Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,505
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Dano62
    Newest Member
    Dano62
    Joined

The Little Storm That Could - March 3/4


Spanks45
 Share

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

Did you tell them you are up on a 350 foot hill? That will matter too in a storm like this where you probably were closer to 30F instead of 31-32F like it might be down near the blackstone river.

I explained to them how Cumberland goes from Tons of roads and concrete at 100 to Trees and Seclution at 350.  They didn’t realize it.  I said “Where are these other 2 posters?  This town has its own climate”.  I’d post the picture but you can only post a 0.00003MB picture of lint.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TheSnowman said:

I explained to them how Cumberland goes from Tons of roads and concrete at 100 to Trees and Seclution at 350.  They didn’t realize it.  I said “Where are these other 2 posters?  This town has its own climate”.  I’d post the picture but you can only post a 0.00003MB picture of lint.  

How often did you clear? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

This storm will bring out low amounts if you did not do it right. We were 31.5-31.8 and accumulated just fine. Even blowing off roof. I didn’t lose much to road cave, but measured in a shady spot on north side of house where snow stuck immediately. I was highly confident in the amount. The lowest I found was just over 14.5”  where the snow was last to accumulate on part of my torch driveway. So I believe Cory. 

8F7F9FBA-AC19-439D-9E96-5836F8EFCFE1.png

Lolz. 3 or 4:1 snow isnt even a real thing. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TheSnowman said:

I explained to them how Cumberland goes from Tons of roads and concrete at 100 to Trees and Seclution at 350.  They didn’t realize it.  I said “Where are these other 2 posters?  This town has its own climate”.  I’d post the picture but you can only post a 0.00003MB picture of lint.  

Yeah and there's even spots in Cumberland that get over 500 feet I think....really variable town...but most live down in the 100-250 foot range

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, OSUmetstud said:

Where did they used to take the official boston ob?

Right before this, it was also in Winthrop, but it was at least further north more on land and not at a treatment plant in the middle of the atlantic ocean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, dendrite said:

How often did you clear? 

 

5 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

Yeah and there's even spots in Cumberland that get over 500 feet I think....really variable town...but most live down in the 100-250 foot range

Diamond Hill is even over 600.  But Tower Hill Rd. where Many houses are, are in the 450 range.  

 

And I cleared once of course.  6 hours in at 2:30.  Had 6.5”.  Had 10.5” after.  Then a little after 8:30 from 3 hours of heavy mood snows with nothing on radar haha.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TheSnowman said:

 

Diamond Hill is even over 600.  But Tower Hill Rd. where Many houses are, are in the 450 range.  

 

And I cleared once of course.  6 hours in at 2:30.  Had 6.5”.  Had 10.5” after.  Then a little after 8:30 from 3 hours of heavy mood snows with nothing on radar haha.  

Sounds good.

It's possible the other sites didn't clear. I mean, this was a quick, heavy thump of a lot of snow. The other two sites could have had a few inches of compaction while you had a clean slate to pile up another 10" with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, TheSnowman said:

Really?  You of Allllllllllllll people.  I just Jackpotted a storm.  I want the amount there.  Not 30% less as posted not once but 2X.  

It can be infuriating.  NWS almost always uses my reports for Greenfield because they know I'm pretty conservative with my measurements. I had to complain a few years ago when they used a "media" source for a few storms and they were way off from my totals both on the negative and positive side but almost every Greenfield report over the past 8 years is mine.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

Right before this, it was also in Winthrop, but it was at least further north more on land and not at a treatment plant in the middle of the atlantic ocean.

We all know there should be a weather station and snow board in a little fenced area on Boston Common, just need to find somebody on Beacon Hill to walk down and take the measurements. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, HIPPYVALLEY said:

It can be infuriating.  NWS almost always uses my reports for Greenfield because they know I'm pretty conservative with my measurements. I had to complain a few years ago when they used a "media" source for a few storms and they were way off from my totals both on the negative and positive side but almost every Greenfield report over the past 8 years is mine.

Are you a trained spotter? And was assigned a number with BOX?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, dendrite said:

Sounds good.

It's possible the other sites didn't clear. I mean, this was a quick, heavy thump of a lot of snow. The other two sites could have had a few inches of compaction while you had a clean slate to pile up another 10" with.

 

5 minutes ago, dryslot said:

Are you a trained spotter? And was assigned a number with BOX?

Spotter 05-313 Baby.  

 

And my Untouched Compact Total was 16.25”.  And I sent them the picture of the snow with ruler when it was so and untouched when I had 17” Total.  This storm hardly had compaction which was fun because you shoveled 16” vs. usual for 17” which would be 14.5/15 and you’d feel like you cheated.  RIGHT up through 15.5” the compact total was only 0.5” behind.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, TheSnowman said:

 

Spotter 05-313 Baby.  

 

And my Untouched Compact Total was 16.25”.  And I sent them the picture of the snow with ruler when it was so and untouched when I had 17” Total.  This storm hardly had compaction which was fun because you shoveled 16” vs. usual for 17” which would be 14.5/15 and you’d feel like you cheated.  RIGHT up through 15.5” the compact total was only 0.5” behind.  

I believe you. I think now that most who are in the "know" understand to let it settle if not measure it every 12-24 hours like many did before the 1995/1996 winter.  Elevation and mesoscale features that you indicate here however can create these types of deviations. Not large deviations but somewhat noticeable as you have observed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah this stuff fell so fast and it also didn't have massive ratios....they were good, maybe 15 to 1, but not jspin or LES ratios. It really didn't compact until the snow was almost stopped...and even then, it took a good hour to really get noticeable. I had the snow stick stuck in the same spot the entire time once I went out to start cleaning up and it didn't dip below 16" until maybe 9-930am.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, powderfreak said:

The GYX coastal plain (or at least outside the mountains) has seen the 7-10 split now... BTV's area has had several double digit events and now down south in the I-95 corridor. 

That's the SNE climate though.  They may wait for it, but it's usually less events but bigger ones, vs. NNE is more frequency but average snowfalls lower.

Looking at the major sites on KI-95 from DCA (actually DC itself, as its record snow probably pre-dates that AP) to HUL, the top snowfalls are remarkably similar:

"DCA"  28.0"  1/1922
BWI    29.2"   1/2016
PHL    30.7"   1/1996
NYC    27.5"   1/2016
PVD    28.2"   2/1978
BOS    27.6"   2/2003
PWM   31.9"   2/2013
BGR    30.9"   2/1969
HUL    29.2"   3/1981

Get down to 15th largest, and the more southerly sites (DCA to PHL) drop to under 15" while farther north it's 17-18" (except for poor PVD, also <15.)
 

Lolz. 3 or 4:1 snow isnt even a real thing. 

Uncommon but it happens.  The slopfest of late Feb. 2010 dropped 10.7" from 2.68" LE, with all RA (there was 1.14" of that) excluded.  Big clumps falling at hailstone velocity would just splatter upon hitting branches - wouldn't stay in the trees at all.  Pick up and squeeze a handful of fresh snow, and water would run out thru one's fingers.  Most unattractive 10"+ snow I ever hope to see - hardest to move, too, with no snowblower and a thawed gravel driveway to make pushing the scoop nearly impossible.  Running the scoop thru the 24" of 13:1 snow almost exactly one year earlier was far easier.  Adding to the yuck factor was that a much better result - 26.4" of workable paste - was just 10 miles (W) and 250' (up) away.  Also that at the same time NYC was mid 20s with a 21" snowicane, on the same NE winds we had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, weathafella said:

Does the Logan guy measure when it stops or wait till 1 when maybe the extra inch is melted?

I know for sure he measures at the end, which is good for the most part but where the person is measuring in Winthrope needs to be way more representable for the Boston Metro Proper.  As discussed many times on this board, Boston Common seems to be the most reasonable and representable place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I was gonna say he will go back to update the 708am measurement later this afternoon...

 

So so frustrating

 

Saw this on weather.gov, 10.6 at Logan... wonder if it’s been updated somewhere... not on the PNS... and who knows anymore, Deer Island, Logan...

 

IMG_1651.thumb.PNG.b709cfae2b45c5d9a3e7735eaa07e705.PNG

 

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...