codfishsnowman Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 This. People seem to have a debate about this every single storm. I have some reservation about the current system but it is the standard of measurement. One of the strongest arguments for the 6 hour then clear technique is that there are storms that last 18 hours or so that can deliver 2" of snow on the front end, then lots of rain, then 4" on the backside. That's 6" of snow despite there being 4" on the ground. Those are the instances that I get (strongly agree) with the six hour measurements and also if its a really heavy wet snow with temps areound or just above freezing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radarman Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 From the PNS: ...HAMPDEN COUNTY... HAMPDEN 22.0 400 PM 1/12 GENERAL PUBLIC AGAWAM 21.5 1210 PM 1/12 GENERAL PUBLIC BRIMFIELD 21.0 917 PM 1/12 HAM RADIO LUDLOW 18.5 427 PM 1/12 WILBRAHAM 18.5 329 PM 1/12 HAM RADIO HOLYOKE 17.0 1124 AM 1/12 HAM RADIO BLANDFORD 17.0 915 AM 1/12 HAM RADIO SOUTHWICK 16.6 539 PM 1/12 CHICOPEE 16.5 121 PM 1/12 HAM RADIO NORTHAMPTON 16.0 330 PM 1/12 HAM RADIO EAST LONGMEADOW 15.0 1122 AM 1/12 HAM RADIO WESTFIELD 14.0 436 PM 1/12 MEDIA SPRINGFIELD 13.7 1121 AM 1/12 HAM RADIO ...HAMPSHIRE COUNTY... PLAINFIELD 26.5 1252 PM 1/12 CHESTERFIELD 26.3 331 PM 1/12 HAM RADIO CHESTER 22.0 327 PM 1/12 HAM RADIO AMHERST 18.6 710 PM 1/12 GENERAL PUBLIC WARE 16.5 301 PM 1/12 HAM RADIO AMHERST COLLEGE 15.0 210 PM 1/12 GENERAL PUBLIC EASTHAMPTON 14.0 822 AM 1/12 HAM RADIO GRANBY 14.0 950 AM 1/12 SPOTTER SOUT HADLEY 12.5 1212 PM 1/12 NORTHAMPTON 12.0 602 PM 1/12 Not sure what's going on there,,, Northampton is in Hampshire county, not both. And that 12" report is bogus. 16" is about right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codfishsnowman Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 From the PNS: ...HAMPDEN COUNTY... HAMPDEN 22.0 400 PM 1/12 GENERAL PUBLIC AGAWAM 21.5 1210 PM 1/12 GENERAL PUBLIC BRIMFIELD 21.0 917 PM 1/12 HAM RADIO LUDLOW 18.5 427 PM 1/12 WILBRAHAM 18.5 329 PM 1/12 HAM RADIO HOLYOKE 17.0 1124 AM 1/12 HAM RADIO BLANDFORD 17.0 915 AM 1/12 HAM RADIO SOUTHWICK 16.6 539 PM 1/12 CHICOPEE 16.5 121 PM 1/12 HAM RADIO NORTHAMPTON 16.0 330 PM 1/12 HAM RADIO EAST LONGMEADOW 15.0 1122 AM 1/12 HAM RADIO WESTFIELD 14.0 436 PM 1/12 MEDIA SPRINGFIELD 13.7 1121 AM 1/12 HAM RADIO these things are so bad..the springfield report shouldve been chucked too since it snowed, heavy at times for another four hours lol ...HAMPSHIRE COUNTY... PLAINFIELD 26.5 1252 PM 1/12 CHESTERFIELD 26.3 331 PM 1/12 HAM RADIO CHESTER 22.0 327 PM 1/12 HAM RADIO AMHERST 18.6 710 PM 1/12 GENERAL PUBLIC WARE 16.5 301 PM 1/12 HAM RADIO AMHERST COLLEGE 15.0 210 PM 1/12 GENERAL PUBLIC EASTHAMPTON 14.0 822 AM 1/12 HAM RADIO GRANBY 14.0 950 AM 1/12 SPOTTER SOUT HADLEY 12.5 1212 PM 1/12 NORTHAMPTON 12.0 602 PM 1/12 Not sure what's going on there,,, Northampton is in Hampshire county, not both. And that 12" report is bogus. 16" is about right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weatherwiz Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 Why? It seems some are getting worked up over what is displayed on the PNS. Those are all unofficial reports. They aren't really kept as records any more than other NWS text products are. It is simply just as its name implies - a public information statement. Nothing more, nothing less. Climate records are maintained by NCDC for 250 or so first-order, roughly 10,000 co-op, and several hundred ASOS stations. Everything else doesn't really matter a whole lot. At the end of the day, if you really are super concerned over what appears on the PNS statement, your real beef is with the issuing WFOs. They determine what goes on there and what doesn't, and I'm guessing they don't have the time or resources especially during ongoing events to attempt verifying public reports. The point is, no one will ever see those totals ever again unless they happen to save that PNS or have access to the archives of NWS text messages sent during the storm. They don't become part of any official record, so they aren't really tainting anything with respect to the official climate record. The ultimate impact of public reports being a little inflated on the PNS seems to be pretty low. Great point...I overlooked that part of it. My beef is done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confuzzled Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 That's how the public views a snowstorm. The public also thinks whatever their thermometer that is attached to the side of their house reads is the temperature. Precisely. So when a meteorologist goes on tv and says we got 18 inches snow after an all snow event he is essentially misleading the viewers since he or she knows ahead of time they are misunderstanding him or her. Since the general public has no idea about the snow board technique and why it is used, why use those results on television? Meteorology is a science, and like all others, careful measurement is important. Absolutely. But there is nothing careful or useful about the majority of pns reports or statements from weathermen on tv reporting public submissions of snowfall. Some of these mets don't even think to verify whether or not pre-existent snowpack was included in the total before throwing out that sensational figure. Or whether the public is measuring a drift or spot behind their slanted roof. Furthermore, some figures are utilizing the wiped board and some are not! If six-hourly snow measurements are the standard, then that's the measurement method. Whether it's right or wrong is another debate. I'd rather compare apples to apples, even if they are all rotten apples at least they are consistent. I never said not to use the six hour system, I am saying I don't find it very useful per the general public and in a lot of storm total cases. I understand why we take multiple measurements due to wanting to know how much fell, what the snowfall rates per hour were, gauging snow ratios throughout a storm etc. I should also add that the six-hourly thing is also to balance melting issues. If you're only ever measuring at the end, it could inaccurately depict less snow than what actually fell throughout the day. It would be akin to only measuring a rainstorm at the end or some hours after it had ended allowing for some evaporation to occur. There are many cases where melting is not an issue at all. This recent storm as a case in point for many areas. When you go on tv and say Ridgefield received 28 inches of snow form a public report, what does that mean? Why not add 2" to it because obviously the person sending in the measurement did not use a snow board and account for compaction. Likewise, why would a Met use a snowboard and quote a figure 2-3 inches more than what is out there to a general public that doesn't understand that figure to begin with? "Gee, tv weather guy always has 3 more inches of snow than me". Like the general public, I want to know what was on the ground after this storm was over and I am not interested in the imaginary 2 inches that has compacted. Unless you can measure the individual flakes before they smash and crash and collide into one another you are never going to get a perfect answer to begin with. Can meteorologists not implement different techniques for different cases? Or at least be consisitent when dealing with the public? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quincy Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 I know this is an old topic, but I do have a few more thoughts. Another one is a storm that has a long duration. Let's say 12 inches falls over a 12 hour period and the snow lets up for a time and then the intensity picks up again. The total snowfall on the ground may hover right around the same depth, despite new snow accumulation. I favor a technique in which the actual snow depth is measured, possibly interpolating a bit if the duration is long or if significant compaction takes place. For the last major snow storm, my final total was estimated at 21". I never measured a depth greater than 19 inches, although several local reports had anywhere from 23 to 32 inches. I know that the way I measured it was not completely precise, but I feel like it was the best approximation. Edit: For Feb 2006, upon a brief reanalysis, I feel that the final measured total I sent in of 19.8 inches was probably too low. One factor was the measuring location, but another factor was the non-board technique. It was snowing for a few hours at the end, but the accumulated snow depth was not budging. Local reports also indicate at least a few more inches had probably fallen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.