Central Park snowfall totals increased (now 50.3)

[famartin]

This problem has been well known by the NWS for quite some time now. The

interesting point below is that they had to fight to keep the Central Park station

open. The NYT article is from February 2003.

 

ASOS is expensive.  I understand there was also a "fight" to put an ASOS in downtown Baltimore to keep obs going there.  Similar things probably happened at Blue Hill Observatory in Massachusetts and downtown Los Angeles.

 

 

In Central Park, zookeepers, not meteorologists, take the measurements, according to Mr. Wyllie, who said he had fought to keep the lone weather station in Manhattan open.

Mr. Schlacter said the last 12 measurements Central Park that totaled at least three inches ended in ''point zero'' or ''point five.''

''It makes you very suspicious that they're just rounding,'' he said.

''We're working with them,'' Mr. Wyllie said about the zookeepers. ''We're doing the best we can.''

 

At airports, meteorologists said, F.A.A. employees may not take measurements unless airport operations are affected. As a result, small snowfalls are reported as ''traces'' rather than actual amounts. Heavier snow may not be measured until it stops falling, meaning that there is no information about the progress of a storm.

 

That's not true about the airports and small amounts.  Certainly there have been plenty of small amounts reported.  The observers are tasked to measure all snow, not just amounts that affect operations.

[Guest Pamela]

You are correct

Aren't I always?

[Guest Pamela]

Measuring snow properly is simple. A well trained moron could do it.

[uncle W]

0.5" of snow on the ground is counted as 1" of depth but 0.5" of fall.  Confusing, I know, but that's how it works, so its not necessarily evidence of a bad measurement, in and of itself.

I figured the half inch that fell the night before would have some evaporation before the 7am depth measurement and would be recorded as a trace...since it was 1" and I had an inch also made me think the park had an inch also...I wonder where they take snow depth measurements?...they seemed kind of high to me compared to the airports...

[Guest Pamela]

That's not the question I was responding to.

I'll remove your quote; though the point certainly stands.

[famartin]

I figured the half inch that fell the night before would have some evaporation before the 7am depth measurement and would be recorded as a trace...since it was 1" and I had an inch also made me think the park had an inch also...I wonder where they take snow depth measurements?...they seemed kind of high to me compared to the airports...

I wondered that as well as far as the depth.  Almost made me wonder if they were measuring under the north side of a tree, where the branches might reduce fall but increase longevity.  Honestly, I have no clue, it was just a thought.

[Isotherm]

A well trained moron could do it.

 

 

Isn't that an oxy-MORON?

[Guest Pamela]

Isn't that an oxy-MORON?

 

I doubt it, Thomas...the training is what is provided to the individual in question...it does not necessarily measure or attempt to gauge the subject's intellectual gifts (or lack thereof).    Plenty of circus chimps can be wonderfully trained...but the ability to do a few simple tricks in no way elevates their IQ or provides them with that Divine Spark only a Chosen Few have been granted. 

[CPcantmeasuresnow]

 

Surely there are things which you have been "trained" for, but you didn't really absorb much information during the training because you weren't that interested in it? 

 

What was the question?

[CPcantmeasuresnow]

Measuring snow properly is simple. A well trained moron could do it.

 

Exactly, this shouldn't be that difficult to fix yet it has gone on for decades. At least there is now hope on the horizon at least until the first botched measurement next fall/winter.

[CPcantmeasuresnow]

How would Bill Evans know about under measurements at Chesapeake, VA (CPK)?

 

Because he grew up in Norfolk 10 miles from Chesapeake.

[Guest Pamela]

Exactly,

 

CantMeasure, though you may have less than a dozen posts to your credit and a screename of staggering prolixity, I like you already!

[CPcantmeasuresnow]

prolixity, I like you already!

 

prolixity? I'm not ashamed to admit I had to look that one up.

 

BTW Pamela of the 6000+ posts, any that I've read are very amusing

[forkyfork]

so central park is unreliable for snow, summer high temps, and wind

[Guest Pamela]

prolixity? I'm not ashamed to admit I had to look that one up.

 

BTW Pamela of the 6000+ posts, any that I've read are very amusing

 

One thing a person should *never* be ashamed of is their shame...

 

*giggles*

[Guest Pamela]

so central park is unreliable for snow, summer high temps, and wind

 

Maybe, but they are like *way* accurate when it comes to barometric pressure...

[famartin]

Maybe, but they are like *way* accurate when it comes to barometric pressure...

Actually, its precip is probably the most reliable of any ASOS site.

[Guest Pamela]

Actually, its precip is probably the most reliable of any ASOS site.

 

Since proper snowfall measurement is an integral component of the overall precipitation aspect of the climate record, I would be loathe to sing the praises of the rain gauge there if the intrinsic and complementary frozen measurements are soo very far removed from reality. 

[famartin]

Since proper snowfall measurement is an integral component of the overall precipitation aspect of the climate record, I would be loathe to sing the praises of the rain gauge there if the intrinsic and complementary frozen measurements are soo very far removed from reality. 

 

Precipitation is H2O that falls from the sky, recorded as its liquid-equivalent depth.  Snowfall is the depth of new frozen precipitation before melting.  It is entirely possible to have good precipitation measurements and bad snowfall measurements (and vice versa), since the measurement systems are entirely separate (gauge at the ASOS at the castle, versus ruler on a board at the zoo). 

 

In watching NYC observations, I've found that the liquid-equivalent reported by the Central Park ASOS is generally higher than any other site in the NYC area, regardless of what the actual snowfall amount is reported to be.  Since the usual error with ASOS is to under-report liquid equivalent of snow, I can safely say that the Central Park ASOS does better than any of the other ASOS's locally, and suspect its about the best there is anywhere in the USA. 

 

Why, you may ask?  Siting.  The same siting which can sometimes cause cool summer temperatures, its location in a glen surrounded by trees, works to aid better precipitation measurements by blocking the wind.  Most ASOS's are out in open airport fields where the precipitation is likely to be blown about by the wind and can limit what falls in the gauge.  That doesn't happen at Central Park's ASOS glen.

[Guest Pamela]

Precipitation is H2O that falls from the sky, recorded as its liquid-equivalent depth.  Snowfall is the depth of new frozen precipitation before melting.  It is entirely possible to have good precipitation measurements and bad snowfall measurements (and vice versa), since the measurement systems are entirely separate (gauge at the ASOS at the castle, versus ruler on a board at the zoo). 

 

In watching NYC observations, I've found that the liquid-equivalent reported by the Central Park ASOS is generally higher than any other site in the NYC area, regardless of what the actual snowfall amount is reported to be.  Since the usual error with ASOS is to under-report liquid equivalent of snow, I can safely say that the Central Park ASOS does better than any of the other ASOS's locally, and suspect its about the best there is anywhere in the USA. 

 

Why, you may ask?  Siting.  The same siting which can sometimes cause cool summer temperatures, its location in a glen surrounded by trees, works to aid better precipitation measurements by blocking the wind.  Most ASOS's are out in open airport fields where the precipitation is likely to be blown about by the wind and can limit what falls in the gauge.  That doesn't happen at Central Park's ASOS glen.

 

But the fact that precipitation can be characterized as *both* liquid and frozen...and those two states of matter are both irrevocably & inextricably intertwined...when one asserts that "precip measurements are reliable"...as you have...I am ever so slightly confounded. 

[famartin]

But the fact that precipitation can be characterized as *both* liquid and frozen...and those two states of matter are both inextricably & irrevocably intertwined gives me pause when one asserts that "precip measurements are reliable"...as you have. 

 

You are not understanding me.  "Precipitation measurements" consist of recording the depth of the liquid-equivalent of H20 that falls from the sky.  When I say "it is a good precipitation measurement" I simply mean exactly that.  The quality of the snowfall measurement, which is simply the depth of new frozen precipitation before melting, is not included in that consideration.

 

The ASOS gauge measures all precip, liquid and solid, and converts it into a liquid-equivalent precipitation total.  All I'm saying is that, in that regard, Central Park functions very well.  Among the best if not *the* best.   The quality of the work of the zookeepers is not relevant.

[tmagan]

The gauge is about, 20 to 30 feet in front of the castle.

[famartin]

The gauge is about, 20 to 30 feet in front of the castle.

Probably more like 100...

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=40.779004,-73.969236&num=1&t=m&z=19

[yhbrooklyn]

How would Bill Evans know about under measurements at Chesapeake, VA (CPK)?

[CPcantmeasuresnow]

One thing a person should *never* be ashamed of is their shame...

 

*giggles*

 

You seem to have an answer for everything, and if I may use inappropriate langauage you're too damn funny.

[bluewave]

Too bad the NWS doesn't go back further in time to correct the under measurements.

Last April 15-16 was a perfect example of light accumulations that get put in as a trace

while other sites listed the actual amounts.

 

http://nypost.com/2014/04/16/mid-april-snow-falls-across-new-york-city/

 

4/15-4/16-2014

 

NYC...T

LGA...0.3

EWR..0.4

JFK....0.1

ISP....0.2

[CPcantmeasuresnow]

Too bad the NWS doesn't go back further in time to correct the under measurements.

Last April 15-16 was a perfect example of light accumulations that get put in as a trace

while other sites list the actual amount.

 

4/15-4/16-2014

 

NYC...T

LGA...0.3

EWR..0.4

JFK....0.1

ISP....0.2

 

There are so many examples through time but your example, although a minor event, is just another blatant who gives a sh*t about measuring snow attitude displayed by the central park zoo employees through the years.

 

As for the few on this board who seem to believe it works both ways, under-counts vs. over-counts, the under-counts win at central park 90% of the time.

 

I’m glad NOAA made the adjustments this year but to make things right for all the under measurements through the years, the next trace of snow in Central Park should be recorded as 4 feet. It won’t make up for all of the erroneous under measurements going back to the preposterous 21 inches recorded during the blizzard of  1888, but it’s a start.

[bluewave]

There are so many examples through time but your example, although a minor event, is just another blatant who gives a sh*t about measuring snow attitude displayed by the central park zoo employees through the years.

 

As for the few on this board who seem to believe it works both ways, under-counts vs. over-counts, the under-counts win at central park 90% of the time.

 

 

I agree. The event last April really stands out since it's so rare to get more than a trace that late in the season and

should be reflected in the April Almanac NWS NYC page.

[ag3]

There are so many examples through time but your example, although a minor event, is just another blatant who gives a sh*t about measuring snow attitude displayed by the central park zoo employees through the years.

 

As for the few on this board who seem to believe it works both ways, under-counts vs. over-counts, the under-counts win at central park 90% of the time.

 

I’m glad NOAA made the adjustments this year but to make things right for all the under measurements through the years, the next trace of snow in Central Park should be recorded as 4 feet. It won’t make up for all of the erroneous under measurements going back to the preposterous 21 inches recorded during the blizzard of  1888, but it’s a start.

 

The Blizzard of 1996 was likely 25"+ as well and was under-reported.

[LongBeachSurfFreak]

There are so many examples through time but your example, although a minor event, is just another blatant who gives a sh*t about measuring snow attitude displayed by the central park zoo employees through the years.

 

As for the few on this board who seem to believe it works both ways, under-counts vs. over-counts, the under-counts win at central park 90% of the time.

 

I’m glad NOAA made the adjustments this year but to make things right for all the under measurements through the years, the next trace of snow in Central Park should be recorded as 4 feet. It won’t make up for all of the erroneous under measurements going back to the preposterous 21 inches recorded during the blizzard of  1888, but it’s a start.

Watch out with 1888! I agree with you 100% in regards to all the other but Pam schooled me good on 1888. It apparently was measured more correctly then we think.

If anyone can vouch for NYC being off it's me as I was outside a couple miles from the park doing snow removal during every storm after jan 10th. And taking legit measurements throughout. They did somehow nail the last 2 so maybe upton got on them about the precious misses