Greg

I said only in that particular situation not others, such as a straight start to finish snowstorms. Doesn't matter whether the snow is wet, fluffy, or normal ratio... (Mic Drop)

I would record that data which is fine in that particular situation. But you won't have much left to show for it. This is where problems occurs, someone will actually get 6" that stays while your 6" will be down to about 1" at observation time.

What you just stated is correct in that particular situation. You may have received a total what ever that may have been and you can record that. However, as you alluded to you only have about 3" or so left over. True that's a depth but if you put down the total and only have 3" left over it will look pretty strange on a report where someone actually have the total you reported and has a simliar amount left on the ground verses you blown off or beaten down amount left over. There are examples of this in the COOP Data.

By altering what would have naturally settled given the ding conditions, you are therefore manipulating it. The temperature analogy is not a really good analogy to this particular situation. You can give a high and low temp/day, that's fine.

One problem though, they both are not one in the same, therefore not consistent. One is more natural observation, the other is more manipulative.

This has nothing to do with Road Crews Ray. This has to do with science/Meteorology. It's called Observing mother nature not how much a plow operator is going to get paid or manipulating the snow to see what would have been had it never settled naturally.

Unfortunately, it inflates totals. We've all discussed this on the board many times about the two methods before. Even the KU Book corrects the data sometimes for this. Makes the data sets sort of screwy.

Always remember, it also depends on how it was measured. Use the 6 hour wipe off the board method, you get about 22". Use the COOP 24 Hour method, you get 17.8". Simple as that.

No, I mean it. During the 2016 storm the models had DC proper in a similar situation where they reported just shy of 18" there.) But just a mere hope, skip, and jump to the west/northwest of them they got 26"-36" with elevation. Watch, you'll see.

The higher elevation yes, DC proper, no way.

When it lets up a little, you'll see what we mean. Very sneaky warm layer in the mids is there.

Your correct James. It is 6" in 12 hours or 8" in 24 hours. I forgot that definition. Good job.

I chalk up the RGM the same as the NAM at this stage. Need it to be closer in have better confidence. Especially the way many models have handled this season so far.

Sorry, don't trust any thing outside of 48 hours on totals. That means the NAM also.

NAM is outside of it's primary range to be taken literally. I'm sticking with the medium models since that's what their built for at this stage not the regionals.

Looks like February 6-7 1980 snowstorm. http://www.webberweather.com/uploads/1/1/9/9/119943685/february_6-7_1980_nc_snowmap.png

Nice cotton balls hitting the deck.

Yeah, just some very light snow coming down here.

I thought Manchester got 10.1" based on the Coop.

Boston: Year/Snowfall 2001/2002 45.9" 2012/2013 63.4" 1986/1987 42.5 I think the word "Blockbuster" seasonal totals is a little strong of a word to use but I guess the 63.4" comes somewhat close depending upon ones point of view.

It's funny how people keep showing 21.4" for that January 20th-21st storm when the whole storm total was actually 21.5" based on Boston Coop Data. I guess the 21.4" fell slightly inside of 24 hours with about 0.1" falling less than 20 minutes or so.

I've checked Coop of Brockton, Beechwood, Bridgewater, Plymouth/Kingston area. Haven't see anything go over 4 feet. https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/orders/IPS/IPS-176575A0-3AE2-4A95-A3DD-E1286F5DCB0D-wxc3.pdf Station: BOXFORD 2.4 S, MA US US1MAES0012 Observation Time Temperature: Unknown Observation Time Precipitation: Unknown 24 Hour Amounts Ending at Observation Time: Date/Precip/Snowfall/ Depth 2015/02/01 0.00 0.0 21.0 2015/02/02 0.33 6.6 34.5 2015/02/04 0.00 0.0 33.0 2015/02/05 0.13 0.1 30.0 2015/02/06 0.02 0.9 31.0 2015/02/07 0.00 0.0 28.0 2015/02/08 0.33 5.5 31.5 2015/02/09 0.29 5.8 37.0 2015/02/10 0.26 7.8 44.0 2015/02/11 0.00 0.0 42.0 2015/02/12 T T 0.0 40.0 2015/02/13 0.08 1.5 39.0 2015 /02 /4 0.00 0.0 39.0 2015/02/15 0.78 12.0 50.0 2015/02/16 0.02 0.6 50.0 2015/02 /17 0.00 0.0 48.0 2015/02/1 T T 0.0 45.0 2015/02/19 0.06 1.5 45.0 2015/02/20 T 0.1 43.0 2015/02/21 0.00 0.0 42.0 2015/02/22 0.29 2.1 42.0 2015/02/23 T T 0.0 35.0 2015/02/24 0.00 0.0 30.0 2015/02/25 0.04 0.8 30.0 2015/02/26 0.00 0.0 29.5 2015/02/27 T 0.1 29.5 2015/02/28 0.00 0.0 28.5 Summary Precip: 3.06 Total Snowfall: 52.4

IPS-176575A0-3AE2-4A95-A3DD-E1286F5DCB0D-wxc3.pdf (noaa.gov) Quick Data View: GHCND - GHCND:US1MAES0012; 2/1/2015 | Climate Data Online (CDO) | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) (noaa.gov)

I have to disagree with that assessment, especially if spotters used the 6 hour clearing method with many of those storms throughout that intense period. I can prove it with real data who had more snow on the ground. Boxford, MA actually comes in with 48-50" on ground at the highest depth by mid February even Newburyport.at 48".

I don't really know why many people just say south and southwest of Boston got over 100" of snow. The whole Boston area in general was in that years bullseye. The northwest suburbs and Northshore received very similar and even slightly more in a couple of places, especially the immediate Northshore with help of Ocean Effect Snow at times.