• Member Statistics

    16,681
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    zurn
    Newest Member
    zurn
    Joined
ORH_wxman

Dec 16-17 obs/nowcast thread

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, BombsAway1288 said:

Someone enlighten me, doesn't Peru, MA hold some kind of snow record for MA?

If so, that would pretty strange to have state records for 2 different states but with the same town name. Completely a coincidence of course if true.

Single storm max record.

 

94CE9EF8-633A-42A9-91CF-F553B7A81B9A.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KoalaBeer said:

Edit: I see I am very late to the party. 

Not sure if this was posted. Ragged is claiming 48” total. Still mind blown. I’ll be up there Monday. Trying to get my friend on ops crew to send me some more photos but he’s not much of a texter...I’ll bug him when we are taking laps together. 

 

484394AF-CE8D-4787-AC4B-A6E4561756C2.jpeg

Heh...so they’re the Danbury ob and they’re marketing it. Their SWE is way off so I still don’t trust the numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dendrite said:

Heh...so they’re the Danbury ob and they’re marketing it. Their SWE is way off so I still don’t trust the numbers.

Def could be off considering they're using it for marketing purposes and it's right at that magical 4 ft. mark. Not like it was 46" or 47", it's exactly 4 feet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dendrite said:

Heh...so they’re the Danbury ob and they’re marketing it. Their SWE is way off so I still don’t trust the numbers.

:lol: 2" more leq than you, must be the Ragged cloud 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, dendrite said:

Heh...so they’re the Danbury ob and they’re marketing it. Their SWE is way off so I still don’t trust the numbers.

They do note that the liquid was completely estimated. 

I wouldn't expect a mountain to not advertise 48" of snow, but it does make my spidey sense tingle a bit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, wx2fish said:

:lol: 2" more leq than you, must be the Ragged cloud 

heh...maybe it’s measured correctly and they just found a way to screw up the liquid sample, but it sounds like a packed down drift or something. There was definitely a max just to my NW though based on the multiple obs around 40” and Danbury is in that zone. I just hate seeing a report where I know part of it is severely flawed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, dendrite said:

heh...maybe it’s measured correctly and they just found a way to screw up the liquid sample, but it sounds like a packed down drift or something. There was definitely a max just to my NW though based on the multiple obs around 40” and Danbury is in that zone. I just hate seeing a report where I know part of it is severely flawed.

From what it looks like their 17th CoCoRaHS report was missing liquid (CoCoRaHS staff edited it out), looks like overflow. So that doesn't mean the snowfall amount it wrong like you say.

I don't love that snow depth was T before and 48 inches fell and was reported on the ground and the snow depth was then reported as 48.5 without any additional snow. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, dendrite said:

heh...maybe it’s measured correctly and they just found a way to screw up the liquid sample, but it sounds like a packed down drift or something. There was definitely a max just to my NW though based on the multiple obs around 40” and Danbury is in that zone. I just hate seeing a report where I know part of it is severely flawed.

Yeah like I said in the NNE thread, my uncle is basically on the east side of Ragged and he had a pretty crazy pack. If measured every 6hr I suppose its possible, but it does seem to stand out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, KoalaBeer said:

Edit: I see I am very late to the party. 

Not sure if this was posted. Ragged is claiming 48” total. Still mind blown. I’ll be up there Monday. Trying to get my friend on ops crew to send me some more photos but he’s not much of a texter...I’ll bug him when we are taking laps together. 

 

484394AF-CE8D-4787-AC4B-A6E4561756C2.jpeg

They have been all over the place. First it was 2', then 3', then 4', then 30", then 38", now back to 4', depends which of their social media pages you look at. Either way, an awesome start. The 40+ at Okemo was too much for them. Lines were epically long with only 1 lift running most of Thursday, lots of pissed off pass holders and ticket buyers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/19/2020 at 7:55 PM, wx2fish said:

:lol: 2" more leq than you, must be the Ragged cloud 

The locals there refer to it as the “Danbury snowbelt” haha. I’ll have some photos from up there tomorrow. Bummer I couldn’t get to see it until all the snow settled so much...but my friends up there are saying the mountain is skiing way better then Thursday or Friday, he literally said so much terrain was unridable due to the depth of the snow. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KoalaBeer said:

The locals there refer to it as the “Danbury snowbelt” haha. I’ll have some photos from up there tomorrow. Bummer I couldn’t get to see it until all the snow settled so much...but my friends up there are saying the mountain is skiing way better then Thursday or Friday, he literally said so much terrain was unridable due to the depth of the snow. 

Our friend spent the weekend there

A5E79B5E-A156-4AA7-9D6C-464529A813FE.jpeg.e907b8b1935104b8c81d86dea20d0834.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Updated final snow totals map for the Dec 16-17th 2020 snowstorm in CT.

Most of CT fell within the 10-15" range. Some higher reports in Litchfield and Hartford county of 16" and 16.5". The shoreline generally fell within the 6-10" range with some pockets over the Waterbury area and NE CT. 

Lowest report 6" (multiple) Highest report 16.5" (multiple)

Final Grade: C+

1499979301_dec_16-17_2002(22).thumb.jpg.ab404fe3b322d5f23cb7312d6d15b088.jpg

771330465_dec_16-17_2002(23).thumb.jpg.a8360caf2793df38df63d1d6e450e054.jpg

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone here who may have the spare time to explain this. I recently used the NOHRSC snowfall analysis to create contours using the same snowfall increments as TWC. Why is theirs showing much more pink (24+ inches) throughout the middle?

TWC:

3XvDPTI.png

 

NOHRSC:

kfm1Ufn.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.