40/70 Benchmark

I don't think my area will decline any time soon, but I do think its turning more feast or famine.

I think SSW have some unique subtelties in their own right....perhaps some manifest a bit differently or less/more in the AO index itself for reasons not entirely understood, but I am inclined to say this had some impact....sure, there is some ambiguity, but unlike the February bottom-up deal, this one seems to have downwelled, more or less.

I know, just being a d1ck.

All I got out of this is that you have camel toe

Yes, IMO.

I know for a fact that this happens...and yes, I am sure it did back then, but the point is this fact buttresses the assertion that the inflation of contemporary measuring techiques is exaggerated. Obviously that hypothetical scenario is dramtized and realtively uncommon, but it happens often to a lesser extent and is that extreme on occassion. These larger events in which the aforementioned scenario is most likley to take place are also the type of events that are purported to exageratre modern season totals becaus ehtye can offer the largest discrepancy between measuring techniques....it goes both ways. Larger events with immense amounts of precipitation over a protracted period of time present unique challenges for the oberserver.

You mention mixing and I am glad you did......say KBOS receives 13" of snowfall in December, and then the coastal front sweeps in and changes it to rain with the temperature spiking to near 50 degrees between measurements. There are many instances in which the observer will not take the initative to procure they truely accurate measurement of total snowall, despite a few inches being lost.

I think you need to appreciate that someone can in fact read your posts thouroughly and simply disagree. I understand the concept and your contention. I think you are overstating this because I know for a fact that many modern measurements are arrived at in the same manner as they wer eback then,,,ie no 6 hour clear. Obviously I'm not dismissing it entirely because no one was using the 6 hour method back then and some are today, but the bottom line is that modern measuring techniques are not consistent and in some instances underportray snowfall because they are not taken in a meticulous manner. With regard to the second bolded excerpt, you actually didn't read my post throughly enough. The inference is that the "ceiling" for snowfall in a given event may be somewhat higher today due to the increase in moisture...ie in larger events when there is no mixing and SG is optimal. Third point....I am not suggesting that older measurements are "untouchable and pristine"....in fact, I am suggesting the opposite. I am leaving open for the possibility that under certain circumstances they may have been more prone to error in either direction. As for "predispositions"...perhaps I should start a poll in which people can chime in anonymously as to whether or not they think you have any...I have a very strong predispositon as to what that perfunctory analysis would reveal.

BTW, a warming climate also holds more moisture, so its not outlandish to think that the modern snowfall ceiling along the north east coast is actually higher than it was 50-100 years ago...however, I understand the limitations and agree that moderate snowfalls are growing less frequent due to said warmth.

I'm not familiar with that event. Yes, winds are another factor....high winds fragment the dendrites, which hinders accumulation.

I said this earlier, but the best way to measure snowfall is to give two numbers....total snowfall (6 hour swipe) and snow depth. Problem solved.

I also have an issue with this assmption because utilizing only low level temperatures to estimate snowfall ratios is crude at best, and inaccurate at worst. The mid levels also need to considered and while the mid levels were likely favorable as well during that event given the synoptics of the offshore low relative to NYC, it should at least be mentioned.

No, you and the article are wrong. I understand that you keep finding articles to support your position, but it quite simply isn't the case. Snowfall measuring today is sloppy and yes, sometimes UNDERmeasured. Additonally, many snowfall measurements are not made using the 6 hour method.

It doesn't matter, the point it is that modern measurements aren't universally inflated.

I'm sure he'll appreciate the sea scrolls lol

@Ginx snewx

I round my measurements to the nearest 1/4"...I mean, at the end of the day its an inexact science...snowfall measurements vary...there is no use trying to be any more concise than that. I try to do half inch measurements, but sometimes I can't justify it.

Commando pilgrims.

"The morning dawned with snow above thy weenie approaching the northern extent of thy knickers"

Perfect example. You can't base an opinion on that assumption that amounts are over measured today....the issue is that quality and consistency of said measurements.

I can buy that....what I don't buy is that more modern totals are consistently over reported.

Yea, any measurement derived from hourly clearing should be tossed. Agreed.

At first they accepted it, but then the next day they ommited it. It was a different OCM for a local news station that explained why and then opined that he believed. My opinion is that they have a trained spotter in the same town just a couple of miles away who does not use the swipe method. When he came in with 25", which was my depth at the end of the storm, they had to accept that. This is what I mean by the inconsistency.

Right....and 44" was the measurement on the CT shore, which I find a bit suspect.

This is what I am getting at with the inconsistency.....then why did NWS toss my total? The OCM reportd that it was tossed for using "the old school way" of measuring. Its so inconsistent.