dendrite

1 hour ago, OceanStWx said:

Tip is right about one thing, measuring as close to the end of the snowfall as possible is ideal (and recommended by the way).

But if you think about this all in an impact sense, what makes more sense: plows waiting until the snow stops and removing snow, or plows nearly continuously keeping roads clear? I would argue a plow operator is much closer to observing the 6 hourly snowfall amounts than the 24 hourly. 

It's one thing we've discussed internally about the 6" in 12 hours vs 9" in 24 hours warning criteria. If anything the lighter, longer duration 9" in 24 hours is more impactful because road crews are out longer.

Maybe 3 8-hourlies is a better compromise? 8hr workdays...8hrs of sleep...8hrs of Super Bowl pregame...it all makes sense. 

21 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

I agree...that 24 hours is too long to wait, particularly if it snows for 6 hours and one intends to/has to wait 18 hours for that measurement.  

However, I suggest that when the snow stops, and it is systemically clear that it's really the end of the event, then the measurement is taken.  

However, during the event, I disagree (if perhaps this is a strawman argument) that 6-hour clear should be done, because as I was just describing, storm circumstancial melting/settling/or even sublimation - though that would rarefied, should be considered part of the event. 

Isn't that the point of making it 6hrs? To allow for some compaction?

I've said it before, but I don't like penalizing 1"+/hr rates on the tail end of large, long duration storms. In LES land...if you pull 20" in 12hrs, clear, and then another 20" in 12hrs, but the depth only increases another 6"....does that mean you should have 40" or 26"? If both 12hr samples had the same rates with the same amount is it fair to report it as 20" for the first 12hrs and only 6" for the last 12hr?

I'll give Pete B credit for explaining that on the air. Some here like to call him a clown for not always weenieing out, but in this instance he "gets" it and that was a nice little shout-out to Ray.

Ray's going to have to join the Pete B fan club now. He's hanging pics of him in his old HS locker as we speak.

26 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Yes.

Yeah so your clearing times really exacerbated the measuring differences. A quick 8” in 90 mins on a clear board won’t settle much. Throw that 8” on top of 20” of already existing fluff and it’s compaction city. You should document your measurements in a blog post if you haven’t already.

8 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

11am and 5pm.

So the 5pm would’ve been right before the band came back through, correct?

12 minutes ago, Roger Smith said:

Seems like a movie in the making ... SNOW WARS

Long long ago in a snowstorm far away

different measurement techniques came into conflict

"Luke, where is your snowboard?"

Desperate Snow Observers of Eastern Mass.

I noticed Ray was in the low 20s yesterday evening before the band moved back through. Then he seemed to pick up a quick 6-8” in like 90 minutes with a 5”/hr in there. Most in NH were pulling 2-4”/hr in that band so my guess was that he had recently cleared before it came through so it had minimal ability to compact which gave him the quick jump to near 30”. When were your clearing times Ray?

Never trust a name with accuweather in it

1 minute ago, ORH_wxman said:

Or he cut a biscuit into existing snowpack from that paste bomb last week....that might do it.

3.20” from one core would be a real pita to melt down. Maybe the guy did multiple cores, but the measuring area kept filling back in. When he had 48”/3.20” he realizdd something was off, kept the w.e., and stuck the yardstick into the ground. 

2 minutes ago, dendrite said:

The ratios are one of the first things I look at on cocorahs. When I see a 7:1 when the location was rotting under a 3”/hr deformation band I don’t even try to figure it out. Tossed like a salad. 

3 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

I guess we are all ignorant to the sniff test these days.

The ratios are one of the first things I look at on cocorahs. When I see a 7:1 when the location was rotting under a 3”/hr deformation band I don’t even try to figure it out. Tossed like a salad. 

1 minute ago, CoastalWx said:

I find it funny that they retweeted this other guy from Wilimington who had 23 an change and a 3.2" liquid core. LMAO. 

That guy probably measured in a nook outside of his house that had roof and tree blowoff. 

Let’s just totally reinvent the wheel. Create an automated sensor that measures 0.0-1.0” of snow that clears the board automatically after every 1.0”...fluff or not. Throw one on the ASOS, Kevin’s Davis, and the Maple Hollow valley. Now everyone can stay warm inside and compare how many 1” increments they received.

9 minutes ago, powderfreak said:

Just amazing stuff happening.

If these models are right about another .5-1.0" QPF through tomorrow afternoon it is going to get ridiculous.  It's already pushing the boundaries of what is deep and skiable in terms of seeing where you are going.

Storm is over dude. 

1 minute ago, WxBlue said:

I have Advanced Skywarn training from NWG GSP office, but that was a warm-season training. Definitely need to do cold-season training to get my spotter ID.

Mekster and I both got hammered with NoPoles in Canada so I think that’s how I got mine.

4 minutes ago, rgwp96 said:

That’s what I do . It’s to confusing the other way and reports all over the place . To the public that’s all that counts anyway . The big storm for me last week dropped  24 plus in my area . My depth was 23 and that’s what I reported 

If you want to compare real impact...just measure the snow water equivalent and go with that. 10” of 8:1 has more impact than 15” of 30:1. That gets rid of most of the method issues. 

At least you had a spotter report of 28.3” in Methuen which blends your total in more.

4 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

22.5"....accumulated another inch, and LOST another 1.5" depth. 

The old school weenies that like to measure at the end of the event can come in here and tell us those couple of inches overnight never happened.

The thing is you have weenies like us clearing huge amounts of fluff every 6hrs and then the general public sticking the yardstick into the driveway at random times. When the PNS is showing a handful of reports a bit over 20” for the high range in a populated county and then a report comes in of over 30” it definitely stands out. That Wilmington 22.5” cocorahs report is just as fishy with about 3.00” of liquid reported. They reported 21.4”/2.75” for 7a-7a....I don’t think so. The other Wilmington cocorahs only reported 17.8”/1.22” for 7a-7a so the obs are all over the place. 

But you’re going to have trouble with people actually believing it since even the highest cocorahs reports are 20-25”. It’s simply just differing methods and that’s the nature of the beast. You’ll just have to deal with the skepticism.

CON 17.1”

6 hours ago, dendrite said:

1.9”/0.8” from the latest core.

Daily total is 13.3”/1.08”

Still some -SN that’s slowly accumulating. 28.6°

Another 1.1”/0.06” after 5z.

14.4”/1.14”

28° with some lingering-SN

1.9”/0.8” from the latest core.

Daily total is 13.3”/1.08”

Still some -SN that’s slowly accumulating. 28.6°

Up over 13”

Wow. We have a member from Delaware? I’ve driven through there multiple times and have yet to see a DE plate. I thought maybe it was an uninhabited territory.