Paweatherguy1 Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 I say low end three due to the huge aerial coverage from the Midwest to new England. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inudaw Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 I say low end three due to the huge aerial coverage from the Midwest to new England. Depends if they lump the deep south snow that occurred a few days before or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paweatherguy1 Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 Depends if they lump the deep south snow that occurred a few days before or not. I would imagine they will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNO Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 High 2 at best...limited impact to New England. Richmond to NYC was a yawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Druff Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 High 2 at best...limited impact to New England. Richmond to NYC was a yawn. Eh, I think to a certain extent the population from Little Rock to Columbia SC, including Memphis, Birmingham, Jackson, and Atlanta will counter-balance the lack of snowfall from Charlotte to Philly. Obviously, nothing can counteract NYC, as we learned comparing NESIS scores between last year and this year. Because of this, I would expect a score slightly lower than the Boxing Day blizzard, but still a low 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paweatherguy1 Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 High 2 at best...limited impact to New England. Richmond to NYC was a yawn. Yeah, Well I don't know about yawn. I mean Philly and NYC saw 7 and 9 inches respectively. All of pa basically all the way back to the Midwest will be in that 4-10 range with higher amounts in the plains. Deep south is the same deal with some isolated 10+ totals. New england is going to be buried by 10-25 inches of snow. Yeah, it didn't have the highest totals ever, but the system isn't completely centered around dc and baltimoe, and if the storm misses them it isn't an automatic 2 or lower. This storm had impacts on Atlanta, Dallas, Birmingham, Memphis, Pittsburgh, Columbus, and cincy, which all get factored in...it is one of the largest areas I remember getting 4+ inches of snow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baroclinic Zone Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 High 2 at best...limited impact to New England. Richmond to NYC was a yawn. , care to elaborate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchnick Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 , care to elaborate? I think he meant to say the greatest impact was limited to NE, rest of the area, NY S&E was a yawn, but I maybe mistaken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paweatherguy1 Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 I think that's what he meant...just wish people could appreciate events outside their area for what they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mempho Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Yeah, Well I don't know about yawn. I mean Philly and NYC saw 7 and 9 inches respectively. All of pa basically all the way back to the Midwest will be in that 4-10 range with higher amounts in the plains. Deep south is the same deal with some isolated 10+ totals. New england is going to be buried by 10-25 inches of snow. Yeah, it didn't have the highest totals ever, but the system isn't completely centered around dc and baltimoe, and if the storm misses them it isn't an automatic 2 or lower. This storm had impacts on Atlanta, Dallas, Birmingham, Memphis, Pittsburgh, Columbus, and cincy, which all get factored in...it is one of the largest areas I remember getting 4+ inches of snow. Why again would a northeast-specific rating system take into account what happened in Memphis or even Atlanta? Personally, if we feel the need to rate snowstorms (and that's a decent idea in differentiating the difference between a fairly minor event with just an very short-term impact versus a major event that could cause disruptions for a week or more)....I like the system that Beau Dodson suggested on his site. Here's the link (also includes a very good looking ice storm rating system): Snowstorm and Ice Storm Ratings The only caveat that I might personally add is that impacts be slightly adjusted for region, preparedness, and post-storm conditions. In other words, I think they should be rated objectively (regardless of population) but for the level of disruption. For instance, the Category 5 snowstorm requires 16" or more. I think that it should be based on a severe disruption of 5 days or more. A severe disruption on the order of 2-4 days should warrant a category 4 designation. So, in NYC, a Category 5 event occurs with 18" accumulation. The rating would depend on how snowfall rates affect any cleanup and the post-storm temperatures. In a normal event, it would be a 4, even with subfreezing air for days on end in the system's wake. The impact would be much different than an 18" event occurring in Memphis with a week-long deep freeze behind it. A March snowstorm (one of the two 18+ events recorded in Memphis occurred in March) in the South would generally be of much less impact than a January one because one could expect a rapid thaw to begin because cold air masses are moderated much faster and any type of southerly wind will make the temperatures soar. It is unlikely that such an event would drop below a Category 4, however, it would be unlikely to achieve the long-term disruption that a Category 5 event would require (2 to 4 days versus 5 days or more). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famartin Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Yeah, Well I don't know about yawn. I mean Philly and NYC saw 7 and 9 inches respectively. Philly had 5 officially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paweatherguy1 Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 Philly had 5 officially. My bad, was looking at the somerton observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Lightning Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 High 1 at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paweatherguy1 Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 High 1 at best. Feb 8-10 1969, IMO, is fairly close to what final snowfalls in new England will look like...maybe a bit more in NYC than in this storm. That storm was a 2. When you add in the south to that and the midwest, I would think that it would jump to a 3. Just my opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juliancolton Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Feb 8-10 1969, IMO, is fairly close to what final snowfalls in new England will look like...maybe a bit more in NYC than in this storm. That storm was a 2. When you add in the south to that and the midwest, I would think that it would jump to a 3. Just my opinion I agree with this. If NCDC decides to lump the various stages of the event into one "storm", mid- or high-end Cat 3 seems reasonable to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Organizing Low Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 I think that's what he meant...just wish people could appreciate events outside their area for what they are. i always laugh when people say the Superstorm sucked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paweatherguy1 Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 i always laugh when people say the Superstorm sucked Haha, me too. I mean, I see people call call 96 the storm of the century, and I just don't understand how anyone could say 96 was more dynamic meteorologically than 93. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OKpowdah Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the NESIS calculation only incorporates snowfall north of the VA/NC border, so the accumulations over the south wouldn't affect the score. I think this will end up a low end cat 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huffwx Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Why do people lump in the midwest and SE to a North East Snowstorm Impact Scale?? The snow in Atlanta is irrelavvent. I'd saw low 2...huge storm over New England-- not much elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OKpowdah Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Pretty sure the NESIS calculation ends at the VA/NC border and stops at the PA/OH border Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paweatherguy1 Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the NESIS calculation only incorporates snowfall north of the VA/NC border, so the accumulations over the south wouldn't affect the score. I think this will end up a low end cat 3 I remember looking at data points used for ratings from a storm, and there were points on the map in nc, so I would assume that those are included....also, I would think that 96 woul be higher than 93 if they didn't use further south points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paweatherguy1 Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 Pretty sure the NESIS calculation ends at the VA/NC border and stops at the PA/OH border IIf you go to the nesis page and click on the link to the actual paper with formula for the ratings, if you go to page 180 and read the last two paragraphs on the right you'll see that it includes national impacts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baroclinic Zone Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Why do people lump in the midwest and SE to a North East Snowstorm Impact Scale?? The snow in Atlanta is irrelavvent. I'd saw low 2...huge storm over New England-- not much elsewhere. this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paweatherguy1 Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 Why do people lump in the midwest and SE to a North East Snowstorm Impact Scale?? The snow in Atlanta is irrelavvent. I'd saw low 2...huge storm over New England-- not much elsewhere. I think the goal of the kocin/uccellini system is to track northeast snowfalls, but also how those storms impacted the rest of the country. That is why I think this is a three...and honestly, I think it has a CHANCE to be higher than boxing day the more I look at it. Now, if you wanted to debate whether we need a new system to track storms in a better way than aerial and population impact, I think that's a legit debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RU848789 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 I remember looking at data points used for ratings from a storm, and there were points on the map in nc, so I would assume that those are included....also, I would think that 96 woul be higher than 93 if they didn't use further south points. No, if you go to the NESIS paper, it only includes the 13 Northeast states: ME/NH/VT/MA/RI/CT/NY/PA/WV/MD/NJ/DE/VA. Having said that, though, they do include the snowfall contours for states outside of those 13, so maybe they get included somehow, but it doesn't make sense if you read the paper. Anyway, given that only 1 of the 4 major metro areas (DC/Balt, Philly, NYC and Boston) was impacted severely (more than 10" - NYC proper, at least, didn't reach that - I imagine it might've made a significant difference if the NYC stations reported as much as many ot)her places in the 5 boroughs), I'd be hard pressed to think this is more than a cat 2 - in some ways it bears some similarity to Feb 1969, a mid-2 storm. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/snow-and-ice/docs/squires.pdf http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/snow/nesis/19690208-19690210-3.51.jpg http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/snow-and-ice/nesis.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paweatherguy1 Posted January 13, 2011 Author Share Posted January 13, 2011 No, if you go to the NESIS paper, it only includes the 13 Northeast states: ME/NH/VT/MA/RI/CT/NY/PA/WV/MD/NJ/DE/VA. Having said that, though, they do include the snowfall contours for states outside of those 13, so maybe they get included somehow, but it doesn't make sense if you read the paper. Anyway, given that only 1 of the 4 major metro areas (DC/Balt, Philly, NYC and Boston) was impacted severely (more than 10" - NYC proper, at least, didn't reach that - I imagine it might've made a significant difference if the NYC stations reported as much as many ot)her places in the 5 boroughs), I'd be hard pressed to think this is more than a cat 2 - in some ways it bears some similarity to Feb 1969, a mid-2 storm. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/snow-and-ice/docs/squires.pdf http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/snow/nesis/19690208-19690210-3.51.jpg http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/snow-and-ice/nesis.php Well as I said, it does look like the feb 69 storm, but it will include way more aerial coverage due to Midwest snows. I think the system is designed to gauge NE storms, but also takes into account where else those storms impact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paweatherguy1 Posted January 13, 2011 Author Share Posted January 13, 2011 Could a met possibly clarify how snows outside the 13 state area are calculated in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RU848789 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Well as I said, it does look like the feb 69 storm, but it will include way more aerial coverage due to Midwest snows. I think the system is designed to gauge NE storms, but also takes into account where else those storms impact. Didn't notice your earlier comment in the thread about Feb 69 - it's actually pretty cool that we both came to that same comparison independently. With regard to the 13 states, you made a comment earlier about page 180 of some paper; do you have a link? The paper I linked is only 7 pages, athough oddly, in the text on page two they discuss snowfall data quality in North Carolina (talking about Mt. Mitchell), which implies that maybe they look at other states (or maybe they're considering NC one of the 13 and not WV - they never spell out the states). Would be interesting to get someone who knows for sure to comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paweatherguy1 Posted January 13, 2011 Author Share Posted January 13, 2011 Didn't notice your earlier comment in the thread about Feb 69 - it's actually pretty cool that we both came to that same comparison independently. With regard to the 13 states, you made a comment earlier about page 180 of some paper; do you have a link? The paper I linked is only 7 pages, athough oddly, in the text on page two they discuss snowfall data quality in North Carolina (talking about Mt. Mitchell), which implies that maybe they look at other states (or maybe they're considering NC one of the 13 and not WV - they never spell out the states). Would be interesting to get someone who knows for sure to comment. I'm on an iPod so linking is hard on it...search nesis on google and go to the site and click on the big blue link that says kocin/ucellinni. That's where I found it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-X Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Haha, me too. I mean, I see people call call 96 the storm of the century, and I just don't understand how anyone could say 96 was more dynamic meteorologically than 93. Its subjective, because you have to define what you mean by "dynamic." My most dynamic storm in terms of incredible winds and long duration (3 days!) was December 1992. Neither March 1993 nor January 1996 comes close to touching it. I also dont like the term "superstorm" because there have been several superstorms over the past century-- and, honestly, I think for overall impact, both November 1950 and January 1978 (midwest bomb) were FAR superior to the so-called "superstorm." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.