Exactly how big was the East Coast blizzard?

Tallying storm totals is an imperfect science that still relies on rulers. But some meteorologists take human impact into account when comparing top blizzards. 

Cliff Owen/ AP
A man in Alexandria, Virginia walks his dog during snowstorms in this January 23 photo. Blizzards along the East Coast blanketed some areas in more than 3 feet of snow.

How big was Jonas?

After snowstorms calmed on Saturday night, East Coast Americans were curious whether the 1,000-mile blizzard had lived up to its hype. 

But figuring out where Jonas falls in the history books depends on snow measurements, an imperfect science still basically done with plywood boards and measuring sticks. On Saturday, the Washington Post reported that weather observers at Reagan National Airport had not followed proper protocol, possibly robbing the storm of a top three DC-area record. 

As of Saturday at 8:00 PM, Reagan reported 17.8 inches, which would give the storm a fourth-place tie with 2010's "Snowmageddon." But nearby Washington Dulles Airport reported 28.3, and urban corridor neighbor Baltimore got 29.2, the city's all-time record.

The problem at Reagan? Snow boards, according to the Post.

That's two words, not a reference to something you'd ride down a slope. The National Weather Service's 14-page guidebook on how to measure solid precipitation require observers to periodically measure snowfall against upright boards placed out of the way of drifts, trees, and buildings. The board must be wiped clean between each measurement, which typically takes place every six hours, and several different boards are measured to take an average. The periodic averages are totaled at the end of a storm.

But that's just snow count 101. The Weather Service actually takes four measurements: fresh snowfall; snow depth, a total count including ice; snowfall water content; and snowdepth water content.

Measuring on grassy areas is discouraged, since there may be an air gap between ground and snow, and icy layers can also present difficulties. In that case, the guide recommends "creativity" and "protective gear," particularly for observers attempting to saw through the ice.

But Reagan's measurements weren't done with snow boards, according to the Post. Part of the problem: if snow isn't measured periodically, using a freshly-wiped snow board, the weight of accumulated snow will compact it, producing a lower-than-accurate snowfall measure.

To earn a #1 spot in DC history, the blizzard would need to beat the "Knickerbocker," which dropped 28.2 inches in 1922. In other cities, however, its legacy was secure: the second-highest in New York's Central Park since 1869, for instance, at 26.8 inches, just one tenth of an inch short of the 2006 record. 30.5 inches were measured nearby, at Kennedy International Airport. Meanwhile, up to 40 inches were recorded in parts of Maryland and West Virginia. 

DC may need to wait for an official measurement to see where Jonas falls in the list of biggest-ever blizzards. In the meantime, Washington residents have been amusing themselves with the Post's snowstorm naming contest, although the paper overrode the people's choice — Make Winter Great Again, à la Donald Trump's campaign pledge — in favor of #Snowzilla.

The name "Jonas" was bestowed by the Weather Channel, which has adopted a policy of naming all significant snowstorms, typically inspired by mythology: since announcing the first in 2012, they've worked their way through Astro, Hercules, and Pandora, for instance. The Weather Channel claimed common names would improve safety; but some meteorologists say the opposite.

The hoopla, and genuine danger, presented by giant snowstorms isn't determined just by inches, though. The National Weather Service has created a Northeast Snowfall Impact Scale, or NESIS, which takes human impact into account and assigns blizzards a rating, from Extreme to merely Notable. Record-setting snowfalls on the East Coast are typically lower than in Western States, but because of transportation hubs, Atlantic storms' effects are often felt nationwide. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.