Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    15,393
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    NW_of_GYX
    Newest Member
    NW_of_GYX
    Joined
Sign in to follow this  
USCAPEWEATHERAF

February 18th - President's Day Overrunning Snow Event Nowcast/Obs

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, #NoPoles said:

How do you look up those texts that the NWS puts out that has the county, and town and then snow fall total?

Best bet is to check Iowa State and change the WFO and date, then search for PNS.

The only issue with that is there is no guarantee that a spotter reported during a storm from Bellingham or Foxboro. Franklin will always have the coop data though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

They won’t believe it. Unreal.

The good news is it's only 5.5 miles from the Common, but 15 miles from the harbor buoy. So it could be worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, OceanStWx said:

:bag:

2019-02-19_17-35-48_zpsjgqhlsww.jpg

At a sewer plant to boot, no UHI there lol. Wait until theres a 965 Nor'Easter when all the snow is blown off the Peninsula.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, OceanStWx said:

I mean the Logan report is going to be the number for BOS climate purposes. But the observer is new from the old Winthrop coop. What kind of problems they are having with measurements I have no idea though. Either the site is super close to the water, or they've just messed up the measurements a few times.

Upon further review, it's not great guys. You thought Winthrop was a tough location to measure, just keep heading down the peninsula to the tip. :o

Agree... the measurement is frequently an obvious low outlier compared to readings in the city center or anywhere else in the Boston area. Either the spotter is consistently lowballing measurements, or the micro-climate (on the peninsula on which the airport is built, or Winthrop beach immediately across) is not representative of anywhere else in the city.

The latter is almost definitely true. And probably attributes at least 50% of the deviation.

But many here have argued the former too. Multiple times, every year. There have certainly been events in which you would not necessarily expect Logan to be significantly lower than Boston Commons, but it consistently is. A randomly plucked example (of which there are many more, I just don't have these memorized):

Jan 2005:

   BOSTON COMMON         26.0   116 PM  1/23   NWS EMPLOYEE
   ROSLINDALE            25.5   305 PM  1/23   ST
   EAST BOSTON           22.5   700 PM  1/23   LOGAN KBOS

How much of the low deviation is attributable to spotter error vs. micro-climate, and if the latter, whether Logan should be the climate site representative of the city, are perennial debates here. We'll see if/how things change over time with a new spotter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, wxsniss said:

Agree... the measurement is frequently an obvious low outlier compared to readings in the city center or anywhere else in the Boston area. Either the spotter is consistently lowballing measurements, or the micro-climate (on the peninsula on which the airport is built, or Winthrop beach immediately across) is not representative of anywhere else in the city.

The latter is almost definitely true. And probably attributes at least 50% of the deviation.

But many here have argued the former too. Multiple times, every year. There have certainly been events in which you would not necessarily expect Logan to be significantly lower than Boston Commons, but it consistently is. A randomly plucked example (of which there are many more, I just don't have these memorized):

Jan 2005:

   BOSTON COMMON         26.0   116 PM  1/23   NWS EMPLOYEE
   ROSLINDALE            25.5   305 PM  1/23   ST
   EAST BOSTON           22.5   700 PM  1/23   LOGAN KBOS

How much of the low deviation is attributable to spotter error vs. micro-climate, and if the latter, whether Logan should be the climate site representative of the city, are perennial debates here. We'll see if/how things change over time with a new spotter.

I mean there could definitely be an observer bias. A WWTP for instance is unlikely to have the same observer measuring every event (so some storms may be rounded to the nearest half inch vs others to the tenth).

But given that it's also on Deer Island wind and warmth are going to affect measurements. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, wxsniss said:

Agree... the measurement is frequently an obvious low outlier compared to readings in the city center or anywhere else in the Boston area. Either the spotter is consistently lowballing measurements, or the micro-climate (on the peninsula on which the airport is built, or Winthrop beach immediately across) is not representative of anywhere else in the city.

The latter is almost definitely true. And probably attributes at least 50% of the deviation.

But many here have argued the former too. Multiple times, every year. There have certainly been events in which you would not necessarily expect Logan to be significantly lower than Boston Commons, but it consistently is. A randomly plucked example (of which there are many more, I just don't have these memorized):

Jan 2005:

   BOSTON COMMON         26.0   116 PM  1/23   NWS EMPLOYEE
   ROSLINDALE            25.5   305 PM  1/23   ST
   EAST BOSTON           22.5   700 PM  1/23   LOGAN KBOS

How much of the low deviation is attributable to spotter error vs. micro-climate, and if the latter, whether Logan should be the climate site representative of the city, are perennial debates here. We'll see if/how things change over time with a new spotter.

I'm actually pleased you posted that from the Blizzard of 2005.  You and everybody can clearly see the deviation.  I always believed that the 26.0" amount was correct given the majority of the observations around the Boston area at that time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Greg said:

I'm actually pleased you posted that from the Blizzard of 2005.  You and everybody can clearly see the deviation.  I always believed that the 26.0" amount was correct given the majority of the observations around the Boston area at that time.

Pretty sure they measured on a catwalk in that event. I’m not joking. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×