Jump to content

  • Member Statistics

    17,509
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    joxey
    Newest Member
    joxey
    Joined

1981-2010 Normals

snowman21

By snowman21,
in New England

Recommended Posts

snowman21

snowman21

Posted
  • Author
Posted 
                                                                                                              A  V  E  R  A  G  E    T  E  M  P  E  R  A  T  U  R  E                                                         ANNUAL AVERAGE NUMBER OF DAYS
---------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------
                                                            JANUARY     FEBRUARY     MARCH       APRIL        MAY        JUNE        JULY       AUGUST     SEPTEMBER    OCTOBER    NOVEMBER    DECEMBER     ANNUAL      MAX   MAX   MAX   MIN   MIN   MIN   MIN
STAID ST STATION                         ELEV  LAT   LONG   MAX   MIN   MAX   MIN   MAX   MIN   MAX   MIN   MAX   MIN   MAX   MIN   MAX   MIN   MAX   MIN   MAX   MIN   MAX   MIN   MAX   MIN   MAX   MIN   MAX   MIN   >=90  >=80  <=32   >70   >60  <=32   <=0
---------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------
BALV1 VT BALL MTN LAKE                   1130 43.10  72.78  28.6   7.5  32.6  10.4  41.2  18.6  54.3  30.6  66.1  40.8  74.8  50.2  78.7  54.2  77.5  52.1  69.5  43.4  57.7  32.9  46.1  26.4  34.0  15.0  55.2  31.9   2.6  40.6  53.2   0.1  14.9 180.9  18.5
BLFV1 VT BELLOWS FALLS                    270 43.13  72.45  28.8   8.8  33.3  10.5  42.2  21.4  55.4  34.2  68.0  44.9  76.9  54.6  81.8  59.5  80.4  57.9  71.9  50.0  59.0  37.4  46.2  28.2  34.0  17.1  56.6  35.5   6.6  56.6  48.1   1.5  39.3 154.9  17.9
DDH   VT BENNINGTON MORSE ST AP           826 42.89  73.25  30.7  11.6  34.7  15.3  43.8  22.7  56.7  34.3  67.0  43.3  75.0  52.4  79.4  57.0  77.7  55.2  70.4  47.4  58.7  36.4  47.5  29.7  35.7  19.5  56.5  35.5   1.5  41.6  46.4   0.3  25.9 156.3  10.8
     VT BROOKFIELD 2 WSW                1800 44.04  72.64  23.3   6.0  26.9   6.6  34.7  17.3  48.5  32.1  61.8  44.0  69.2  50.9  73.8  56.2  72.6  54.5  64.6  47.3  52.5  34.5  40.1  25.2  28.4  11.4  49.8  32.3   0.0  10.3  85.9   0.0  12.6 170.3  20.7
BTV   VT BURLINGTON WSO AP                330 44.47  73.15  27.2  10.2  30.6  12.5  40.0  22.0  54.7  34.8  67.2  45.4  76.3  55.3  80.9  60.3  79.0  58.5  70.4  50.7  57.2  39.1  45.5  30.9  33.2  18.5  55.3  36.6   5.4  49.2  58.3   3.1  43.3 143.9  16.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAVV1 VT CAVENDISH                        842 43.38  72.60  29.3   5.4  33.7   6.9  41.8  17.1  55.3  29.8  68.0  40.9  76.6  50.6  81.4  55.1  79.8  53.1  71.5  44.8  58.8  32.4  46.2  25.5  34.2  13.8  56.5  31.4   6.5  55.7  46.9   0.1  16.8 184.2  26.9
CHEV1 VT CHELSEA                          800 43.98  72.45  27.1   2.9  31.3   3.3  40.0  13.9  53.6  27.1  65.8  36.9  74.5  47.0  79.2  51.6  77.6  50.2  69.5  42.3  56.8  31.9  44.2  24.1  32.2  10.8  54.4  28.6   2.2  41.2  57.6   0.0   8.1 194.1  38.0
CHLV1 VT CHELSEA 2 NW                    1440 44.01  72.48  24.7   6.1  28.5   8.3  36.7  17.2  50.4  30.7  62.8  40.8  71.7  50.7  75.7  54.5  75.2  52.9  67.3  44.9  54.0  33.5  42.0  25.4  30.0  13.3  51.7  31.6   0.6  22.3  74.1   0.0  11.0 178.8  22.3
CORV1 VT CORINTH                         1180 44.01  72.32  25.7   2.8  29.6   5.1  37.3  16.5  51.9  29.1  64.2  41.5  72.0  50.4  76.6  54.4  74.3  52.4  66.7  44.7  54.5  32.9  42.2  25.4  30.9  12.7  52.3  30.8   0.3  17.4  71.2   0.0   9.2 180.6  30.5
CWLV1 VT CORNWALL                         345 43.96  73.21  27.5   8.5  31.2  10.2  40.7  20.5  55.3  33.8  67.7  45.0  76.2  54.4  80.7  59.0  78.4  56.6  70.7  48.4  57.7  37.0  45.2  28.1  33.1  16.5  55.5  35.0   3.5  47.3  55.9   2.2  36.5 155.9  20.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DFCV1 VT DANBY FOUR CORNERS              1326 43.34  73.05  30.2   8.2  33.4  10.8  42.0  19.0  54.9  31.1  66.1  42.2  75.1  51.4  79.1  55.8  77.6  53.5  70.4  45.5  58.3  35.5  47.2  26.9  35.0  15.0  55.9  33.0   1.6  40.2  50.7   0.7  22.2 167.8  17.5
EAHV1 VT EAST HAVEN                      1000 44.64  71.89  24.5   0.6  30.4   2.0  38.4  13.0  52.5  27.2  64.9  38.8  74.5  48.8  79.1  52.8  77.5  50.9  69.1  42.2  55.4  30.8  41.6  22.6  29.9   8.0  53.3  28.3   1.7  38.3  68.5   0.0   8.8 195.2  42.7
EDNV1 VT EDEN 2 S                        1456 44.67  72.56  22.7   6.0  26.9   8.1  35.8  18.4  49.4  31.6  63.0  43.6  71.1  53.2  75.0  57.2  73.4  55.6  65.4  47.6  52.7  36.3  40.0  26.5  28.0  13.8  50.4  33.3   0.5  19.5  82.3   0.3  24.0 167.3  23.7
ENOV1 VT ENOSBURG FALLS                   420 44.91  72.81  28.1   6.5  32.5   9.2  42.0  19.3  56.7  32.5  68.7  43.2  76.4  52.7  80.5  57.5  78.5  55.6  70.7  48.4  58.7  37.5  46.1  28.5  33.3  15.2  56.1  34.0   3.1  47.7  53.0   2.3  32.8 156.4  27.2
ENFV1 VT ENOSBURG FALLS 2                 425 44.91  72.81  25.8   0.6  30.9   3.8  40.3  13.4  55.2  28.6  67.4  38.9  75.8  49.6  80.6  54.3  78.6  52.1  71.5  44.5  58.1  32.6  46.2  23.2  32.5  10.5  55.4  29.5   2.1  43.4  63.5   0.0  10.3 184.9  36.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXJV1 VT ESSEX JUNCTION 1 N               340 44.51  73.12  27.6   7.5  31.2   9.8  40.3  19.8  55.0  33.8  67.4  45.2  76.5  54.6  81.0  59.3  79.1  57.6  71.1  49.7  57.7  38.3  46.1  29.7  33.5  16.3  55.6  35.3   6.2  49.8  54.9   2.9  39.3 151.8  22.5
GFNV1 VT GRAFTON 1NW                     1175 43.19  72.63  28.9  10.9  31.9  10.9  40.3  21.3  53.6  33.6  66.0  43.3  75.0  52.2  79.2  56.9  77.3  55.8  69.6  47.9  57.5  36.2  45.7  27.9  33.7  17.0  55.0  34.6   1.5  39.2  54.7   0.0  22.0 161.9  10.1
HNKV1 VT HANKSVILLE                      1083 44.24  72.97  27.0   6.2  30.8   8.4  39.4  17.2  53.2  30.8  65.8  41.6  75.1  51.2  78.1  55.2  75.6  53.1  67.4  45.0  55.9  34.9  44.5  26.5  32.9  14.1  53.9  32.1   2.5  34.7  60.8   0.5  17.4 174.7  25.6
ISLV1 VT ISLAND POND                     1200 44.81  71.89  22.8   1.5  26.9   3.5  35.9  13.9  50.2  29.7  63.2  40.6  72.1  50.7  76.1  55.1  74.6  52.8  66.7  45.1  53.8  34.8  41.2  26.2  28.8  11.7  51.1  30.6   0.7  24.2  78.0   0.5  17.8 175.4  40.2
JAYV1 VT JAY PEAK                        1840 44.94  72.50  22.8   2.2  25.6   5.3  33.4  14.7  46.6  28.4  60.3  40.9  69.0  50.6  73.1  55.1  71.2  52.6  63.9  44.9  51.1  33.0  39.1  23.4  28.3  10.6  48.8  30.3   0.0   9.8  88.8   0.4  15.9 183.8  35.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MNPV1 VT MONTPELIER 2                     530 44.26  72.60  28.1   3.4  32.5   5.9  41.7  16.0  55.0  30.1  68.5  41.9  77.9  53.1  83.2  57.5  81.4  55.4  73.1  46.8  59.2  34.5  45.6  25.9  32.4  12.6  56.7  32.0  13.7  65.5  54.7   0.2  22.4 177.6  31.4
MPV   VT MONTPELIER AP                   1126 44.20  72.58  26.4   7.0  30.3   9.5  39.0  18.9  53.3  31.5  65.7  41.9  74.3  51.2  78.5  55.7  76.7  53.8  68.7  46.1  56.0  35.3  43.8  26.9  31.6  14.4  53.8  32.8   2.4  37.5  64.4   0.5  19.2 167.6  23.6
MVLV1 VT MORRISVILLE 4 SSW                760 44.51  72.62  24.9   1.5  29.4   3.4  37.5  13.9  52.4  27.3  64.7  38.1  73.7  48.4  77.8  53.5  76.1  50.9  68.6  43.4  55.8  32.5  42.8  24.4  30.4  10.6  52.9  29.1   2.1  32.9  68.2   0.1  10.3 190.7  40.0
MVL   VT MORRISVILLE STOWE STATE AP       732 44.53  72.61  26.5   5.2  30.5   6.8  39.5  17.8  53.8  30.1  66.8  41.0  74.6  50.4  79.7  55.6  77.6  53.3  69.8  45.6  56.5  34.9  44.0  26.2  31.9  13.6  54.4  31.8   2.7  41.8  63.9   0.2  16.9 176.8  29.6
MMNV1 VT MT MANSFIELD                    3950 44.52  72.82  17.4   1.8  20.0   4.6  27.5  12.8  40.0  25.2  53.2  37.4  61.8  46.8  65.3  51.7  63.9  50.6  56.5  43.2  44.1  31.3  33.0  20.2  22.3   8.2  42.2  27.9   0.0   0.2 125.0   0.0   5.3 197.1  36.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOSV1 VT N SPRINGFIELD LAKE               560 43.34  72.51  29.2   6.8  33.5   9.8  43.4  18.0  56.6  31.1  69.3  41.4  77.9  51.7  82.2  56.9  80.6  54.1  72.8  45.9  59.1  34.3  46.5  26.2  34.7  15.9  57.3  32.8   8.3  54.2  46.9   0.0  16.2 177.2  17.0
NPTV1 VT NEWPORT                          790 44.95  72.19  23.4   3.3  28.0   4.9  37.8  15.9  52.1  30.6  65.0  42.3  73.4  52.2  77.7  56.9  75.8  54.5  67.9  47.1  54.4  35.2  41.2  25.6  28.6  12.1  52.2  31.9   1.0  31.0  74.5   0.3  23.3 172.9  34.7
NORV1 VT NORTHFIELD                       670 44.16  72.66  27.1   5.1  31.7   6.9  40.4  17.0  53.2  28.7  65.9  40.1  75.4  49.6  79.7  54.2  78.0  52.3  70.6  44.4  57.3  33.0  44.6  25.4  32.8  12.5  54.8  30.9   4.2  44.5  58.2   0.1  12.7 184.9  29.7
NORV1 VT NORTHFIELD 3 SSE                1410 44.10  72.62  25.5   4.2  28.7   6.6  37.4  16.0  50.6  29.6  63.8  40.0  72.3  50.1  75.9  54.4  73.2  51.4  67.0  44.3  54.2  34.1  41.8  24.3  30.3  12.4  51.8  30.7   0.1  20.2  71.2   0.2  13.7 180.5  31.2
PLFV1 VT PLAINFIELD                       800 44.28  72.42  26.9   4.6  31.1   6.8  40.6  18.0  54.4  31.1  67.4  40.6  76.9  50.9  81.0  54.8  79.0  51.8  71.7  44.3  56.8  33.5  43.6  25.7  32.2  12.8  55.2  31.4   7.0  53.2  58.8   0.0  13.1 177.8  29.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POWV1 VT POWNAL 1 NE                     1110 42.79  73.22  28.8  10.6  32.1  13.5  40.9  21.4  55.3  33.2  66.1  42.9  74.1  51.7  78.2  56.2  76.5  54.8  69.8  47.4  58.1  37.4  46.0  29.1  34.3  18.8  55.1  34.8   0.9  34.5  53.7   0.2  21.1 156.5  13.4
RDSV1 VT READSBORO 1 SE                  1120 42.75  72.93  28.8  10.7  32.1  12.9  39.9  21.1  52.2  31.7  66.0  42.0  73.4  50.8  78.3  55.2  76.9  53.8  68.8  45.5  56.8  35.6  44.7  27.7  33.2  17.5  54.4  33.8   1.5  36.0  55.5   0.1  17.1 164.2  15.4
ROCV1 VT ROCHESTER                        830 43.86  72.80  28.6   7.2  32.5   8.2  40.8  17.5  54.4  30.1  67.0  39.9  74.9  49.5  79.1  54.2  77.5  53.2  70.3  45.8  58.4  34.7  46.4  27.1  33.5  14.8  55.4  32.0   2.6  43.6  54.0   0.0  15.0 175.0  25.2
RUTV1 VT RUTLAND                          620 43.63  72.98  29.1   7.9  32.1   9.4  41.8  19.3  55.9  32.2  67.8  43.1  76.0  52.4  80.2  56.8  77.8  55.2  69.4  46.3  57.9  35.2  46.2  26.9  34.1  15.7  55.8  33.5   1.7  44.0  52.4   0.8  25.9 169.3  20.9
1V4   VT SAINT JOHNSBURY                  700 44.42  72.02  27.1   6.4  31.1   7.8  41.4  19.2  56.2  32.6  68.7  44.0  77.1  54.1  81.2  58.7  78.8  56.8  70.7  49.3  57.8  36.6  44.3  27.8  31.6  14.7  55.6  34.1   4.0  50.9  58.6   1.7  36.8 162.0  26.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SBYV1 VT SALISBURY 2 N                    420 43.93  73.10  29.8  10.8  34.5  13.1  44.4  21.5  59.0  32.8  71.1  43.6  79.3  53.0  83.6  57.8  81.3  56.6  73.1  49.1  59.8  38.1  47.3  29.9  35.2  18.0  58.3  35.5   9.1  67.9  44.1   2.1  34.5 155.2  15.3
SHRV1 VT SOUTH HERO                       110 44.63  73.30  27.2  10.3  30.6  12.5  40.0  21.6  54.0  34.7  66.6  45.7  76.1  55.5  80.5  61.1  78.9  59.8  70.5  52.1  57.0  41.0  45.3  31.6  33.2  19.5  55.1  37.2   4.3  46.6  56.1   3.0  46.9 139.4  15.1
SLNV1 VT SOUTH LINCOLN                   1341 44.07  72.97  25.6   5.4  29.1   7.5  37.5  16.5  51.1  30.9  63.8  41.9  72.1  51.0  76.3  55.2  74.4  53.7  66.9  45.3  54.6  34.7  43.5  26.4  31.3  13.6  52.3  32.0   0.4  24.0  70.7   0.2  19.1 173.3  29.0
VSF   VT SPRINGFIELD HARTNESS AP          578 43.34  72.52  29.3   9.8  33.1  13.1  42.1  21.1  56.0  32.4  67.5  42.7  76.1  51.8  81.0  56.9  79.2  55.2  70.9  47.5  58.4  35.7  46.1  28.3  34.3  17.0  56.3  34.4   5.0  50.0  50.1   0.3  24.4 168.8  14.4
SARV1 VT ST ALBANS RADIO                  380 44.86  73.09  25.1   6.4  28.6   9.1  37.8  19.1  53.0  33.2  65.7  45.2  74.5  55.0  78.7  59.9  77.1  57.5  68.8  49.2  55.4  38.1  43.7  28.5  31.6  15.2  53.5  34.8   2.0  36.8  66.7   2.8  40.3 156.7  24.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUNV1 VT SUNDERLAND 2                     900 43.09  73.12  28.5   9.5  33.7  11.2  40.9  19.5  54.3  31.0  65.8  41.3  75.3  49.6  78.5  54.5  77.1  53.0  69.6  44.2  57.3  34.4  45.9  27.9  34.4  17.2  55.2  32.9   1.1  38.9  54.5   0.2  15.2 171.8  16.8
SUTV1 VT SUTTON                          1500 44.61  72.05  23.7   2.9  28.1   3.2  37.1  14.9  49.5  28.8  63.2  41.4  71.3  49.1  75.3  54.5  74.1  52.1  66.2  44.6  53.8  32.0  40.6  23.3  28.9   9.9  51.1  29.9   0.0  14.5  77.8   0.0   6.0 186.5  34.4
STNV1 VT SUTTON 2 NE                     1000 44.66  72.02  22.7 - 1.0  27.8 - 1.0  36.8  10.8  50.7  26.6  64.8  36.5  73.7  45.9  77.9  50.9  76.5  48.5  68.0  41.8  54.5  29.5  40.7  21.1  28.2   7.2  52.0  26.5   2.3  35.6  80.5   0.0   6.6 204.9  50.2
VRNV1 VT VERNON                           226 42.77  72.52  32.8  12.5  37.3  14.3  45.8  24.5  58.8  34.2  70.8  45.0  79.3  54.5  84.4  59.5  82.7  58.3  74.5  49.4  62.1  38.3  49.6  30.3  38.0  19.0  59.8  36.7  14.4  74.9  31.8   1.8  38.9 148.0  10.4
     VT WATERBURY 2 SSE                  760 44.32  72.75  26.8   8.2  30.3  10.4  39.4  19.2  53.5  31.7  66.0  43.3  74.6  51.6  78.5  56.2  76.6  54.4  68.4  46.4  55.8  35.4  43.4  27.5  31.2  15.2  53.8  33.4   1.7  36.9  63.6   0.1  22.3 164.1  22.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEBV1 VT WEST BURKE                       900 44.65  71.98  23.8 - 0.2  28.4   0.6  38.1  11.6  52.7  26.7  65.9  36.7  75.2  47.2  79.5  52.2  78.1  50.4  68.9  42.6  55.0  31.8  41.4  22.7  29.4   9.6  53.1  27.8   3.7  43.6  70.7   0.1  10.5 196.0  47.0
WDSV1 VT WOODSTOCK                        600 43.63  72.51  28.8   5.7  32.9   8.0  41.2  19.0  55.2  31.8  67.5  42.1  76.5  52.1  81.1  56.4  79.2  54.7  71.4  46.4  58.3  34.3  46.2  26.9  33.7  13.8  56.1  32.7   5.6  53.6  51.3   0.3  24.6 172.9  26.8
WORV1 VT WORCESTER 2 W                   1360 44.37  72.58  25.7   6.6  29.6   8.4  38.4  18.4  51.5  32.5  64.6  43.9  72.4  53.0  76.5  57.3  74.5  55.3  65.7  47.8  53.5  36.5  41.1  26.8  29.9  14.2  52.1  33.5   1.3  26.0  70.1   0.3  23.1 163.9  20.7

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply
ORH_wxman

ORH_wxman

Posted
Posted

Snowman21, thanks very much for posting these. I think Boston 30 year normal 1981-2010 show nearly identifcal to fractionally cooler January, slightly warmer February, and warmer December. Also, slightly cooler July.

Yeah one of the very few spots in the country that didn't see warming in January. We cooled off in March too.

It looks like September and November were the two months that torched the most. February not far behind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ORH_wxman

ORH_wxman

Posted
Posted

There's a number of bad years in there in the late 90s

That really bugs me looking at that BDL number. I already knew ORH would be a bit too low because of the bad data, but that BDL number is just ludicrous. 40.5"? lol. At worst they are 45" for '81-'10 and that is probably too conservative. Their mean since 1950 I think is near 49"..a little over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nzucker

nzucker

Posted
Posted

Yeah one of the very few spots in the country that didn't see warming in January. We cooled off in March too.

It looks like September and November were the two months that torched the most. February not far behind.

The Northern Tier of the country has seen very warm falls in the last decade compared to the 1971-2000 average:

post-475-0-86892800-1309933245.png

One has to wonder if the slower build-up of sea ice and snow cover in the higher latitudes has played its role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CapturedNature

CapturedNature

Posted
Posted

That really bugs me looking at that BDL number. I already knew ORH would be a bit too low because of the bad data, but that BDL number is just ludicrous. 40.5"? lol. At worst they are 45" for '81-'10 and that is probably too conservative. Their mean since 1950 I think is near 49"..a little over.

Why are "normals" only computed from the last 30 years? It seems to me it introduces too much variability like you mention above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
40/70 Benchmark

40/70 Benchmark

Posted
Posted

BDL and ORH have some really contaminated data in the early 2000s. They had some in the late 90s too, but it was a bit less evident since it was only a few years. Now they have added a few more years of contaminated data while getting rid of the full data set from the 1970s.

I get roughly a 45" average for them in the 1981-2010 period estimating the snowfall in the 1997-2002 period. I was pretty conservative in the estimates.

Using the 30 year means though at BDL and ORH are useless since the datasets are incomplete. BOS and PVD should be ok though...except I think PVD might be incomplete in 1997-1998...but only one year and a lousy one at that shouldn't affect it too much.

Reading looks ok, but Lowell's data is definitely off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoastalWx

CoastalWx

Posted
Posted

That is horrendous. Those type of totals shouldn't even get in there. They are so far off from reality.

It's a shame some people might actually believe it. If they have some semblance of the winter climate, they would probably throw it out...but can you blame people? This is supposed to be an official tally, but some of the numbers are just gross. It's too bad some common sense doesn't get injected into it...but then again..who's going to QC it? Nothing we can really do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ORH_wxman

ORH_wxman

Posted
Posted

It's a shame some people might actually believe it. If they have some semblance of the winter climate, they would probably throw it out...but can you blame people? This is supposed to be an official tally, but some of the numbers are just gross. It's too bad some common sense doesn't get injected into it...but then again..who's going to QC it? Nothing we can really do.

The East Wareham coop right near the Canal averages over 36" and so does the Plymouth coop not too far to the north. HYA is maybe at most 5" less than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ORH_wxman

ORH_wxman

Posted
Posted

Some of those numbers for this area seem a bit on the low side. Not sure why. I'd guesstimate the average snowfall for the Pittsfield area to be in the mid to upper 70s, and probably low to mid 90s in the high spots of GC (maybe pushing 100 above 2K in the northern Berks).

The old Pittsfield WB Airport at 1160 feet averaged 73.5" of snow when they were keeping snow data between 1925-1970. The upslope spine above 2k I know can avg 100"+ but its a very narrow region because its those spots that can benefit both from westerly upslope and Nor' Easters.

For the east side, the coop I found that had some pretty good snow data was the old Heath coop at 1590 feet. But they discontinued it in 2002...too bad. They averaged 84" of snow between 1926-2002. The old Chesterfield coop (discontinued in 2003) averaged around 74" but I think they ran a bit low looking at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wxmanmitch

wxmanmitch

Posted
Posted

The old Pittsfield WB Airport at 1160 feet averaged 73.5" of snow when they were keeping snow data between 1925-1970. The upslope spine above 2k I know can avg 100"+ but its a very narrow region because its those spots that can benefit both from westerly upslope and Nor' Easters.

For the east side, the coop I found that had some pretty good snow data was the old Heath coop at 1590 feet. But they discontinued it in 2002...too bad. They averaged 84" of snow between 1926-2002. The old Chesterfield coop (discontinued in 2003) averaged around 74" but I think they ran a bit low looking at it.

73.5" seems much more like it for PSF. I was thinking about why the averages seem a little low for this area and my theory is due to a lack of measurements during those routine arctic front, WINDEX, or residual lake effect upslope events around here. We tend to get a decent number of them during the course of a typical winter. Many times we will get 2" or 3" of wind blown powder from such and event and it will never be measured properly by whomever is responsible for it, leading to either a significant under measurement or nothing at all. In addition, often times a 1/2" or an inch of this ultra high ratio LE/upslope stuff will get recorded as a trace, if anything at all. As an example we had about 9" of upslope during 12/5-6/10 (by far the biggest such event I've witnessed in 10 years in this area) that only got recorded as 3.5" or something like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoastalWx

CoastalWx

Posted
Posted

ha yeah i was looking over the data yesterday. it's worthless to even include some places.

Snowfall can be so frustrating to use as a metric. It's fickle and not exact at all. When I think of average..I always ball park it to the nearest inch or so. I don't feel right saying 43.8". It could be 42" or perhaps 45".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
snowman21

snowman21

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Snowfall can be so frustrating to use as a metric. It's fickle and not exact at all. When I think of average..I always ball park it to the nearest inch or so. I don't feel right saying 43.8". It could be 42" or perhaps 45".

The normals are preliminary, so I suppose between now and October there could be some changes. You'd think the normals team cares about accuracy, so maybe someone at some level (state climatologists, WFOs, etc.) familiar with the local climates would offer their comments in an official capacity. Snowfall is by far the most error prone and variable, so it's easy to see how things are off significantly in some cases. The one issue with correcting it is in the daily data which is where it should be fixed, but that's a huge task to undertake. I assume they can't just tack on a few more inches to the annual total and call it a day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tropopause_Fold

Tropopause_Fold

Posted
Posted

The normals are preliminary, so I suppose between now and October there could be some changes. You'd think the normals team cares about accuracy, so maybe someone at some level (state climatologists, WFOs, etc.) familiar with the local climates would offer their comments in an official capacity. Snowfall is by far the most error prone and variable, so it's easy to see how things are off significantly in some cases. The one issue with correcting it is in the daily data which is where it should be fixed, but that's a huge task to undertake. I assume they can't just tack on a few more inches to the annual total and call it a day.

there's not much they can do it about for a lot of the area i think. it's just my opinion, but for a lot of the places they'd just be better off not including anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
snowman21

snowman21

Posted
  • Author
Posted

there's not much they can do it about for a lot of the area i think. it's just my opinion, but for a lot of the places they'd just be better off not including anything.

I agree. I'd rather have nothing than something that's not accurate. Too bad the first order sites suck at measuring snow too, because if there was a solid benchmark some statistical analysis could be applied to QC the coop sites' data better. Unfortunately unlike temps and precip which are automatically recorded at many of the coop sites, no such cheap equivalent exists for snowfall/depth measurement, and we'll always be plagued by under reporting. If they can go back and adjust temperatures for time of observation, I'm not sure why an equivalent process hasn't been developed to at least true up the snowfall reports. I'm guessing the depth normals are pretty close though since most of the coops measure in the morning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CT Rain

CT Rain

Posted
Posted

No way in Hell West Thompson Lake CT gets less than Jewett City, most if not all of this data is bunk, great use of taxpayer money.

Yeah almost all of it is garbage. I don't see the point.

Even the first order climate stations are screwed up. I use my own averages... don't rely on this garbage from NCDC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
snowman21

snowman21

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Yeah almost all of it is garbage. I don't see the point.

Even the first order climate stations are screwed up. I use my own averages... don't rely on this garbage from NCDC.

Groton looks better at least, and the other coastal stations in Conn. reasonable as well. The other problem with these normals, if they are grossly inaccurate, is that they will be used to judge departures from normal going forward, so every normal season at BDL will automatically get a half foot or so head start now that the normal is only 40.5 inches. Where do you get your averages from if not NCDC?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CapturedNature

CapturedNature

Posted
Posted

Yeah almost all of it is garbage. I don't see the point.

Even the first order climate stations are screwed up. I use my own averages... don't rely on this garbage from NCDC.

I agree....it's one of the reasons I started keeping my own records (that and an interest in weather). I don't think I've "trusted" an observation out of BDL for years. Some of their temperatures are ridiculous compared to what they used to be (and other stations).

It seems to me a lot of the preliminary data is messed up, more so than in previous decades. I hate when that happens because it just opens everything up to interpretation which causes confusion and lowers confidence levels in the weather service. Data should be empirical, not subjective....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
snowman21

snowman21

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I agree....it's one of the reasons I started keeping my own records (that and an interest in weather). I don't think I've "trusted" an observation out of BDL for years. Some of their temperatures are ridiculous compared to what they used to be (and other stations).

It seems to me a lot of the preliminary data is messed up, more so than in previous decades. I hate when that happens because it just opens everything up to interpretation which causes confusion and lowers confidence levels in the weather service. Data should be empirical, not subjective....

I think you can trust observations from the airports. Those stations use very expensive automated equipment costing six figures, have a good maintenance program, and are sited closely to WMO standards, so they are pretty reliable. Not to mention the primary purpose of those stations is air traffic safety with climatology a secondary use of the data. Measuring temperatures along the tarmacs probably introduces a bit of a warm bias, but many home stations have the opposite problem due to lack of exposure which exacerbates the disparity (widening the spread) in temperatures between your house and the official readings. The usual complaint is the unreliable snowfall measurements at the 250 or so first order stations which are mostly at airports and are automated stations, which is definitely a problem, and as such the NWS and/or NCDC have used nearby coops to supplement many of those stations' official snowfall records. The coops are hit or miss with regard to snowfall measurement. Some are very dedicated, others measure just once per day, and others still will only report multi-day accumulations.

Regarding snowfall normals, I was incorrect in stating that the snowfall normals were not using arithmetic means (as the below implies) - it's the daily values and other derived values that do not. Here's the official word on the monthly and annual values from section 3.A(1) of "Computational Procedures for the 1981-2010 Normals: Precipitation, Snowfall, and Snow Depth":

The average monthly, seasonal, and annual totals of precipitation and snowfall require as a first step the computation of monthly totals for each station/year/month. Following WMO (1989), a monthly total is calculated for every station/year/month in GHCN-Daily that is complete when daily values, two-day accumulations, and three-day accumulations are considered. Accumulations that extend from the end of one month to the beginning of another are excluded. February 29 is included in the monthly totals for February in leap years. For precipitation, an attempt is made to fill in monthly totals that are missing during the normals period using a previously developed method based on median absolute deviation regression relationships between stations and qualifying neighbors. Monthly snowfall totals are not estimated because of the large number of zeros that degrade the quality of the regression relationships in many locations and because of the temperature dependence and larger spatial variability of snowfall compared to precipitation. A description of the estimation procedure is provided in the appendix.

For each calendar month, the average monthly total then is the arithmetic mean of all observed and, for precipitation, estimated totals available during the 30-year period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ORH_wxman

ORH_wxman

Posted
Posted

Groton looks better at least, and the other coastal stations in Conn. reasonable as well. The other problem with these normals, if they are grossly inaccurate, is that they will be used to judge departures from normal going forward, so every normal season at BDL will automatically get a half foot or so head start now that the normal is only 40.5 inches. Where do you get your averages from if not NCDC?

We can gather our own averages just by looking at years without contaminated data. BDL has fairly decent data except from 1996-2002...so when you plug in 7 years worth of total garbage data (almost all biased extremely low), then it will affect the average. We can measure that fairly well by doing our own QC and I'm sure Ryan does that as well. ORH has very similar issues...and I actually reconstructed their missing data for every single day between 1996 and 2002 with the help of an NWS employee because we were trying to get it submitted to NCDC to get their data accurate but unfortunately we hit some bureaucratic red tape and the ORH data remains as it is, but I (and NWS Taunton in their own personal database) do have some of the revised numbers. NCDC doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wxmanmitch

wxmanmitch

Posted
Posted

Snowfall can be so frustrating to use as a metric. It's fickle and not exact at all. When I think of average..I always ball park it to the nearest inch or so. I don't feel right saying 43.8". It could be 42" or perhaps 45".

Agreed 100%...which is why I will often use ballpark numbers when describing snowfall averages in this area (or anywhere for that matter).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CapturedNature

CapturedNature

Posted
Posted

I think you can trust observations from the airports. Those stations use very expensive automated equipment costing six figures, have a good maintenance program, and are sited closely to WMO standards, so they are pretty reliable. Not to mention the primary purpose of those stations is air traffic safety with climatology a secondary use of the data. Measuring temperatures along the tarmacs probably introduces a bit of a warm bias, but many home stations have the opposite problem due to lack of exposure which exacerbates the disparity (widening the spread) in temperatures between your house and the official readings.

Unless of course the $100,000 station is improperly sited which happens all the time. I don't distrust the values that BDLs sensors put out but I do question the siting of them. Somewhere in the late '80s/early '90s they changed the location of their AWOS station. It used to be in a more open area across from the actual runway. When they moved it, it definately introduced a warm bias. You can have the most expensive equipment going, but if it's sited wrong, the values are not going to be correct. There are going to be in the ball park which is fine for public safety, but I feel it doesn't help public confidence when it comes to the climate.

I agree with you about most home stations. I really question the readings of some "professional" stations which is why I stil rely on manual methods. It's hard to manipulate a mercury or alcohol thermometer in a cotton shelter as opposed to a tiny "vented" cup. I would say a good percentage spike way too high most sunny afternoons.

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...