NESIS rating? Boxing Day Blizzard

[A-L-E-X]

I can see 2/78 being a comparison. Anybody that compares this to 1/96 needs to put the bottle down. Maybe for a tiny area this storm resembled 1/96, but if we're talking NESIS, then that's a laughable comparison.

Yeah, in no way was I comparing this to 1/96 for overall coverage LOL Basically talking about some of the disruptions here being on the same level (for this area) as back then (uncleared roads, mass transit out of order, etc.) and talking about how this is completely different from what happened during 2/2006. All of these happened on weekends, so I think its a valid comparison. As a matter of fact, both 1/96 and this storm started at the same time (approx.) on Sunday morning. For coverage size and intensity over a small area another comparison that comes to mind is 3/60.

I would rate this as a high end 3, as the coverage was not enough for me to put this on the level of PD2 (which is a personal favorite of mine.)

I was considering low end 4, but I saw Feb 1983 on the list and this didnt have as much impact as that storm.

[Sunny and Warm]

Yeah, in no way was I comparing this to 1/96 for overall coverage LOL Basically talking about some of the disruptions here being on the same level (for this area) as back then (uncleared roads, mass transit out of order, etc.) and talking about how this is completely different from what happened during 2/2006. All of these happened on weekends, so I think its a valid comparison. As a matter of fact, both 1/96 and this storm started at the same time (approx.) on Sunday morning. For coverage size and intensity over a small area another comparison that comes to mind is 3/60.

I would rate this as a high end 3, as the coverage was not enough for me to put this on the level of PD2 (which is a personal favorite of mine.)

I was considering low end 4, but I saw Feb 1983 on the list and this didnt have as much impact as that storm.

Yeah, I wasn't knocking you on the 1/96 comment. I've been in all the storms back to 1969 (kinda young, but remember them), and I have them at 3/93, 1/96, PDII, 2/83, and 2/78. The biggest storm I was ever in was 36" in 24 hours, but it was in the mountains, and not a big hit to the metropolis. The next was 30" in 1/96, followed by 24' for PDII. 2/83 was for the sheer magnitude of 12" in three hours. It poured snow that night. If you think this storm was insane at the height at 2"/hr rates, try imagining twice that rate. I only put 3/93 on top because even though we "only" got 21", it was a collossal hit for many.

I'm happy you guys got the storm you missed last year. It was a great one for you and points N & E. If it had gotten its act together 8 hours earlier, it would have made a solid 4 on Nesis, IMHO.

[A-L-E-X]

Yeah, I wasn't knocking you on the 1/96 comment. I've been in all the storms back to 1969 (kinda young, but remember them), and I have them at 3/93, 1/96, PDII, 2/83, and 2/78. The biggest storm I was ever in was 36" in 24 hours, but it was in the mountains, and not a big hit to the metropolis. The next was 30" in 1/96, followed by 24' for PDII. 2/83 was for the sheer magnitude of 12" in three hours. It poured snow that night. If you think this storm was insane at the height at 2"/hr rates, try imagining twice that rate. I only put 3/93 on top because even though we "only" got 21", it was a collossal hit for many.

I'm happy you guys got the storm you missed last year. It was a great one for you and points N & E. If it had gotten its act together 8 hours earlier, it would have made a soldi 4 on Nesis, IMHO.

The first snowstorm I can remember was April 1982 and I was 8 at the time lol. I woke up at 3 am to watch that thing in the streetlights. My life as a snow weenie had just begun.

February 1983 was my next one and it's one of my favorites-- my first 2 footer and hours of thundersnow, plus hearing about the snow crawl up the coast and having the big cities get pummeled one after the other!

March 1993 was next, but its effects were tainted for me because we got heavy rain after 10 inches of snow. January 1996 will rank as the best one for me, because it was the first real (that is, all snow) big snow storm here since February 1983.

After that drought ended with Jan 1996, we went into another drought that lasted until PD2. Now these kinds of storms seem somewhat more common-- but the joy you get from them doesnt diminish!

I hope the next one we get is more like Feb 1983 and PD2 and buries everyone!

[Rib]

I agree with a high 3. It affected a highly populated area, but it's affect geographically, especially of the one foot+ range of snow was fairly small.

[Master of Disaster]

4 of some sort imo

I agree, I called high end 3 or low 4.

[LakeEffectKing]

I agree with ALEX that when this scale was devised, wind was certainly overlooked for some reason.....the "impact" would certainly be more substantial to people, business, governments, airports, infrastructure. That said, the scale is what the scale is. As an "outsider" I'd put a 3.5 on it....

For me I would have given it a 3.50000001 if there had been some LES behind it!

[ORH_wxman]

Your comment that Baltimore-Washington are the smallest population-wise is incorrect. The Washington metro area by itself is larger than metro Boston and almost as large as metro Philadelphia. The Washington-Baltimore consolidated metro area population is over 8 million. Only New York, Los Angeles and Chicago are larger. As such, that region missing the action WILL have a signifacant impact on the rating.

Yeah its a very large metro region.

This won't come close to a 4 IMHO. I think it will be low end 3.

[Tiburon]

Your comment that Baltimore-Washington are the smallest population-wise is incorrect. The Washington metro area by itself is larger than metro Boston and almost as large as metro Philadelphia. The Washington-Baltimore consolidated metro area population is over 8 million. Only New York, Los Angeles and Chicago are larger. As such, that region missing the action WILL have a signifacant impact on the rating.

I went by this: Wikipedia

Not saying it's right, but it has NYC as #1, PHL as #6, BOS as #20, BAL as #21, and DC as #27.

Metro areas do put DC at #8 upon looking deeper, so my apologies.

[baroclinic_instability]

The concept of NESIS is one that fundamentally differs from the SS and EF scales, and as such its purpose is to profile the extent of a storm's social and infrastructural impact rather than its meteorological statistics.

You essentially just agreed with A-L-E-X here since this is what he was referencing. Wind in winter storms plays a huge role in its eventual impact, and one needs to look no further than a blizzard warning. Drifting, blowing snow creating ice along roadways, extremely reduced visibilities, wind chills, etc. Blizzards are typically much higher impact then heavy snow alone.

No I do not think winds should be factored in.

It is called the The Northeast Snowfall Impact Scale, why should it not?

See, but that is EXACTLY why I think wind should be factored in-- because wind has an immense social and infrastructural impact-- consider all the damn drifting it causes and how hard it makes it to plow or shovel hours after a storm ends when that 2-3 feet ends up right back from where you shoveled or plowed it!

Exactly.

u should create your own scale which includes wind. They have complied NECIS statistics for numerous storms...you can't just go and completely change the scale.

It would be difficult, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't change a system that needs to be re-worked. I agree though, it would be difficult, but just as the F-Scale was changed to the EF-Scale, no reason this can't. The statistics are there, and the equations would need to be updated, but the changes required wouldn't be impossible. Weather these days is all about impact, both in forecasting and research/social science, and considering this is an impact scale, having some sort of wind built into the system is important.

[Coach McGuirk]

It will be interesting to see if Kocin and Uccellini get the memo on wind being included. I doubt it though. They'd have to change their entire formula.

[A-L-E-X]

Yeah its a very large metro region.

This won't come close to a 4 IMHO. I think it will be low end 3.

I agree its a large metro region, but its a bit deceptive because DC and Baltimore are lumped together. I still think this is a high end 3 because of the large impact it had on the country's most densely populated region. Impacts we havent felt since Jan 1996.

[A-L-E-X]

It will be interesting to see if Kocin and Uccellini get the memo on wind being included. I doubt it though. They'd have to change their entire formula.

Change = Progress

[gymengineer]

I agree its a large metro region, but its a bit deceptive because DC and Baltimore are lumped together. I still think this is a high end 3 because of the large impact it had on the country's most densely populated region. Impacts we havent felt since Jan 1996.

Well-- you may be right about the high end 3, but the maps from storm suggest a very narrow path of 20"+ amounts-- areal coverage matters a lot in the formula, in addition to the population.

[A-L-E-X]

Well-- you may be right about the high end 3, but the maps from storm suggest a very narrow path of 20"+ amounts-- areal coverage matters a lot in the formula, in addition to the population.

Yeah, I mean its splitting hairs trying to decide if its a low end 3 or a high end 3 lol-- that's like trying to differentiate between a "weak" Cat 3 hurricane at 115 mph or a "strong" Cat 3 hurricane at 125 mph. The differences just arent much. Im putting this storm somewhat below the great Feb 1983 blizzard which was awesome for its coverage and effects throughout the coverage range.

One question I had that maybe you or someone else could answer: why is March 1960 ranked so high? I believe that too had a limited area of excessively heavy snowfall (mostly southeast NE).

[Amped]

I'm trying to figure out the minimum pressure. Wkipedia says 961MB. Haven't seen anything lower but it's possible

[Stormlover74]

Since Feb '06 and all of last year's storms were 3s (Dec 09 was actually a borderline 2) I'd put it around in that range. Had it been more widespread through DC/BWI/Pit then it easily would have been a 4 or even close to a 5

Only way it could get high 3's or better is if you take into account the snow in the south and up to VA and the blizzard component

[MJW155]

How exactly does the rating work? Let's say by some crazy chance Tampa/Orlando/New Orleans up to Atlanta/Memphis got 2-4 inches of snow. Would that get a higher rating than a storm dropping a foot of snow from DC-Bos?

[A-L-E-X]

Since Feb '06 and all of last year's storms were 3s (Dec 09 was actually a borderline 2) I'd put it around in that range. Had it been more widespread through DC/BWI/Pit then it easily would have been a 4 or even close to a 5

Only way it could get high 3's or better is if you take into account the snow in the south and up to VA and the blizzard component

Yea, this is why it's a high 3. Theyre all components of the storm and have to be taken into account.

[A-L-E-X]

How exactly does the rating work? Let's say by some crazy chance Tampa/Orlando/New Orleans up to Atlanta/Memphis got 2-4 inches of snow. Would that get a higher rating than a storm dropping a foot of snow from DC-Bos?

Sounds sort of like Feb 1899 but larger coverage and heavier amounts. Look up Feb 1899 to see a crazy snowstorm plus a huge arctic outbreak that went deep into the south.

[gymengineer]

How exactly does the rating work? Let's say by some crazy chance Tampa/Orlando/New Orleans up to Atlanta/Memphis got 2-4 inches of snow. Would that get a higher rating than a storm dropping a foot of snow from DC-Bos?

You'll find the formula right dab in the middle of the page: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/snow-and-ice/nesis.php "A" stands for area and "P" stands for population. So, your scenario of a 2-4" snowstorm in the south would be well below 1.0 in NESIS rating. In other words, the rarity of the event has nothing to do with its rating. The formula is not that hard to understand. It's NCDC's map production using GIS and statistical smoothing that's harder to understand.

[ORH_wxman]

To put it in perspective, Feb '83 is the lowest ranked cat 4 on the NESIS list. I think there is very little chance this gets rated that high. The area of 20"+ in this system will prevent it from coming close to a cat 4 I would think. Low end 3 is still my guess.

[gymengineer]

One question I had that maybe you or someone else could answer: why is March 1960 ranked so high? I believe that too had a limited area of excessively heavy snowfall (mostly southeast NE).

It's the gigantic area and population affected by 4+" amounts. According to KU's stats, 590,000 sq mi were covered by 4+" amounts in the counted regions, which is by far the largest. The next most 4"+ area was 3/93 with 386,000 sq mi. Accordingly, population for 3/60 under 4"+ amounts was 108.6 million poeple compared to the next highest-- 89.2 million people in 3/93.

So, the vast area of significant lower amounts of snow made up for the comparative lack of 20+" and 30+" amounts.

[Sunny and Warm]

Since Feb '06 and all of last year's storms were 3s (Dec 09 was actually a borderline 2) I'd put it around in that range. Had it been more widespread through DC/BWI/Pit then it easily would have been a 4 or even close to a 5

Only way it could get high 3's or better is if you take into account the snow in the south and up to VA and the blizzard component

There's no such thing as an easy NESIS 4 storm. Only the truly great, large scale blizzards make that grade. This one, while a great blizzard to those it affected, was too small in scope to gather that level of support. Even if it had a larger area, I didn't see enough moisture feeding into the storm to allow for widespread 12" and 20" plus zones. That's what you need for a 4. And of course, NESIS 5 is for the really big boys, 1993 and 1996 ONLY. If PDII, 1888, 1899, and 1983 can't get to a five, then you know how tough it is to make it.

[gymengineer]

And a reminder in every thread about NESIS: The rating depends on who makes the maps, what data they count, and what methodology they use to count population and area, KU or NCDC. As a brief summary, KU hand-draw their maps and use >0.5 of a county as the threshold for counting the county in the area and population, using GIS after the maps are drawn. NCDC does the entire calculation within a GIS environment. KU uses a broader range of snow reports, including NWS PNS it looks like, while the NCDC only uses 1st order station and COOP reports. Their ratings differ from each other and several storms switched categories between KU's paper and the NCDC. 1/64, 1/78, 12/69 and 2/58 get 'promoted' to Cat 4 under NCDC's ratings, and 2/78 gets demoted to a Cat 3.

As far as I know, NCDC is the only source for NESIS calculations for the new storms since the publication of Northeast Snowstorms.

[baroclinic_instability]

I'm trying to figure out the minimum pressure. Wkipedia says 961MB. Haven't seen anything lower but it's possible

One of the HPC surface maps had 960, but it was well off the coast at that point, not sure if that matters.

[Edge Weather]

Definitely agree. In this small state of NJ, which is only about 60 miles wide, we go from 3 inches along the PA border to 32 inches only 40 miles to the east. That is not going to put it too high on the scale. It was an amazing storm but it covered an incredibly small territory with its massive accumulations. I also voted for a low-end 3 because it hit NYC and had insanely low barometric pressures.

To put it in perspective, Feb '83 is the lowest ranked cat 4 on the NESIS list. I think there is very little chance this gets rated that high. The area of 20"+ in this system will prevent it from coming close to a cat 4 I would think. Low end 3 is still my guess.

[Quincy]

One of the HPC surface maps had 960, but it was well off the coast at that point, not sure if that matters.

the lowest land reading I could find was 963.8mb, but I didn't check any of the offshore buoys.

[Coach McGuirk]

the lowest land reading I could find was 963.8mb, but I didn't check any of the offshore buoys.

I'm not feeling the avatar pic.

[SnoSki14]

It's definitely no more than a low end 3, I wouldn't be surprised with a high end 2 either because the areal coverage wasn't great. Not a lot of places had over a foot snowfall, only parts of NJ saw 30"+ amounts, it'll probably rank where last year's Feb 5-6 storm did. Heavy snows, small coverage.

[Redmorninglight]

I'd give it a 3. Amazing storm that had the allure of being a peek-a-boo storm. Models only caught on the morning of the event. Limited coverage area imo limits the rating.