Possible New 2-Day Connecticut Snowfall Record

[donsutherland1]

FWIW, I received a photo of North Haven by e-mail and posted it to my site: http://wintercenter.homestead.com/photojan2011g.html

It's the top picture on the page.

[rivers]

Some of ct... Especially the shoreline had no snow on the ground. I had like 1.5" in west hartford so at least here I'm not sure how valid this is.

...NEW HAVEN COUNTY...

SOUTHBURY 15.5 845 PM 1/07 PUBLIC

WATERBURY 13.0 400 AM 1/08 CT DOT

NORTH HAVEN 12.5 1030 PM 1/07 PUBLIC

BETHANY 11.3 1100 PM 1/07 PUBLIC

PROSPECT 11.0 1000 PM 1/07 TRAINED SPOTTER

OXFORD 10.0 1000 PM 1/07 PUBLIC

SEYMOUR 10.0 900 PM 1/07 PUBLIC

NORTH BRANDFORD 9.0 1000 PM 1/07 PUBLIC

BEACON FALLS 8.2 400 AM 1/08 CT DOT

MERIDEN 8.0 400 AM 1/08 CT DOT

GUILFORD 7.0 1015 PM 1/07 PUBLIC

BRANFORD 6.0 840 PM 1/07 PUBLIC

MADISON 4.0 900 PM 1/07 PUBLIC

MILFORD 2.4 820 AM 1/08 COCORAHS

as you can see we had quite a bit of snow on the ground prior this event this is the report from upton from jan 7th norlun trough theres my 6 for branford and theres north haven again..12.5 + 30.5. there is not 43 inches or even compacted inches there in fact my daughter pointed out that the piles of snow looks bigger in branford.lol

[Kbosch]

Some of ct... Especially the shoreline had no snow on the ground. I had like 1.5" in west hartford so at least here I'm not sure how valid this is.

Eastern half of CT, no, western lot. The shoreline had plenty in places.

[CT Rain]

But a lot of the jackpot areas of CT did. Those towns along I-84 from Danbury to Southbury that scored 20-30 inches had around a foot just five days earlier, so for those areas perhaps that is a concern. I did see some photos from towns like Newtown that cashed in on both systems, and when you have lamp posts in people's yards that are 1/2 buried, that would seem consistent with about 3-4 feet of settled snow. Whether or not it was 25 inches or 30 inches that fell yesterday I guess we'll never know.

Well north haven probably had little but yeah newtown and that area are buried.

[Quincy]

An 18" depth is pretty much on par with what you would expect after a 21" snowFALL......that is about exactly what I came up with.

There is a reason why they have a designated area for depth on the spotter report....it's different from snowfall.

This is not complicated.

my neighbor measured and he knows nothing about snow measuring. he didn't use a board and it sure as pie wasn't out there measuring with a snow board every hour (isn't every 6 hours the standard anyway?)

[Quincy]

But I do agree with a lot of what was said here. Measurements in general are on the high side sent in from the public or even spotters. I dont understand the fascination with having the most all the time.

don't mean to post more than once in a row, but this is a long thread and I need to catch up...

the last report (that I can recall) that NWS OKX posted from me in Danbury, CT on the PNS was Feb 2006. I was up early and measured 4"/hr for a few hours. My final report, however, was WAY lower than the other reports, so only my mid-storm reports got posted. I can't recall another storm in which the total from Danbury used was actually mine. Sometimes the Danbury DOT has posted some CLEARLY bogus numbers, but as some stated, inflating totals is good for them. In one way or another, it may get them more funding or whatever.

[H2Otown_WX]

Well north haven probably had little but yeah newtown and that area are buried.

A friend of mine lives in North Haven and he measured about 18 or 19"...

[H2Otown_WX]

...NEW HAVEN COUNTY...

SOUTHBURY 15.5 845 PM 1/07 PUBLIC

WATERBURY 13.0 400 AM 1/08 CT DOT

NORTH HAVEN 12.5 1030 PM 1/07 PUBLIC

BETHANY 11.3 1100 PM 1/07 PUBLIC

PROSPECT 11.0 1000 PM 1/07 TRAINED SPOTTER

OXFORD 10.0 1000 PM 1/07 PUBLIC

SEYMOUR 10.0 900 PM 1/07 PUBLIC

NORTH BRANDFORD 9.0 1000 PM 1/07 PUBLIC

BEACON FALLS 8.2 400 AM 1/08 CT DOT

MERIDEN 8.0 400 AM 1/08 CT DOT

GUILFORD 7.0 1015 PM 1/07 PUBLIC

BRANFORD 6.0 840 PM 1/07 PUBLIC

MADISON 4.0 900 PM 1/07 PUBLIC

MILFORD 2.4 820 AM 1/08 COCORAHS

as you can see we had quite a bit of snow on the ground prior this event this is the report from upton from jan 7th norlun trough theres my 6 for branford and theres north haven again..12.5 + 30.5. there is not 43 inches or even compacted inches there in fact my daughter pointed out that the piles of snow looks bigger in branford.lol

[Clinch Leatherwood]

But a lot of the jackpot areas of CT did. Those towns along I-84 from Danbury to Southbury that scored 20-30 inches had around a foot just five days earlier, so for those areas perhaps that is a concern. I did see some photos from towns like Newtown that cashed in on both systems, and when you have lamp posts in people's yards that are 1/2 buried, that would seem consistent with about 3-4 feet of settled snow. Whether or not it was 25 inches or 30 inches that fell yesterday I guess we'll never know.

Yep. I'd be pretty certain there are areas there that got a solid 40+ in the last week. That's still awesome.

don't mean to post more than once in a row, but this is a long thread and I need to catch up...

the last report (that I can recall) that NWS OKX posted from me in Danbury, CT on the PNS was Feb 2006. I was up early and measured 4"/hr for a few hours. My final report, however, was WAY lower than the other reports, so only my mid-storm reports got posted. I can't recall another storm in which the total from Danbury used was actually mine. Sometimes the Danbury DOT has posted some CLEARLY bogus numbers, but as some stated, inflating totals is good for them. In one way or another, it may get them more funding or whatever.

Overtime pay. Justification for department managers to go to supevisors who in turn go to administrators , town meeting, or the mayor for more funding. Snow removal is big business.

An 8" snowstorm won't provide nearly as much cover for overtime as a 13" storm.

--

We also all realize there are microbands that form. I more want to see NOAA do a verification sweep just so we "know" what the margin is. There is no doubt in my mind with this storm and most storms even if the corrected number is 25" someone a few miles away only got 19 or 20" probably even in the same town. Just the way these things work when they're bombing.

Great discussion guys, have a great weekend and let's hope we have more PNS's to debate!

[weatherwiz]

Looks like BDL finished with 24''.

[weatherwiz]

Looking at the PNS statements from BOX/ALY/OKX for CT you have to wonder what reports are valid and which aren't, multiple reports that are up near 30'' of snow.

In Litchfield County Canaan had 27'' with Woodbury and Cornwall with 28''

In Fairfield county Newtown with 27'' and Fairfield with 28''

In New Haven county you had Southbury with 28'' (I am pretty positive this may be bogus, I know someone who lives there, he's a met major at WCSU and I think he only had around 20''), Meriden with 29'' (I have a friend who lives there...I'm going to ask him how much he got although he probably has no clue), and of course the 30.5'' report in North Haven.

In Hartford County Manchester had 27'' but the person who reported that is a valid source.

In Tolland County Staffordville had 29''.

[Quincy]

I do want to apologize for making it sound I'm upset about Upton not using my spotter reports. Honestly, I don't care. It just seems like they always used the highest totals and discount the rest. Is there some value to that? Yes and for several reasons, but is it the most accurate thing to do, no way.

I honestly would find some sort of re-analysis very interesting. I feel like CT had widespread actual totals in the range of 15-20", with some of the higher 20-25" reports across western and central CT. I would also take any reports over 25" with a grain of salt.

I've talked to many people from various towns over the state and they all have different things to say, but it seems like the most experienced weather enthusiasts had generally lower totals than what we're seeing in a lot of the PNS reports.

Is there any way we can either start a thread or some sort of collection technique to grab a bunch of poster snowfall totals? I would be willing to compile those and do some graphics/contouring...Who knows, maybe we could then submit it to the NWS for re-evaluation, but I doubt it would go far.

[weatherwiz]

Just talked to the person I know in Southbury (in fact, you may know him Quincy). He measured about 20-21''...sounds like someone was definitely measuring previous snowpack as well.

[Quincy]

Just talked to the person I know in Southbury (in fact, you may know him Quincy). He measured about 20-21''...sounds like someone was definitely measuring previous snowpack as well.

I think I know who you're talking about.

The more I look into this, I think snowfall totals were actually fairly uniform, having a lot right around 20", just give or take a few inches. THAT will put into question some of the seemingly outlandish totals of 25-30"+, in the SAME exact towns measuring a lot less.

[grinch1989]

Just talked to the person I know in Southbury (in fact, you may know him Quincy). He measured about 20-21''...sounds like someone was definitely measuring previous snowpack as well.

My buddy right off of route 67 in southbury measured 19" fwiw.

[danstorm]

I think I know who you're talking about.

The more I look into this, I think snowfall totals were actually fairly uniform, having a lot right around 20", just give or take a few inches. THAT will put into question some of the seemingly outlandish totals of 25-30"+, in the SAME exact towns measuring a lot less.

I cleared the deck (didn't use a snowboard or measure every 6 hours) in Ridgefield prior to the storm - we had a general 5-12 inch cover beforehand but the deck didn't have that much as it faces south.

I posted the pic of me with 18" around 5:30... that was all new. We probably got 12" in about 3.5 hours and quite possibly 5"/hr. around 4 a.m. Thereafter, the snow lightened up to about 1/2-1'/hr... my greatest DEPTH was 19.5"... because after about 7 a.m., settling > accumulation... and it kept snowing until 10 a.m. ... light snow but the depth of snow actually decreased. I headed back to NYC in the afternoon but my dad told me there were a few tenths more in the afternoon. If I had to submit a report to the NWS, I'd go with 21".

Disagree about the snow being uniform, though. I can buy that towns to the NE like Newtown and Southbury had more as they were under the band for at least another hour or so after it cleared me. We all know that those mesobands can be a game changer and Ridgefield got EASILY 2x the snow as towns a few miles into NYS. In fact, driving to the train station in Purdy's, you could see exactly where the western extent of that band set up... it was crazy deep until you got about 5 miles into NYS and then it quickly decreased over about a 5 mile stretch on 116.

Do I think those towns had 28-30"? Probably closer to 24-26. Do I buy the 40.5" report from Savoy? Not really, especially considering they had 7" more than anyone else. Then again, that band really crushed W Ma. and with upslope, I think 3' of fluff was possible.

One last point, and it's something I've realized as a lifelong snow aficionado ... once you get past 18", the rest is pure gravy... 18" tends to be when cars start to become totally buried... and when you're talking about very fluffy snow (which we were in W. Ct.), the appearance of the snow a few days later is about the same, whether you got 18 or 20 or 26.

[Quincy]

when I say "uniform", I really just meant that I doubt totals ranged from 15-30+, and were probably more along the lines of 18-24". Guess I'm just nit-picking and splitting hairs.

I'm most upset about friends, co-workers and the general public, who are seriously misinformed. I've had multiple people TELL ME that I got over 30 inches in Danbury. I don't even bother telling them I got 21", because they probably think I'm kidding.

[danstorm]

when I say "uniform", I really just meant that I doubt totals ranged from 15-30+, and were probably more along the lines of 18-24". Guess I'm just nit-picking and splitting hairs.

I'm most upset about friends, co-workers and the general public, who are seriously misinformed. I've had multiple people TELL ME that I got over 30 inches in Danbury. I don't even bother telling them I got 21", because they probably think I'm kidding.

Can't let something as minor as overinflation get you upset... public ignorance is a fact of meteorological life!

[Confuzzled]

DOT measured 20 in wtby.... I had 18 in the back 19 in the front so it is close.

They measured 13 during the norlun and I think I measured 11 but they probably use the wtby hills to inflate totals.

The Boxing day storm was a joke, however. I was put in the 9-14 range but I would bet money that we got 6" or less in wtby. We were dryslotted for a long while.

It was so windy I did not see a single roof or car with snow or barely any on it anywhere. I went into an open baseball field and the snow ranged from nothing in places to 10 inches in others.

I'm not even sure why the board technique is used for overall totals. When giving a snowfall total the public wants to know how much snow is there at the end of the event and that should include compaction. They don't care that the snow settled. Seems like another silly effort to increase snowfall totals.

I understand using the board if you want to measure snowfall rates per hour because then you need to avoid compaction for that but all that noise about adding an inch because you didn't clear the board after 6 hours is a joke IMHO.

[weatherwiz]

I'm sure this sort of issue has been going on for years but I think something seriously needs to be done here, what's the point of keeping records/data if the data being collected is inaccurate? What good is it doing to the science and what good is it doing for people? I understand we seem to live in a society that is dominated by media and media loves to hype things and craves extremes but this is just degrading to the field.

Maybe something should be worked where the NWS sort of makes a designated snowfall measurer in as many towns as possible...whether it be police departments, fire departments, town/city halls...something. And have someone from the NWS train these people how to correctly measure snowfall. Hell, even official reporting stations can have issues (BDL, BWI, etc).

If something like this continues than as time goes on so many records may start to have major validity issues.

[codfishsnowman]

Whatever BDL winds up with for the season I am gonna subract at least a foot to fifteen inches from it. That is provided they dont have another boxind day or norlun like inflation issue.

I agree with the feeling that the jackpot places had 24 to 26 inches of snow, its possible a few places had a bit more but not to the extent of the reports. I had at least 18 inches without any board clearing here where i live in spfd so i guess i could log 19 or 20 for settling but for this storm I just do not feel right doing that. However we got A LOT of snow and if i had another five to seven inches on top of this it would certainly feel like 30 inches!!

I heard several people around here talking about the storm saying we got two feet and we didnt lol but that perception is there once you get to a foot and a half.

It is awesome having this deep snowpack though. Hopefully we can not loose too much of it here over the next few weeks. I do most certainly believe some areas in central and southern ct had around or over 30 inches total depth from both storms even with several inches of settling.

I am also a little suspicious of the forty inch report in Savoy. I know there was snow already on the ground up there. On the snow depth maps on noaa why is no one in the berks in the over two feet depth colors. Surely Savoy must have at least three feet on the ground even today after settling and all??? Or is the geographic area with that depth to small to color???

[snowman21]

I'm sure this sort of issue has been going on for years but I think something seriously needs to be done here, what's the point of keeping records/data if the data being collected is inaccurate? What good is it doing to the science and what good is it doing for people? I understand we seem to live in a society that is dominated by media and media loves to hype things and craves extremes but this is just degrading to the field.

Maybe something should be worked where the NWS sort of makes a designated snowfall measurer in as many towns as possible...whether it be police departments, fire departments, town/city halls...something. And have someone from the NWS train these people how to correctly measure snowfall. Hell, even official reporting stations can have issues (BDL, BWI, etc).

If something like this continues than as time goes on so many records may start to have major validity issues.

Why? It seems some are getting worked up over what is displayed on the PNS. Those are all unofficial reports. They aren't really kept as records any more than other NWS text products are. It is simply just as its name implies - a public information statement. Nothing more, nothing less. Climate records are maintained by NCDC for 250 or so first-order, roughly 10,000 co-op, and several hundred ASOS stations. Everything else doesn't really matter a whole lot. At the end of the day, if you really are super concerned over what appears on the PNS statement, your real beef is with the issuing WFOs. They determine what goes on there and what doesn't, and I'm guessing they don't have the time or resources especially during ongoing events to attempt verifying public reports.

The point is, no one will ever see those totals ever again unless they happen to save that PNS or have access to the archives of NWS text messages sent during the storm. They don't become part of any official record, so they aren't really tainting anything with respect to the official climate record. The ultimate impact of public reports being a little inflated on the PNS seems to be pretty low.

[Kbosch]

Why? It seems some are getting worked up over what is displayed on the PNS. Those are all unofficial reports. They aren't really kept as records any more than other NWS text products are. It is simply just as its name implies - a public information statement. Nothing more, nothing less. Climate records are maintained by NCDC for 250 or so first-order, roughly 10,000 co-op, and several hundred ASOS stations. Everything else doesn't really matter a whole lot. At the end of the day, if you really are super concerned over what appears on the PNS statement, your real beef is with the issuing WFOs. They determine what goes on there and what doesn't, and I'm guessing they don't have the time or resources especially during ongoing events to attempt verifying public reports.

Those can be awful. That's a big concern to me.

[Kbosch]

when I say "uniform", I really just meant that I doubt totals ranged from 15-30+, and were probably more along the lines of 18-24". Guess I'm just nit-picking and splitting hairs.

I'm most upset about friends, co-workers and the general public, who are seriously misinformed. I've had multiple people TELL ME that I got over 30 inches in Danbury. I don't even bother telling them I got 21", because they probably think I'm kidding.

Down here we didn't get near 20, or even 18. I ended up with 15, BDR measured a bit more at 16 which was funny to me at the time. They didn't seem to add any more after around 7AM or so, either. I was there this morning...yeah, not so sure about that. It's frequently an issue one way or the other there.

[snowman21]

Those can be awful. That's a big concern to me.

Some can be, but if they are grossly out of whack QA/QC will flag those values before it becomes official. Anyways we have this discussion often about data quality, and I think overall in the U.S. it's pretty good given the size of the country, varied climates, and shear length of record. Plus we have an observing system recording and measuring weather conditions every minute of the day.

[H2Otown_WX]

DOT measured 20 in wtby.... I had 18 in the back 19 in the front so it is close.

They measured 13 during the norlun and I think I measured 11 but they probably use the wtby hills to inflate totals.

The Boxing day storm was a joke, however. I was put in the 9-14 range but I would bet money that we got 6" or less in wtby. We were dryslotted for a long while.

It was so windy I did not see a single roof or car with snow or barely any on it anywhere. I went into an open baseball field and the snow ranged from nothing in places to 10 inches in others.

I'm not even sure why the board technique is used for overall totals. When giving a snowfall total the public wants to know how much snow is there at the end of the event and that should include compaction. They don't care that the snow settled. Seems like another silly effort to increase snowfall totals.

I understand using the board if you want to measure snowfall rates per hour because then you need to avoid compaction for that but all that noise about adding an inch because you didn't clear the board after 6 hours is a joke IMHO.

Agreed Vinny..at the end of the day, nobody cares how much snow they got by clearing a board every six hours, they just want to know what the snow DEPTH is at the end of the event. Or at least that's how I feel about it..maybe others disagree.

[Mr Torchey]

Down here we didn't get near 20, or even 18. I ended up with 15, BDR measured a bit more at 16 which was funny to me at the time. They didn't seem to add any more after around 7AM or so, either. I was there this morning...yeah, not so sure about that. It's frequently an issue one way or the other there.

you were dryslotted from hell for at least 2 hours while the mega band sat over fairfield and westport, drive over to southport, its unreal, almost lake effectesque........3-5 inch+ mile or two wide stripe of extra snow.

Its insane.

[snowman21]

Agreed Vinny..at the end of the day, nobody cares how much snow they got by clearing a board every six hours, they just want to know what the snow DEPTH is at the end of the event. Or at least that's how I feel about it..maybe others disagree.

That's how the public views a snowstorm. The public also thinks whatever their thermometer that is attached to the side of their house reads is the temperature. Meteorology is a science, and like all others, careful measurement is important. If six-hourly snow measurements are the standard, then that's the measurement method. Whether it's right or wrong is another debate. I'd rather compare apples to apples, even if they are all rotten apples at least they are consistent. I should also add that the six-hourly thing is also to balance melting issues. If you're only ever measuring at the end, it could inaccurately depict less snow than what actually fell throughout the day. It would be akin to only measuring a rainstorm at the end or some hours after it had ended allowing for some evaporation to occur.

[danstorm]

That's how the public views a snowstorm. The public also thinks whatever their thermometer that is attached to the side of their house reads is the temperature. Meteorology is a science, and like all others, careful measurement is important. If six-hourly snow measurements are the standard, then that's the measurement method. Whether it's right or wrong is another debate. I'd rather compare apples to apples, even if they are all rotten apples at least they are consistent. I should also add that the six-hourly thing is also to balance melting issues. If you're only ever measuring at the end, it could inaccurately depict less snow than what actually fell throughout the day. It would be akin to only measuring a rainstorm at the end or some hours after it had ended allowing for some evaporation to occur.

This.

People seem to have a debate about this every single storm. I have some reservation about the current system but it is the standard of measurement.

One of the strongest arguments for the 6 hour then clear technique is that there are storms that last 18 hours or so that can deliver 2" of snow on the front end, then lots of rain, then 4" on the backside. That's 6" of snow despite there being 4" on the ground.

[Kbosch]

you were dryslotted from hell for at least 2 hours while the mega band sat over fairfield and westport, drive over to southport, its unreal, almost lake effectesque........3-5 inch+ mile or two wide stripe of extra snow.

Its insane.

Thanks for reminding me

But seriously, yes, your point should be well taken by all here - there was often not a uniform snowfall, and some areas within mere miles, even with the same elevation here on the coast, did receive several inches more.