.

It's a high-end 3.

[baroclinic_instability]

But the main surface low formed off the east coast, if I recall.

It is undoubtedly a Miller A using that classification system. Without the GOM, this would have been a glancing blow to the coast and would not have hooked early enough. Either way, a Miller B is some sort of triple point secondary low--this definitely does not fit that classification.

[nzucker]

This is going to be a high-end 3. The megalopolis-centric NESIS is going to heavily penalize this storm for not giving anything to DC/Baltimore. That's good for a drop from 5 to 4 right there. And No, the Norfolk area won't reconcile the snub. (Just as the February 5/6 snub of NYC-north weakened its score). Ok, next. Accumulations were quite impressive but the heaviest totals (let's say 24"+) was mostly confined to a relatively small geographic area. Philadelphia measured 12", but many of its suburbs measured substantially less; NYC showed wide disparities with less than 15" at JFK and LGA (or maybe just LGA) but CPK rang up 20". Boston did well at 18", but not all of SNE was as fortunate as some areas contended with a dry slot. The big winners, obviously, were southern, central and north central New Jersey.

A storm garnering a four should be expected to produce more consistently high totals across a bigger geographic area.

It's a high-end 3.

Yes, I agree...this storm had some impressive totals such as 20.5" at Central Park, 24" at Newark Airport, and 18" at Boston...but it was a fairly narrow area with a lot of holes in the coverage. Definitely not a 1996 where everyone from DCA-BOS got blasted with two feet of snow. This was a very memorable storm for SE VA and NYC metro, but for most other areas it was either a complete miss or just an average winter storm with higher than normal wind gusts. Living north of NYC and receiving 13", I felt the storm was an epic blizzard but not a big event in terms of overall snowfall as my area was in the screw-zone outside of the mega band.

[Juliancolton]

Having done extensive research on the NESIS scale and NESIS-rated snowstorms, I'm fairly confident this will end up as a mid-range Cat 3, although I'm not entirely up on the total accumulations from this storm in northern/eastern New England. Either way, a relatively limited area of impact will likely balance out the high totals and population density of the area affected.

[downeastnc]

Well than it does better because of the 4+ are with a few 10+s in the carolinas.

Its not oftan you see a storm that gives so much of NC over 6", over 2/3rds of the state had more than 6" and 8-12" was common place. By our lowly southern standards this was a monster.

[A-L-E-X]

I made it a low 3, but it could be a high 3. It didn't impact a large enough area to deserve more, no matter how great it was for NYC and locales nearby. Philly had 12"; Boston 18", and NYC 20". DC and Balt got screwed, and in my opinion, you need all the major cities to be involved in order to get to a Nesis 4. None of the totals for PHL, NYC, and BOS were record breaking or nearly so, and that certainly helps as well for score. Don't get me wrong, it was a great storm, and amazing to see on radar, wv etc. However, its "limited" impact will hurt its score.

I think its time that winds be factored into the equation also-- as winds obviously impact the severity of any storm. And densely populated areas just west and south of NYC got 24-32 inches. What was the ranking for March 1960? I would rank this similarly.

[A-L-E-X]

This is going to be a high-end 3. The megalopolis-centric NESIS is going to heavily penalize this storm for not giving anything to DC/Baltimore. That's good for a drop from 5 to 4 right there. And No, the Norfolk area won't reconcile the snub. (Just as the February 5/6 snub of NYC-north weakened its score). Ok, next. Accumulations were quite impressive but the heaviest totals (let's say 24"+) was mostly confined to a relatively small geographic area. Philadelphia measured 12", but many of its suburbs measured substantially less; NYC showed wide disparities with less than 15" at JFK and LGA (or maybe just LGA) but CPK rang up 20". Boston did well at 18", but not all of SNE was as fortunate as some areas contended with a dry slot. The big winners, obviously, were southern, central and north central New Jersey.

A storm garnering a four should be expected to produce more consistently high totals across a bigger geographic area.

It's a high-end 3.

Airports that measure snowfalls from roof tops have huge problems in windy snowstorms (which theyve already admitted to)-- like Feb 1978, March 2009 and this one. Most of SW Nassau got 20-24, as confirmed by several certified weather spotters, regardless of what was measured at the airports.

[A-L-E-X]

If NESIS doesnt include wind as part of their formula in categorizing these storms, then they need to-- wind should be at least one third of the equation.

[Baroclinic Zone]

If NESIS doesnt include wind as part of their formula in categorizing these storms, then they need to-- wind should be at least one third of the equation.

[A-L-E-X]

Im guessing you dont think wind should be included? If not-- I dont know why, Bob-- considering the crippling effects wind can have on any storm. I said one third because I think it should be one third snowfall, one third wind and one third population density.

[Juliancolton]

Im guessing you dont think wind should be included? If not-- I dont know why, Bob-- considering the crippling effects wind can have on any storm. I said one third because I think it should be one third snowfall, one third wind and one third population density.

The concept of NESIS is one that fundamentally differs from the SS and EF scales, and as such its purpose is to profile the extent of a storm's social and infrastructural impact rather than its meteorological statistics.

[Baroclinic Zone]

Im guessing you dont think wind should be included? If not-- I dont know why, Bob-- considering the crippling effects wind can have on any storm. I said one third because I think it should be one third snowfall, one third wind and one third population density.

No I do not think winds should be factored in.

[A-L-E-X]

The concept of NESIS is one that fundamentally differs from the SS and EF scales, and as such its purpose is to profile the extent of a storm's social and infrastructural impact rather than its meteorological statistics.

No I do not think winds should be factored in.

See, but that is EXACTLY why I think wind should be factored in-- because wind has an immense social and infrastructural impact-- consider all the damn drifting it causes and how hard it makes it to plow or shovel hours after a storm ends when that 2-3 feet ends up right back from where you shoveled or plowed it!

[Absolute Humidity]

Read all about it here: NE Snowfall Impact Scale

[Tiburon]

This thread is a real powder keg IMO...I think that you are going to get a lot of fighing about this between the DC/Balt folks with the guys further north and east.

In any case, due to the fact there was snow from Alabama to Maine, a large area in the southern states of 4-10 inches, including Northern Georgia, North Carolina, and even higher amounts in western NC....as well as the very large hit given to southern VA...well, if that 69 storm is a 2, then this storm is at least a 3.

There's nothing to be fighting about. It's an objective scale, using snowfall, land area affected, and population affected. Nothing more.

The concept of NESIS is one that fundamentally differs from the SS and EF scales, and as such its purpose is to profile the extent of a storm's social and infrastructural impact rather than its meteorological statistics.

Exactly, so let's look at the population end...

NYC got 20"

PHL got 12.8"

BOS got 18.2" @ Logan

BAL got ~1"

The lack of impact on Baltimore and Washington actually, since they are the smallest population-wise of the megalopolis cities doesn't really impact the NESIS score all that much.

[OSUmetstud]

See, but that is EXACTLY why I think wind should be factored in-- because wind has an immense social and infrastructural impact-- consider all the damn drifting it causes and how hard it makes it to plow or shovel hours after a storm ends when that 2-3 feet ends up right back from where you shoveled or plowed it!

u should create your own scale which includes wind. They have complied NECIS statistics for numerous storms...you can't just go and completely change the scale.

[Baroclinic Zone]

See, but that is EXACTLY why I think wind should be factored in-- because wind has an immense social and infrastructural impact-- consider all the damn drifting it causes and how hard it makes it to plow or shovel hours after a storm ends when that 2-3 feet ends up right back from where you shoveled or plowed it!

Well I had 40+ mph gust during this storm and had almost zero drifting. The 34F and 15" of dense 10:1 ratio snow had far more of an impact than the 40+ mph winds did.

[A-L-E-X]

u should create your own scale which includes wind. They have complied NECIS statistics for numerous storms...you can't just go and completely change the scale.

NESIS*

Im not changing anything, merely stating that it doesnt make sense not to include wind in categorizing snowstorms in which wind is actually one of the primary causers of damage-- snow drifts, property damage and power outages-- causing life threatening conditions. It doesnt make any sense. And only a small adjustment would be required, as most of our biggest storms also had very high winds.

[A-L-E-X]

Well I had 40+ mph gust during this storm and had almost zero drifting. The 34F and 15" of dense 10:1 ratio snow had far more of an impact than the 40+ mph winds did.

5 foot drifts here and I was trapped back in my house and had to get out of a window this morning because the wind blew back 3 feet of snow in front of my door after I spent most of yesterday afternoon shovelling

Also, the power outage of 7 hours last night didnt enhance my love of high winds lol.

Im just saying wind can have a primary impact on people..... its one of the reasons people remember storms like this.

Besides there has got to be a big difference between 40 mph gusts and sustained winds of 40 mph + and gusts of 65-70 mph which we had here for hours, my house was shaking so hard I actually felt nauseous-- and yet it was fun at the same time lol.

That's why this storm gets compared to 2/78 and 1/96.... You could always compare it to 2/2006 in snowfall amounts-- but that storm had much less of an impact because of less wind.

[HiltonHeadWx]

There's nothing to be fighting about. It's an objective scale, using snowfall, land area affected, and population affected. Nothing more.

Exactly, so let's look at the population end...

NYC got 20"

PHL got 12.8"

BOS got 18.2" @ Logan

BAL got ~1"

The lack of impact on Baltimore and Washington actually, since they are the smallest population-wise of the megalopolis cities doesn't really impact the NESIS score all that much.

Your comment that Baltimore-Washington are the smallest population-wise is incorrect. The Washington metro area by itself is larger than metro Boston and almost as large as metro Philadelphia. The Washington-Baltimore consolidated metro area population is over 8 million. Only New York, Los Angeles and Chicago are larger. As such, that region missing the action WILL have a signifacant impact on the rating.

[Sunny and Warm]

That's why this storm gets compared to 2/78 and 1/96.... You could always compare it to 2/2006 in snowfall amounts-- but that storm had much less of an impact because of less wind.

I can see 2/78 being a comparison. Anybody that compares this to 1/96 needs to put the bottle down. Maybe for a tiny area this storm resembled 1/96, but if we're talking NESIS, then that's a laughable comparison.