14 replies to this topic

[FreezingDrizzle]

It's accurate for my location.

http://headlines.accuweather.com/news-stor...0&article=0

[robbbs]

Quote

It's accurate for my location.

http://headlines.accuweather.com/news-stor...0&article=0

The Cooperstown NY area seems to be off on the map as they had reported 30" to 38" in that area.

[staciluvssnow]

Pretty accurate for mine as well. Although we received about seven inches...maybe a bit more. Would love to see a thread on how to measure snow (for the inexperienced weather weenies)...I've heard to measure in few different locations and get an average.  ???

[icehater]

I'm having a hard time believing some of the snowfall figures I've seen reported in this storm up north unless we are simply dealing with snow ratios of 30-40:1. It's possible ratios being that high, plus a clearing the boards measurement methodology was the case though as this was very serious arctic air and clearing the boards measurements exaggereates real ground snow cover. My doubts are based on precips we got here vs the model forecasts, the lack of the ocean moisture feed conveyor belt the models depicted (which had it happened as depicted would have been incredible snows in the north and given us the blinding backlash whiteout Robbbs was alluding to yesterday) and simply put the radar was hardly impressive in areas that are reporting these amounts. I have a feeling we wouldn't see snow depths that would astound any of us if we could teleport ourselves to those areas right now. Case in point - look at these Presque Isle web cam shots. This hardly looks like 18-24" of snow to me and remember they had deep snow cover before this storm hit. PD weekend coming up and a bunch of reports by non NWS spotters might be marketing first and real world numbers second.

http://www.crownofma...om/camnmain.php

[Virgaman]

and to think if the low was just 100 miles further off the coast all those big snow totals would have been in our backyard, oh well, such is life.

[lab94]

this is nice to use.

http://www.nohrsc.noaa.gov/interactive/htm...p;js=1&uc=0

[icehater]

Quote

this is nice to use.

http://www.nohrsc.noaa.gov/interactive/htm...p;js=1&uc=0

Those 10-12'+ snows of last week are down to less than 5' already if that map is right and much of that area is now inder 3'. That LES compression is as incredible as the great LES amounts you read about. I think the biggest problem with snow measurement is that if you report 38" of snow in a storm you expect that 38" of snow is on the ground. But it doesn't work that way and most folks probably don't know that. This NWS clean the boards measurement seems like a technality thing rather than a common sense thing. I understand what they are trying to do but the snow reports then msisrepresents what the public expects there to be on the ground. It almost reminds me of inflated MSRP prices at stores that always have a 33% off sale. in other words this new snow measurement methodology is lthe equivalent of a "Come-on" sale that you can't trust.

[Stormchaser]

I agree, Ice. This new clearing method can be deceiving, as after the storm's over, the snow may have compacted down a few inches -- so the clearing method would actually inflate the final totals. Same goes for a late season storm -- particularly in March when you've got snow melting from underneath as it falls. Therefore, what's on the ground may be 3-4", while the official report is 6.5" of snowfall. If we ever get a snowstorm around here I'm going to try both methods to compare -- but personally I like using the old method.

[robbbs]

Ice, not to sound like a conspiracy buff, but I've actually been told by someone who was on the NOAA team that was established to make recommendations on new snowfall measurement rules back in '96/'97 that politics may have played some part in the new clearance method guidelines. The more snow that's reported, the bigger the budgets for snow removal, etc. and, as you know, the new rules inflate the numbers. Sounds far fetched but that's what he told me (he recommended against the clearance method but it was adopted anyway).

[icehater]

Quote

Ice, not to sound like a conspiracy buff, but I've actually been told by someone who was on the NOAA team that was established to make recommendations on new snowfall measurement rules back in '96/'97 that politics may have played some part in the new clearance method guidelines. The more snow that's reported, the bigger the budgets for snow removal, etc. and, as you know, the new rules inflate the numbers. Sounds far fetched but that's what he told me (he recommended against the clearance method but it was adopted anyway).

Robbbs - no one inflates snow totals like Chicago. I was there when a 14" snowstorm turned into a 24" snowstorm with a handful of flakes falling. It was a storm they got in the late 90's. in fact I believe it is the biggest storm that Chicago ever got - supposedly. It eclipsed an old record of 23" from the 1970's. The older gen crowd, newspapers and media were all over the NWS with reports of no more than 12-14". They were infuriated that a really historic storm would be eclipsed by a storm that couldn't hold a candle to it. One TV station went as far as showing pictures of streets in the 70's storm vs streets in the late 90's storm and the later storm looked like about half of the old storm. What was incredible was that they had an official report of 14" and there was nothing but flirries after that and the next morning it was magically upped to 24". The cause - as reported by a local newspaper the Monday after the storm - was exactlly what you say in your post albeit with a twis. In Illiois whoever gets the most snow one year gets the biggest grant of state aid the next.

[rgwp96]

Quote

Ice, not to sound like a conspiracy buff, but I've actually been told by someone who was on the NOAA team that was established to make recommendations on new snowfall measurement rules back in '96/'97 that politics may have played some part in the new clearance method guidelines. The more snow that's reported, the bigger the budgets for snow removal, etc. and, as you know, the new rules inflate the numbers. Sounds far fetched but that's what he told me (he recommended against the clearance method but it was adopted anyway).

Robbbs, I asked Tony from mt holly about the clearing method and how I believe it inflates totals.  He replied by saying most times its the same as just measuring the ground, I say its bs.

[icehater]

Quote

Quote

Ice, not to sound like a conspiracy buff, but I've actually been told by someone who was on the NOAA team that was established to make recommendations on new snowfall measurement rules back in '96/'97 that politics may have played some part in the new clearance method guidelines. The more snow that's reported, the bigger the budgets for snow removal, etc. and, as you know, the new rules inflate the numbers. Sounds far fetched but that's what he told me (he recommended against the clearance method but it was adopted anyway).

Robbbs, I asked Tony from mt holly about the clearing method and how I believe it inflates totals.  He replied by saying most times its the same as just measuring the ground, I say its bs.

RGW, when Caribou reported 28" of snow in the Christmas 2005 storm the next morning the NWS in Caribou reported ground snow depth of 21". What's more Caribou had a few inches of snow on the ground when that 28" storm hit. I'd love to hear Tony's explanation for that loss of snow. In wetter snow I'd agree with and see Tony's point but in high ratio snow the clearing the board method is a big snowfall inflator.

[Snowamp5]

I have to agree about the Chicago thing.  When I hear about how much snow, I call my sister in Chicago and she says much less and usually.."it's all gone now"...LOL  Her ammounts are never within 6 inches of what they say. 

[robbbs]

Quote

Quote

Ice, not to sound like a conspiracy buff, but I've actually been told by someone who was on the NOAA team that was established to make recommendations on new snowfall measurement rules back in '96/'97 that politics may have played some part in the new clearance method guidelines. The more snow that's reported, the bigger the budgets for snow removal, etc. and, as you know, the new rules inflate the numbers. Sounds far fetched but that's what he told me (he recommended against the clearance method but it was adopted anyway).

Robbbs, I asked Tony from mt holly about the clearing method and how I believe it inflates totals.  He replied by saying most times its the same as just measuring the ground, I say its bs.

Rgwp96, I remember when you either e-mailed me about that or posted about it on abc and I told the story to Nick Stefano who knows Tony well. Nick shares your sentiment. He thinks Tony knows the new method inflates numbers but was at a loss to explain what he knows is a bad method.

[robbbs]

Quote

Quote

Ice, not to sound like a conspiracy buff, but I've actually been told by someone who was on the NOAA team that was established to make recommendations on new snowfall measurement rules back in '96/'97 that politics may have played some part in the new clearance method guidelines. The more snow that's reported, the bigger the budgets for snow removal, etc. and, as you know, the new rules inflate the numbers. Sounds far fetched but that's what he told me (he recommended against the clearance method but it was adopted anyway).

Robbbs - no one inflates snow totals like Chicago. I was there when a 14" snowstorm turned into a 24" snowstorm with a handful of flakes falling. It was a storm they got in the late 90's. in fact I believe it is the biggest storm that Chicago ever got - supposedly. It eclipsed an old record of 23" from the 1970's. The older gen crowd, newspapers and media were all over the NWS with reports of no more than 12-14". They were infuriated that a really historic storm would be eclipsed by a storm that couldn't hold a candle to it. One TV station went as far as showing pictures of streets in the 70's storm vs streets in the late 90's storm and the later storm looked like about half of the old storm. What was incredible was that they had an official report of 14" and there was nothing but flirries after that and the next morning it was magically upped to 24". The cause - as reported by a local newspaper the Monday after the storm - was exactlly what you say in your post albeit with a twis. In Illiois whoever gets the most snow one year gets the biggest grant of state aid the next.

Ice, the legacy of Richard Daley politics in Chicago lives on. LOL.