Jump to content

  • Member Statistics

    17,507
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    SnowHabit
    Newest Member
    SnowHabit
    Joined

January 26-28 Blizzard Observations/Nowcast

Baroclinic Zone

By Baroclinic Zone,
in New England

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
TheSnowman

TheSnowman

Posted
Posted

maybe not

That video is Mindblowing.  On a rooftop, where it should be lower than expected, 29" over 36+ Hours Compact.  Clear as day.  That's 37.5" is my compact estimation (Add 10% usually for every 12 hours) when you can't do the 6 hour rule.  That would be #1 Anywhere in the storm.  Something has to be wrong about this video.  There's no way Boston had a compact of 29".  That's at the Very least 35" Storm Total which would be insane.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chris L

Chris L

Posted
Posted

That video is Mindblowing.  On a rooftop, where it should be lower than expected, 29" over 36+ Hours Compact.  Clear as day.  That's 37.5" is my compact estimation (Add 10% usually for every 12 hours) when you can't do the 6 hour rule.  That would be #1 Anywhere in the storm.  Something has to be wrong about this video.  There's no way Boston had a compact of 29".  That's at the Very least 35" Storm Total which would be insane.  

 

Yes but 1978 was undermeasured at Boston by a good 10" or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSnowman

TheSnowman

Posted
Posted

Yes but 1978 was undermeasured at Boston by a good 10" or so.

Of course.  And that's how I get my 48"-50" Measurement of 78.  Everyone knows Woonsocket had 38" from that weatherman who measured hour by hour and I was closer to the center of max, and also Cumberland is Higher in elevation.  So 40" and add just 25% and you get 50".  

 

But still - Did Boston actually get 36"-38" in this and we just didn't have anyone measuring correctly?  This video is astonishing because we know it's real.  It was 200 feet up or so, but that doesn't account for that much different from everyone's general 26"-30" totals.  

 

Also want to know how in a Blizzard on a rooftop, there was like ZERO drifting and affecting of the level top layer.  That makes no sense either.  Crazy drifting on the street, but a rooftop?  No problem.  I don't think the tables affected things that much.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSnowman

TheSnowman

Posted
Posted

no I was talking about that roof video :cory: wet his jeans over

Well this video, along with This video - http://instagram.com/p/yaVu9Zsrlo/- Which is at least 36" Compact, has me in disarray.  I'm talking with That person by e-mail now.  Seeing how high the railings are on that deck.  Cause it looks like 46" fell Total.  Something is odd about the video.  And the Boston one we are talking about.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Clinch Leatherwood

Clinch Leatherwood

Posted
Posted

every 6 hours now

Yeah....there's 1978 and then fhere is all the others. 78 was 40-50+ OTG the day after. I really need to go find the photos and old videos because they are amazing.

It wasn't just that we didn't measure until the end....there were 20 mile gaps in obs. Think about that in this last storm if the only measurements in CT were official.

All of these blizzards are terrific, but 78 is still by far the leader of the class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Clinch Leatherwood

Clinch Leatherwood

Posted
Posted

Of course. And that's how I get my 48"-50" Measurement of 78. Everyone knows Woonsocket had 38" from that weatherman who measured hour by hour and I was closer to the center of max, and also Cumberland is Higher in elevation. So 40" and add just 25% and you get 50".

But still - Did Boston actually get 36"-38" in this and we just didn't have anyone measuring correctly? This video is astonishing because we know it's real. It was 200 feet up or so, but that doesn't account for that much different from everyone's general 26"-30" totals.

Also want to know how in a Blizzard on a rooftop, there was like ZERO drifting and affecting of the level top layer. That makes no sense either. Crazy drifting on the street, but a rooftop? No problem. I don't think the tables affected things that much.

Woonsocket had 38 to my sw. Ftmp they never got into the added bonus of the OE.

My old man is 6-1. The day after the storm walking down the middle of a road plowed early in the storm before they were overwhelmed and stopped the snow was waist deep. Not for a little area for the entire 1/2 mile to the store. I know we have photos I've got to find them.

To me and what I remember about 78, Best way to compare is it snowed at the intensity of 97 but just a lot longer and then the OE stuff just went on and on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
N. OF PIKE

N. OF PIKE

Posted
Posted

Yeah....there's 1978 and then fhere is all the others. 78 was 40-50+ OTG the day after. I really need to go find the photos and old videos because they are amazing.

It wasn't just that we didn't measure until the end....there were 20 mile gaps in obs. Think about that in this last storm if the only measurements in CT were official.

All of these blizzards are terrific, but 78 is still by far the leader of the class.

I really agree w you and ginxy in this. Snow weenies take advantage of the nws measuring rules (like they should-more accurate) but if that took place in 78' my guess is many in 40's"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ORH_wxman

ORH_wxman

Posted
Posted

1978 was like compacted cement. I know 6 hourly measurements would have helped but it wouldn't be like it is during fluffier snow that settles more quickly...ala 2015.

My guess is BOS might have been like 30-34 in 1978 with some of those 38-39s in the low to mid 40s.

Feb 2013 was like that too in ORH. I had like compacted dry cement. The depth at the end was only about 2-3" lower than my storm total.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wxsniss

wxsniss

Posted
Posted

Amazed it snowed a good part of the night. I'm going to disagree with wxniss on 2005 vs this. This one had longer duration, slightly more snow, and it happened during the week. I agree 4/97 probably takes the cake of the past 25 years but I would put this bad boy as number 2. Curious to see if BOS can report another 0.6 to crack 25.

Did Ray crack 30 or did her fall asleep before the last measurement? I'd be surprised if he didn't.

 

Fella, 1997 / 2005 are solid #1-2 on my list.

 

My experience with 2005: much more ferocious and extreme than this week in winds, temperatures, snowfall rates.

 

This week's blizzard seemed like a protracted moderate-occasionally heavy event. Somewhat underwhelming winds. Longer duration snowfall ending with 12 hours of fluffy 1" / hour at most that ultimately attained a higher total by several inches. But did we even verify blizzard conditions at KBOS?

 

2005 on the other hand... I have some spectacular footage from the medical area and Harvard square that I have never been able to match. Hour after hour of this between midnight and noon 1/23/2005:

 

midnight:

post-3106-0-95689600-1422546684_thumb.pn

 

almost constantly through to 11am --- and incredible temperatures for a Boston snowstorm:

post-3106-0-70031500-1422546393_thumb.pn

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ORH_wxman

ORH_wxman

Posted
Posted

I also agree that 2005 had "worse" conditions...only Feb 2013 tops it for me personally for the worst true blizzard conditions.

 

 

That said, BOS did get 6 consecutive hours of blizzard conditions in this storm. ORH had 8 consecutive. 2005 had higher winds than this storm, but the duration of strong winds in this event was longer...but the peak intensity was less than 2005. I guess it just depends on what asthetics you decide to use to rank the storms as to which one is better than the other. Longer duration, more snow, and during the week are check marks for 2015. Better peak wind intensity, lower temperatures, and better average snowfall rate are check marks for 2005.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ginx snewx

Ginx snewx

Posted
Posted

Fact is this was more far reaching and intense than 05 in most of the region except Bos

NOUS41 KBOX 281220 CCA

PNSBOX

CTZ002>004-MAZ002>024-026-RIZ001>008-300000-

PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT

NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE TAUNTON MA

720 AM EST WED JAN 28 2015

...BLIZZARD OF 2015...

BLIZZARD CONDITIONS WERE REACHED AT MANY LOCATIONS ACROSS SOUTHERN

NEW ENGLAND DURING THE STORM ON JANUARY 26 AND 27. THUS IT IS SAFE

TO CALL THIS THE BLIZZARD OF 2015 FOR SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND. THIS

STORM PRODUCED WIND GUSTS UP TO 78 MPH ON NANTUCKET AND 35 TO 55 MPH

ACROSS MUCH OF RHODE ISLAND AND EASTERN MASSACHUSETTS. SNOWFALL

TOTALS FROM 24 TO 36 INCHES WERE COMMON EXCEPT LESS THAN A FOOT IN

FAR WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS AND MUCH OF HARTFORD COUNTY.

THE DEFINITION OF A BLIZZARD IS THAT FALLING AND/OR BLOWING SNOW

REDUCES VISIBILITY TO BELOW 1/4 MILE ALONG WITH WINDS THAT

FREQUENTLY GUST TO 35 MPH OR MORE...AND THAT THESE BLIZZARD

CONDITIONS ARE THE PREDOMINANT REPORTED CONDITION FOR AT LEAST

3 CONSECUTIVE HOURS.

WHEN REVIEWING WHETHER A PARTICULAR OBSERVATION LOCATION HAD

BLIZZARD CONDITIONS...WE CONSIDERED VISIBILITIES EQUAL TO 1/4 MILE

BECAUSE THAT IS QUITE LOW FOR AN AUTOMATED SENSOR TO BE ABLE TO

DETECT. IN A FEW INSTANCES...THE AUTOMATED SENSORS DID REPORT ZERO

TO ONE-EIGHTH MILE VISIBILITIES FOR SHORT PERIODS OF TIME. HOWEVER

IN OUR BEST JUDGMENT...BLIZZARD CONDITIONS WERE OCCURRING WITH

AUTOMATED SENSOR VISIBILITIES SUSTAINED AT 1/4 MILE WITH HEAVY SNOW

BEING REPORTED AND WIND GUSTS OF 35 MPH OR MORE.

THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION SITES HAD BLIZZARD CONDITIONS ON JANUARY

27TH. DURATIONS SHOWN ARE FOR CONSECUTIVE HOURS OF BLIZZARD

CONDITIONS. TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE TO WITHIN A FEW MINUTES...

MARSHFIELD MA.......14 HOURS FROM 355 AM TO 555 PM

HYANNIS MA..........13.2 HOURS FROM 539 AM TO 945 AM AND FROM

1036 AM TO 741 PM

NANTUCKET MA........11 HOURS FROM 553 AM TO 453 PM

BOSTON/LOGAN AIRPORT MA...........9 HOURS FROM 1254 AM TO 954 AM

CHATHAM MA..........8.9 HOURS FROM 719 AM TO 1202 PM AND FROM

1250 PM TO 500 PM. AN ADDITIONAL 2.4 HOURS FROM 939 PM ON THE 26TH

TO 1203 AM ON THE 27TH.

WORCESTER MA........7.1 HOURS FROM 349 AM TO 1054 AM.

AN ADDITIONAL 2.5 HOURS FROM 113 AM TO 340 AM.

WESTERLY RI.........5.1 HOURS FROM 446 AM TO 953 AM

NEWPORT RI..........4 HOURS FROM 251 AM TO 653 AM

BEVERLY MA..........3 HOURS FROM 753 AM TO 1053 AM

THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION LOCATION WAS DETERMINED TO ALSO HAVE

HAD A BLIZZARD...

PROVIDENCE RI/T.F. GREEN AIRPORT.......2.75 HOURS...

ROUNDED UP TO 3... FROM 544 AM TO 829 AM. CRITERIA ALSO MET

FOR 11 MINUTES FROM 1040 AM TO 1051 AM.

IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE FOLLOWING SITES HAD NEAR-BLIZZARD

CONDITIONS...

FITCHBURG MA... JUST A HAIR BELOW CRITERIA. HAD 1/4 MILE VISIBILITY

FOR 3 HOURS BUT 35+ MPH WIND GUSTS FOR 2 HOURS OR LESS. THERE WAS

SOME MISSING DATA.

MARTHAS VINEYARD MA... SEVERAL TIMES BUT NEVER FOR MORE THAN

2 CONSECUTIVE HOURS.

NEW BEDFORD MA... REACHED CRITERIA BUT NOT FOR MORE THAN

1.5 CONSECUTIVE HOURS.

SMITHFIELD RI.... MET FOR 1.3 HOURS

FALMOUTH MA...... VISIBILITY WAS 1/4 MILE AND DROPPED TO 0

FOR A TIME WITH WINDS WELL IN EXCESS OF CRITERIA. HOWEVER AT

SOME POINT THE SENSOR BECAME IN ERROR BECAUSE IT WAS STILL

REPORTING 0 WHEN IN REALITY IT WAS 2.5 MILES. SO THIS WAS

UNABLE TO BE DETERMINED.

$

FIELD

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Randy4Confluence

Randy4Confluence

Posted
Posted

This was certainly one of the greatest storms. HOWEVER, in my mind, it fell short in several categories:

1). Like Feb. 2013, the heaviest part of it was at night.

2). No thundersnow or lightning.

3). At least in zdracut, we struggled to maintain even a moderate snowfall rate a nd even went down to flurries a couple of points During thedaylight hours.

4). The recovery was 24 hours. Everything was back up and running within a day.

5). very few or even 0 power outages in the Merrimac Valley.

Therefore, for some of the reasons above, I'd prefer some of the other storms to this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...