Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,307
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Abobus
    Newest Member
    Abobus
    Joined

Northern Ohio Obs/Discussion Part 2


Trent
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, LakeEffectOH said:

This winter has got to be a record setter for the Snowbelt as far as lack of snowfall goes.  Chardon, so far this season, has had just under 40".  Ugh!

I hope the saying "What a difference a year makes" applies to next winter.

Definitely a record setter. Probably around 30" or so inches around here. Couldn't imagine being a snow lover and living in an area that only averages 30-40" per season. Yeah, hopefully the coin flips next year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, NEOH said:

Definitely a record setter. Probably around 30" or so inches around here. Couldn't imagine being a snow lover and living in an area that only averages 30-40" per season. Yeah, hopefully the coin flips next year. 

I sure hope so...this winter is absolutely disgusting.  Makes 2001-02, 2011-12 & 2019-20 look good. <_< 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dta1984 said:

37" Imby.   Definitely the worst I've experienced out here.  If only we could transition to a warm enjoyable spring...but of course it'll be 30s and crap for at least March.  

Glad you are keeping track of the snowfall :lol:...  I gave up awhile ago. A warm Spring would be nice but its not looking good at this point. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This winter has felt worse than 2011-12, and I believe the numbers show that (this winter was definitely a bit warmer, and snow has been at least a bit less across the board, especially in the snowbelt). 11-12 was my prior "low benchmark" in this area. 19-20 was much worse where I was living in NJ (we got about a foot for the winter, average where I was living was probably 40-45"), but their climo baseline is warmer/less snow than here. 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WHEATCENT said:

figures the GFS/Canadian Show a decent snowfall but NAM/Euro don't this winter lmao

NAM is close as well. GFS and CMC are a solid hit but the RN/SN line is close. Need a few bumps south for any confidence at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, NEOH said:

Can't winter just go away peacefully :lol:. Pretty good consensus but marginal temps are a bit concerning. 

Going away would imply that it was ever here!

I actually think this could be a warning-level snowfall for the primary snowbelt (and probably Cleveland metro too) if we see the southern low track advertised by the GFS and Euro, with at least a good few inches of synoptic snow Friday followed by wrap-around and some lake enhancement Friday night. However, the NAM/RGEM/CMC are a little farther north with the low track and bring a dry slot and some rain up to the lake even in northeast OH for a few hours Friday afternoon and would maybe more of a sloppy system with probably more of a casual advisory snow. The blocked pattern over eastern Canada and the north Atlantic at least leaves the door open for the southern track, but the bologna is sliced pretty thinly. Curious to see what today's 12z runs show. Suspect the NAM/RGEM are too amped but could see some sort of a compromise solution in which the GFS/Euro tick somewhat warmer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, OHweather said:

Going away would imply that it was ever here!

I actually think this could be a warning-level snowfall for the primary snowbelt (and probably Cleveland metro too) if we see the southern low track advertised by the GFS and Euro, with at least a good few inches of synoptic snow Friday followed by wrap-around and some lake enhancement Friday night. However, the NAM/RGEM/CMC are a little farther north with the low track and bring a dry slot and some rain up to the lake even in northeast OH for a few hours Friday afternoon and would maybe more of a sloppy system with probably more of a casual advisory snow. The blocked pattern over eastern Canada and the north Atlantic at least leaves the door open for the southern track, but the bologna is sliced pretty thinly. Curious to see what today's 12z runs show. Suspect the NAM/RGEM are too amped but could see some sort of a compromise solution in which the GFS/Euro tick somewhat warmer. 

Ha. Good point. This "winter" is in rare territory for snowfall futility. Here's the snowfall map for 2011/2012. Not even close to 60" here at this point. We'll see what happens from here on out... hopefully Friday trends in a good direction. 

 

 

 

 

 

Snowcolor1112.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WHEATCENT said:

as we approach amounts going down as per usual this winter :axe:

Still has the opportunity to be our biggest snow this year I believe.   I have low expectations, but anything over 4" would be solid for the year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dta1984 said:

Still has the opportunity to be our biggest snow this year I believe.   I have low expectations, but anything over 4" would be solid for the year. 

Beautiful day out there today with full sun... even with temps in the 30's it feels nice. Would almost rather miss at this point. But it will be a scenic wet snowfall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/8/2023 at 10:13 AM, NEOH said:

Ha. Good point. This "winter" is in rare territory for snowfall futility. Here's the snowfall map for 2011/2012. Not even close to 60" here at this point. We'll see what happens from here on out... hopefully Friday trends in a good direction. 

 

 

 

 

 

Snowcolor1112.png

It's even worse when you realize most of the old snow records are complete nonsense. Like the 12.1" in Erie in 1943-1944. It simply didn't happen. The data is simply missing, and it's really bizarre as the only missing data is like every date in which snow was observed.

According to NWS CLE, Erie observed 12.1" of snow in 1943-1944.

In reality, 8.2" of snow was observed in October 1943 - this is actually the 4th snowiest October in Erie history, but completely eliminated from the record books. The data from the mid-month snowstorm is all missing.

image.png.f3a3107595cc918a416ea2316e59de6a.png

Another 6.4 inches in November 1943, 7.8 inches in December 1943, 1.0 inches in January 1944, 12.5 inches in February, 10.7 inches in March 1944, and 1.9 inches in April 1944. There were 48.5 inches observed that year, which seems paltry compared to modern normals, but there were different techniques then. Regardless, a far, far cry from the 12.1 inches reported by the NWS.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/8/2023 at 10:13 AM, NEOH said:

Ha. Good point. This "winter" is in rare territory for snowfall futility. Here's the snowfall map for 2011/2012. Not even close to 60" here at this point. We'll see what happens from here on out... hopefully Friday trends in a good direction. 

 

 

 

 

 

Snowcolor1112.png

Pitiful...just pitiful...

Total OH Sno, Winter 2022-23, 2023-03-09.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same story at Youngstown. The "official" record is 18.7 inches in the winter of 1941-42. So far, this winter, 18.4" has been observed. But if you look at the observations from that winter, most of the snowfall records are missing. Not to mention, those observations come from a location in downtown Youngstown, not KYNG airport. So we're talking about nearly 400 feet lower in elevation, urban (lots of steel mills & blast furnaces in those days) versus rural, and several miles further south. It would be like grafting snowfall records from the lakeshore in Lake County onto records from Chardon, Ohio. But even ignoring that, the snowfall observations from many of those early winters are replete with missing and incomplete data because the liquid equivalence of snowfall was reported instead of the actual snowfall and those numbers are then used by whatever algorithm they use as though it was actual snowfall.

image.png.10dd7288340cca3bf65488d66fec5fec.png

Look at this nonsense. It's clear the observer was just listing the liquid equivalent of snowfall in the snowfall column. Whatever algorithm they use to get these figures, ignores the first zero if reported to the hundredths column and gives that as a tenth of an inch. In other words, it basically assumes a 10:1 ratio. But when two digits are reported, like 0.52" and 0.29", it simply rounds them to the nearest tenth. So those days show up as 0.5" and 0.3". Obviously, that's nonsense. The depth increased by 4" on the 17th - erroneously listed in the prevailing wind column.

Simply assuming a 10:1 ratio on all of the days with snow, except 0.8" on the 9th and 4" on the 17th to at least be consistent with the reported depth, gives 11.8". Yet the "official" total is 2.5 inches. You can see the Weather Bureau at the time, correctly indicated snowfall to be missing here.

And it gets even worse. This is the official record for December 1941, but if you look it's labeled 1942 and was received by the Weather Bureau on January 8, 1943. This is indeed the record of observations from December 1942. The December 1941 observations were mistakenly labeled as 1942, and the NWS switched the dates of the wrong month. Just complete nonsense.

Low of -10 on the 21st would be a record in the threaded climate history, yet is deleted from the record books as missing data.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for the complaints, but I think there are users here at the NWS in Cleveland that could look into this. These are just two of the more egregious examples. Obviously, don't have time to sift through all of the observations for every year. But the 12.1" was certainly eye-popping and warranted a review of the record books. No clue why all of the snowfall observations from that winter are missing there. Years ago, brought this to attention of the people in charge of the "Threaded Extremes"  but nothing is ever done to correct the data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Sorry for the complaints, but I think there are users here at the NWS in Cleveland that could look into this. These are just two of the more egregious examples. Obviously, don't have time to sift through all of the observations for every year. But the 12.1" was certainly eye-popping and warranted a review of the record books. No clue why all of the snowfall observations from that winter are missing there. Years ago, brought this to attention of the people in charge of the "Threaded Extremes"  but nothing is ever done to correct the data.

Well, WW2 was in full swing during that time frame so maybe snowfall reporting/measuring was less of a priority.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NEOH said:

Well, WW2 was in full swing during that time frame so maybe snowfall reporting/measuring was less of a priority.  

I'm not talking about the quality of data, but problems with the digitization of the data resulting in a lot of missing data that actually was observed and/or data improperly transcribed.

Here's what NRRC Climod2 site shows for lowest seasonal snowfall in Erie, PA:

image.png.490362c6c6716f5e5d8351817ba61a0a.png

Which matches with what NWS CLE shows (see: https://www.weather.gov/cle/Top10Annual):

image.png.fb4eeef2837382c8ac350ee15f50ee17.png

1943-44 is shown to be the least snowiest in both data sets with 12.1 inches; however, there was actually 48.5 inches reported on the raw LCDs. There are 25 days with missing data on the digitized figures - all of them had observed snow that are missing from the total snowfall count.

For example: The raw LCD data for Erie, PA in October 1943 shows 8.2 inches of snow fell, which would be the 4th most on record for the month of October. There appears to have been a mid-month storm system which gave way to lake effect/lake enhanced rain and then heavy, wet snow, judging by the massive precipitation totals.

image.png.f3a3107595cc918a416ea2316e59de6a.png

 

In the digitized data, from which the 12.1" seasonal figure is drawn, the snow from that storm is completely missing. The only missing data in October is the snowfall from the three days in which snow was observed - everything else matches the LCD exactly. This is only one example, it's like the entire winter in Erie. The bulk of the reported snow is not reflected in the digitized data. and reported as missing data. As noted, there is actually 48.5 inches of snow recorded in the official LCDs, which are accessible here: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/lcd/lcd.html

image.png.cc873bf956a7ea2643a9cec852178c3a.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

It's even worse when you realize most of the old snow records are complete nonsense. Like the 12.1" in Erie in 1943-1944. It simply didn't happen. The data is simply missing, and it's really bizarre as the only missing data is like every date in which snow was observed.

According to NWS CLE, Erie observed 12.1" of snow in 1943-1944.

In reality, 8.2" of snow was observed in October 1943 - this is actually the 4th snowiest October in Erie history, but completely eliminated from the record books. The data from the mid-month snowstorm is all missing.

image.png.f3a3107595cc918a416ea2316e59de6a.png

Another 6.4 inches in November 1943, 7.8 inches in December 1943, 1.0 inches in January 1944, 12.5 inches in February, 10.7 inches in March 1944, and 1.9 inches in April 1944. There were 48.5 inches observed that year, which seems paltry compared to modern normals, but there were different techniques then. Regardless, a far, far cry from the 12.1 inches reported by the NWS.

 

 

 

 

The winters of the 1940s were terrible snow years in the lower Great Lakes, but obviously in those examples you mentioned there is missing data. I'm just curious what you mean "techniques were different" back then.  At 1st order sites that measured snowfall and depth without missing data, there is nothing to show that anything was done differently back then than is done now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NEOH said:

Moderate snow falling. Surprised to see forecast totals increase to 4-8". Dry slot if awfully close already. 

Same here.   Rates and flake size have increased recently, but unfortunately the temps are creeping up too.  Maybe 1-2" down so far.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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