Possible New 2-Day Connecticut Snowfall Record

[snowman21]

FYI, I received an email photo from North Haven. Based on the photo, even allowing for compacting, I don't believe 30.5" fell there. Two feet, almost certainly, but not 30.5".

I will also note that I didn't realize things were as bad as some have described with the reports on the public information statements. Errors, of course, are not confined to public reports. FAA and COOP reports have had issues from time to time in the past, so even there while reliability is greater, there is a margin of error. If I recall correctly, Central Park used to have a lot of issues. Richmond had some issues last winter, as did BWI. There was also an event maybe two years ago where cars in the vicinity of DCA were photographed with about an inch of snow on their roofs, yet DCA reported a trace of snow.

Perhaps, random verification of some of the reports could take place. Spotters and others who have demonstrated reasonable reliability would have their reports placed in the PNS. Those who have not would not. Those whose amounts haven't been verified in the past, but have not necessarily been found unreliable, would have an asterisk placed to their numbers. In the end, accuracy is important. That, in large part, is why I like the way the snowfall amounts that are considered in determining a storm's NESIS scale rating are fairly selective.

Well at the first-order sites that responsibility is more or less on the WFO to request NCDC to change the official climate record. As far as co-ops go, I really don't think there is the financial or human resources to try and verify 10,000 co-op stations' data even on a random basis. Generally that data runs through NCDC's QA/QC algorithms and gets flagged or tossed, but that is generally well after the fact (months later).

[NorthShoreWx]

I find it suspicious im 5 miles due south and had 18 inches of snow 17.8 to be exact .The problem with upton is highest total wins and it soon becomes a race to see who can top who. I have been a storm spotter since 1995 and lost my identification card years ago so I now list it under public. for this storm I cleared 3 areas 4x4 spaces before the storm and removed the 6 inches of snow that fell prior . I believe that alot of mistakes have been made with this storm regarding combining the old snow with the new thus the high totals.my report of 17.8 was thrown out by upton for someone who put 19.8

You should wrie Upton and see if there is any way they can find your spotter ID for you.

[donsutherland1]

I really don't think there is the financial or human resources to try and verify 10,000 co-op stations' data even on a random basis. Generally that data runs through NCDC's QA/QC algorithms and gets flagged or tossed, but that is generally well after the fact (months later).

What you described is a reasonable mechanism. Coops whose reports are tossed (perhaps more than once) by the algorithms could be barred from submitting future reports. Those who have a history of providing inaccurate reports shouldn't be part of the system.

[donsutherland1]

its amazing that there are so many issues with snowmeasuring, esp at official stations.

i wish we could get Ray to setup some sort of course to teach all these people the correct and standardized way to do this right. or just get Ray a job where he travels around and assesses and verifies snowfalls. i dont think he would mind.

montreal and pearson toronto, 2 major airport official stations are awful as well.....montreal has issues with snowdepth and toronto with snowfall.

incidentally Don, i believe that Ottawa airport does it SO well, they should be standard against which all stations are held. they are immaculate.

I do recall the issues at Pearson. I agree with respect to YOW. I would like the idea of best practices being taught and applied and YOW would be one good example.

[codfishsnowman]

see below

see below

Exceptionally well written. However there is no excuse for BDL inflated totals from the boxing day storm or last weekend's events. If this turns out to be a very active stormy snowy winter they can end up putting totals in the record books that inflate totals by feet! They have already inflated the yearly totals by about fifteen inches (being conservative). It just is not right.

the problem is there is now both an economic and personal benefit to snow totals. Now even most TV stations only show the top 10 or so totals. At one time they'd go around, in Boston it seems to be all about who got the most on TV.

With PNS reports - they're used by town managers, business owners, school districts, bosses etc. If someone sees a 20" report, now maybe they report 21-22" even though they aren't positive because of drifting etc. We all do it self included in terms of using the PNS to "verify" our own measurements and thoughts. "The guy three miles away reported 8" I came up with 9" but it's drifting tough to measure...but I'll go with 9" anyway". When if the guy two miles away reported 7" I may have been more cautious. But who's verifying the PNS reports with so many public/ham radio reports now being used?

I don't submit my reports for most storms because the time and effort needed to accurately measure a storm total I just won't do. The rare event like yesterday when I got up at 430am during the change to measure...if I hadn't done that I'd have been low 2" by morning. On the same token with all the wind we have here it is near impossible to accurately measure so I'll ALWAYS go low even in 05. Otherwise I'm distorting history one way or the other which I don't like to do.

WIth the PNS/TV reports it's all a race. If some area gets 15-20" of snow the schools get closed for a few days, work is let out/work from home, plow operators are kept on the clock. There's just a huge economic/emotional/personal incentive to over-report snow accidentally or deliberately.

I'd like to see NOAA run an expirement and stuff a bunch of paid observers in towns in advance of a storm and see how their totals verify against the reported ones on TV etc.

My personal feeling on it is that its doing two things. One, we use historical records to compare storms but when you had a small network of reporters in say 78 versus what we have now via the web we missed a ton of the banding in that/those storms. So we look at the major cities/airports and then compare that storm to say 1/05. When if in 78 we had the same network those "isolated" 55" reports of snow with snow up to the roofs in drifts wouldn't have been isolated we would have been able to see the banding pretty easily because of all the spotters and that storm would be even more legendary than it is. So it jades the comparison just based on the relatively limited number of stations we have. Just look at BDL official...there are totals 50% higher than that in the PNS and that's legit because we all saw the radar. Yet the 27 or so in 78 right on the ocean....there were reports double that inland in the fluff that are pseudo-legend because of how we did things then.

Second, it really does highlight the great difficulty in forecasting meso bands that aren't orographically/partially induced like the berkshires. With all the reports we have now we can clearly see, even if inflated, that snow totals can vary 20, 30, 50% in just a few miles. That's cool.

Let's also not forget there's a huge incentive for higher totals if forecasts for higher totals have been made. I remember in the days of Bob Copeland, Bill Hovey, Don Kent...they wouldn't just take any report and the reports they posted were almost ALWAYS from the same people. Now it seems like everyone with a yardstick and cell phone can get into the TV/PNS. It was painful to watch WHDH yesterday trying to explain how one spot got 25" and next door got 17' when Ray was right in that area reporting around the 17"...even they knew it was probably BS but it made it into the legend of this storm anyway.

I just think NOAA should put some time/money into actually verifying some reports so that we all get a feel for it one way or the other. When they have snow total hot spots, find a way to get an observer there/co-op., employee whatever.

I guess I really feel that NYC got alot of crap for the snow they got in terms of how they handled it. If boston got another 1978, we'd be just as screwed.

Bottom line the historic reports tended to be more of "what was on the ground" when snow fell at least in terms of non-first line reports. That's much different now. When we called in reports in the 70s 80s and through the 97 storm...we measured what was on the ground from that storm. My 97 report was on the low end and at the time I didn't know and nobody ever told me/us we were supposed to be clearing every six hours etc. For 20 years our reports went in from the same area....a storm like 97 would have been 5-6" more if done "right" If I reported 24" and noaa came out and measured 23/24" the report would have been deemed good even though it was really 27/29" of paste via the real standard. Skews our comparison to new/old storms really badly IMO

[rivers]

I was just up there and lol there is not 30 inches haha!!! I chucked the kids into the car, told them lets go get an early lunch at arby"s across the street from arby"s is the flat large north haven fairgrounds great for measuring and guess what I came up with 20.5 inches of corse it compacted a little,but come on!!.... know I know!!!! north branford had about the same by the dairy queen near rt 80 19 inches ,branford 18 inches im so close to all these places I had time to get gas,lunch and be back home in about an hour anyone else need some measuring??

They have to come up with a proper measuring system,after all its going into our future weather history books for future generations to read hopefully not under the fiction section

[Clinch Leatherwood]

FYI, I received an email photo from North Haven. Based on the photo, even allowing for compacting, I don't believe 30.5" fell there. Two feet, almost certainly, but not 30.5".

Perhaps, random verification of some of the reports could take place. Spotters and others who have demonstrated reasonable reliability would have their reports placed in the PNS. Those who have not would not. Those whose amounts haven't been verified in the past, but have not necessarily been found unreliable, would have an asterisk placed to their numbers. In the end, accuracy is important. That, in large part, is why I like the way the snowfall amounts that are considered in determining a storm's NESIS scale rating are fairly selective.

Honestly if it doesn't happen soon - the verification - every single storm is going to be 10-30" in 5-10 years IMO. The more snow falls the more kids have school off, the more justification for people to not go to work, for plow crews to stay on the roads etc etc. And as Will points out the media eats it up.

My sister in law emailed a photo of the 25-30" of snow they got (she's in CT)...it made it to the tv stations and I think the PNS as a ham radio report. She wouldn't know how to measure snow any more than perform brain surgery. No offense to her, but a lot of people think you take the most you can find.

Just look at the PNS reports for most storms. NWS Employees or first order sites are almost always in the bottom 2/3 to 1/2 of the reports. Unless all NWS employees are anti-snow and buy their homes in less snowy spots, you'd think it'd average out over a 5 year period.

Like I said meso banding aside, OES banding aside....it's going to get bad if it isn't normalized somehow. I don't think it's deliberate on the individual level, it's just human nature.

I really believe when someone sees a PNS that the guy a few doors down has 20"...they're going to lean towards that number if they find a bunch of spots in the yard with 17" and one with 21". It's human nature. But it starts the ball rolling.

Nothing says media overhype like this video...in a canoe for like 3 inches of water. http://www.youtube.c...h?v=Q64qvkVtXd0

Shelby Scott must be cringing somewhere.

[codfishsnowman]

I was just up there and lol there is not 30 inches haha!!! I chucked the kids into the car, told them lets go get an early lunch at arby"s across the street from arby"s is the flat large north haven fairgrounds great for measuring and guess what I came up with 20.5 inches of corse it compacted a little,but come on!!.... know I know!!!! north branford had about the same by the dairy queen near rt 80 19 inches ,branford 18 inches im so close to all these places I had time to get gas,lunch and be back home in about an hour anyone else need some measuring??

They have to come up with a proper measuring system,after all its going into our future weather history books for future generations to read hopefully not under the fiction section

They probably had a solid two feet if they still have 20.5 left...if there was a board clearing u might get them to 26-27 inches for those who want to do it that way...but 30 inches no way!

[cdmwx]

I agree with all said - local news has been reporting on 30" snowfall totals here in Monson. I picked up here 21", and even with the 2-3" on the ground could only measure at max about 23" at any given time. I suppose at 1000 feet it is possible, but seems high.

I also think many people reporting in (to especially local news) are including the few inches that were picked up last Saturday.

[cdmwx]

By the way, idk what Weathernet6 is - local news I assume, but

...BERKSHIRE COUNTY... SAVOY 40.5 1154 AM 1/13 WEATHERNET6 FLORIDA 33.0 400 PM 1/12 WTEN-TV WINDSOR 29.0 400 PM 1/12 WTEN-TV 4 NE WINDSOR 28.0 700 AM 1/13 COCORAHS BECKET 28.0 400 PM 1/12 WTEN-TV CLARKSBURG 26.0 523 AM 1/13 WEATHERNET6 NORTH ADAMS 26.0 400 PM 1/12 WTEN-TV

[snowman21]

Honestly if it doesn't happen soon - the verification - every single storm is going to be 10-30" in 5-10 years IMO.

Too late - we're already there I think. Even run of the mill 4-8 inch type storms for most of us, someone almost always comes in with a spot 14-18. Perhaps we just have more information/reports now than we would have 20 years ago, but I'm a little suspicious of public reports, and perhaps this somewhat explains the sudden uptick in 20-inch plus megastorms that seemed to coincide with the internet's ubiquity. This will affect NESIS ratings and how we measure the impact of storms historically.

[codfishsnowman]

I agree with all said - local news has been reporting on 30" snowfall totals here in Monson. I picked up here 21", and even with the 2-3" on the ground could only measure at max about 23" at any given time. I suppose at 1000 feet it is possible, but seems high.

I also think many people reporting in (to especially local news) are including the few inches that were picked up last Saturday.

lol i posted twice under that guy's pic on accuweather.com on facebook about the thirty inches in Monson and they deleted the first one and probably will delete my second post. I said the same thing about spotter report of 21 inches...its so ridiculous lol..some places got legit two feet but the only totals of thirty plus inches i believe are the east slope upslope/mega band hit areas in the berks like savoy and peru and honestly even in berkshire county the amounts were widely variable!

[tamarack]

This problem is perhaps unsolvable as long as humans do the measuring (and I think the automated systems might do worse, that this time.) The nearest COOP observers to MBY are located 3 miles SE (New Sharon, 18 yr records) and 6.5 miles WNW (Farmington, 118 yr records.) The nearer one is fairly consistantly 10% lower than what I record; the other is often very close to mine, but occasionally seems way out there. The most egregious example was the storm of 12/6-7/2003. It's in the books as Farmington's #2 snowfall, trailing the 43" of 2/25-28/69 by just 3". Meanwhile, New Sharon COOP and I had 23" and 24" respectively. (My measurements were 6" at my regular 9 PM obs time on 6th and 18" additional as the accum ended about 9 AM. By 9 PM on the 7th the depth was 22" - storm began on bare ground.)

There is some support for the huge Farmington total; several stations within 20-30 miles reported 32-34" and Rangeley (40 miles NW and 1,100' higher) also had 40". However, we straggled in to church, 1.5 miles from the Farmington COOP site, about 10:30 AM that Sunday and Farmington's "40" looked just like my "24". It was a dry, fluffy (15:1 ratio IMBY) and windblown event, and I had at least 40" outside my cellar door. Hmmm...

[cdmwx]

lol i posted twice under that guy's pic on accuweather.com on facebook about the thirty inches in Monson and they deleted the first one and probably will delete my second post. I said the same thing about spotter report of 21 inches...its so ridiculous lol..some places got legit two feet but the only totals of thirty plus inches i believe are the east slope upslope/mega band hit areas in the berks like savoy and peru and honestly even in berkshire county the amounts were widely variable!

Where are you located? Monson?

[codfishsnowman]

Where are you located? Monson?

In Springfield..not that far away..I know they had more than I did here but not a foot more. I am logging 18 for my area. If I had cleared the board i could have probably gone with 20 inches but for this storm I chose to do it this way since it all fell steadily with no dry slotting or any mixing or other interruptions.

[40/70 Benchmark]

Not necessarily. First of all, Upton does not differentiate on the forms. As far as co-op sheets (CF6) go, the depth is taken every morning at 12Z. Depending on when the snow fell, the depth could be basically the same.

The bottom line is that the correct way to measure snow is to wipe and clear every 6 hours; if you don't do that, then your total will be deflated, especially in heavy events because it settles.

No way around it.

[CT Rain]

I think 30.5 is possible in north haven. My mom measured 24.5 on a snow board on a great spot in guilford by just sticking a yardstick in a couple times and taking an average. I'm with Gibbs now and he said he was at his parents house last night in Wallingford and their depth was at least 27" after the storm.

[CT Rain]

But I do agree with a lot of what was said here. Measurements in general are on the high side sent in from the public or even spotters. I dont understand the fascination with having the most all the time.

[monroe]

I think 30.5 is possible in north haven. My mom measured 24.5 on a snow board on a great spot in guilford by just sticking a yardstick in a couple times and taking an average. I'm with Gibbs now and he said he was at his parents house last night in Wallingford and their depth was at least 27" after the storm.

I also think it is possible if they were doing the clean off method. We had over 2' here assuming my old Toro 524 has not shrunk. The auger housing on these blowers is 20" in height and it was a good 4-5" over when I did my drive. Loads of fun.

[rivers]

I think 30.5 is possible in north haven. My mom measured 24.5 on a snow board on a great spot in guilford by just sticking a yardstick in a couple times and taking an average. I'm with Gibbs now and he said he was at his parents house last night in Wallingford and their depth was at least 27" after the storm.

im around that area alot I also have family in sachems head in guilford where one of my few davis weather station hook ups are and that is reasonable amount there compacted now to abourt 20-22 inches also a couple inches less in madison where my wife works. I cant wait to see wallingford big total as tonight I will be at all pets club on rout 5 on the meriden border.

[Kbosch]

But I do agree with a lot of what was said here. Measurements in general are on the high side sent in from the public or even spotters. I dont understand the fascination with having the most all the time.

I don't, either, but you're a pro at this and many people here are likely pros at other statistically-related fields. Some keep it objective and scientific.

It has been said a lot but I would think part of the problem, apart from slanting, may be measuring total depth including the blizzard/trough leftovers plus this storm.

[Clinch Leatherwood]

I don't, either, but you're a pro at this and many people here are likely pros at other statistically-related fields. Some keep it objective and scientific.

It has been said a lot but I would think part of the problem, apart from slanting, may be measuring total depth including the blizzard/trough leftovers plus this storm.

I think this is a huge part of it. A lot of time the most egregious totals seem to come after a previous big event. I think it has a lot to do with snow banks, troughs etc. They will naturally attract snow especially in these powdery type events where it flows like sand in the wind.

Dont get me wrong, these storms the last few years have been nasty. I've got family in the same spot for 35 years and aside of a few really tough storms over the years, the 2 this season and I think one last year are among the worst. This one 12/26 ranked even higher than 4/97 for tree/branch damage although there was a slightly lower total.

There's two things going on that distort perceptions:

1. People 100% did measure differently pre-internet because you couldnt jump on line and google how to measure snow. So most reports were after the storm OTG. That alone will cause a 10-25% "increase" in the size of storms away from official stations.

2. Competition to have the most and the availability of data. It seemed like pre-internet when teh weathermen talked of 1-2" hour snow rates it was the end of the world. Those were monster storms coming. Now 1-2" per hour is pedestrian, 3-6" occurs seeminly more often. Maybe that's just the cycle of macro weather patterns. I do know it seems like we are having more big storms in the last 5 years then I ever really remember. Crap I remember years when one solid 5-10" threat was a big deal. Now that's almost a nuisance and it's the real deal, these storms are occuring. The coastal damage speaks to that.

Maybe it's a combination of more reports and inflated reports who knows. But I'm pretty confident when the next blizzard of 1978 hits and delivers 27" of snow to Logan, Boston will not look much different than it did back then.

Anyway, I do think we're getting more bigger storms. Smaller events just dont seem to be that common right now. When was the last Alberta Clipper? I cannot remember the last real 2-4" warm front snows.

[blizzard24]

south windsor ct had total snowfall near 23 inches .

[Kbosch]

I think this is a huge part of it. A lot of time the most egregious totals seem to come after a previous big event. I think it has a lot to do with snow banks, troughs etc. They will naturally attract snow especially in these powdery type events where it flows like sand in the wind.

Dont get me wrong, these storms the last few years have been nasty. I've got family in the same spot for 35 years and aside of a few really tough storms over the years, the 2 this season and I think one last year are among the worst. This one 12/26 ranked even higher than 4/97 for tree/branch damage although there was a slightly lower total.

There's two things going on that distort perceptions:

1. People 100% did measure differently pre-internet because you couldnt jump on line and google how to measure snow. So most reports were after the storm OTG. That alone will cause a 10-25% "increase" in the size of storms away from official stations.

2. Competition to have the most and the availability of data. It seemed like pre-internet when teh weathermen talked of 1-2" hour snow rates it was the end of the world. Those were monster storms coming. Now 1-2" per hour is pedestrian, 3-6" occurs seeminly more often. Maybe that's just the cycle of macro weather patterns. I do know it seems like we are having more big storms in the last 5 years then I ever really remember. Crap I remember years when one solid 5-10" threat was a big deal. Now that's almost a nuisance and it's the real deal, these storms are occuring. The coastal damage speaks to that.

Maybe it's a combination of more reports and inflated reports who knows. But I'm pretty confident when the next blizzard of 1978 hits and delivers 27" of snow to Logan, Boston will not look much different than it did back then.

Anyway, I do think we're getting more bigger storms. Smaller events just dont seem to be that common right now. When was the last Alberta Clipper? I cannot remember the last real 2-4" warm front snows.

Many excellent points here. The second or third major storm events are a part of this.

Competition is huge - first of all, people want to beat others here, or people they know, or the totals they see for towns online. Secondly, they want to say "I lived through a 2 foot snowfall!" and recount it to the grandkids. Experiencing an event like this is more fun if you can put out totals like crossing the magic 20 barrier or that 24. I only ended up at 15 - I sure wish I got more, believe me. I had more from Boxing Day! But the work I do (birds) is so reliant on stats and not finding what you "want" to (even subconsciously) that I have an understanding of the importance of being objective about it. To me, this is what makes the truly big events special.

It feeds off itself, too. If someone measures a 15 and sees someone else come up with 18 they might say, "Well this could very well be 16 or 17" and so forth. A few miles outside of the right bands in this storm (and many big ones) means a huge difference in the end so the constant comparisons do not always work. The hills north of me doubled me up in the trough, and believe me, they are not far.

Good point on the cycle of patterns. We never get a classic clipper anymore and those were always fun. I am sure this weekend's will bring flurries yet again.

[ORH_wxman]

People have to remember that for a lot of the CT towns, there was a pretty good snow pack before the storm started...after getting all that snow from the norlun stuff. So a 25" snow pack certainly does not support a 30" total from this one storm.

[rivers]

People have to remember that for a lot of the CT towns, there was a pretty good snow pack before the storm started...after getting all that snow from the norlun stuff. So a 25" snow pack certainly does not support a 30" total from this one storm.

BINGO!! I feel this is part of the problem, dont get me wrong we had one hell of a snow storm,just think alot of people are adding the 2 together.

[codfishsnowman]

It does seem like we are in a heightened period of big coastal storms the last few years.

I remember as a kid in the mid and late 80s to very early 90s just how awful the winters were. There were some winters with near normal snowfall but it took a lot of small to mod events to get there. I remember eight inches of snow as the benchmark of a BIG event and five or six inches was respectable. The DEC 92 storm was the first real powerhouse event in many years.

I remember a few winters where there was not even one five or six inch snowfall or just one. There have been some lean winters recently but even like last year there were several powerhouse MA events. I remember winters in the mid and late 80s where there were hardly any sig noreasters anywhere along the eastern seaboard.

[Analog96]

You have to do it at the same location though. If someone is working or is not home, they can't measure until they get back to the site.

These big storms can bring out a lot of slant stickers (including the media which likes to hype up storms)...so just taking a more recent report from some unknown source like the media or Joe Schmoe measuring isn't exactly the best way to gather accurate data. Its nice to have the reports, but a lot nicer if they can be verified by legit sources.

I try and find a family member to measure for me.

[CT Rain]

People have to remember that for a lot of the CT towns, there was a pretty good snow pack before the storm started...after getting all that snow from the norlun stuff. So a 25" snow pack certainly does not support a 30" total from this one storm.

Some of ct... Especially the shoreline had no snow on the ground. I had like 1.5" in west hartford so at least here I'm not sure how valid this is.

[snowman21]

Some of ct... Especially the shoreline had no snow on the ground. I had like 1.5" in west hartford so at least here I'm not sure how valid this is.

But a lot of the jackpot areas of CT did. Those towns along I-84 from Danbury to Southbury that scored 20-30 inches had around a foot just five days earlier, so for those areas perhaps that is a concern. I did see some photos from towns like Newtown that cashed in on both systems, and when you have lamp posts in people's yards that are 1/2 buried, that would seem consistent with about 3-4 feet of settled snow. Whether or not it was 25 inches or 30 inches that fell yesterday I guess we'll never know.