It always amazes me just how dry most of the West really is compared to here.

Even areas the average person doesn’t think of as “arid” like most of CO and MT.

Yeah you guys in the upper east have it easy compared to most of the U.S.!

Would be interesting to see how these depart from the normal.

I knew the desert west was arid but it wasn't until I was reading newspapers in and around Denver a few years back that I understood their problems.

This site https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/cumberland/maryland/united-states/usmd0115 says that Cumberland, MD gets annual rain of 37.37" and annual snow of 30". If we assume that 10" of snow is roughly equivalent to 1" of rain, then the total annual water would be about 40.37", which is close to the 42.35" number in the OP.

The numbers for Detroit are even closer: 31" rain + 44" snow = 35.4" total annual water (35.46" in the OP).

I also checked Cincinnati which wasn't as close: 42.24" rain + ~21" snow = 44.34" total annual water (50.45" in the OP).

We were a tad below normal. Using Baltimore (BWI) airport - normal is just over 41”.

Hairmetal, many of the west stations are down low in valleys. Surrounding mountains get more precip, have cooler temps & less evaporation, etc, but much less likely to have settlements (or stations). Those higher places often have decent conifer forests.

Seattle was 10 inches over normal for the year, even given the longest stretch of summer dry weather here on record (nearly two full months without any measurable rainfall). This after a record breaking wet spring.

Seems like breaking previous weather records is now a routine occurrence.......not sure I want to see what the next weather record is that may get broken. IME, it is never a "good" record :-))

Our annual precip was a bit below Normal, but the year was interesting.

Dry winter, normal to wet spring and summer, dry fall. So the growing season was good despite lower than normal streamflow and mild groundwater issues.

I sometimes wonder if I had to chose between a dry spring, dry summer, dry winter, or dry fall that I'd likely chose them in that order.

whaas, dry winters (like what I'm having now) aren't as much a consequence as everything is slowed way down, or like here/now frozen up. As hair stated, growing season precip is the most important -- to biological productivity at least.

Yes, however, last year was something of an exception.

Historically, our more severe droughts, follow a dry fall/winter. 2001/2000 being a good example. So I mostly concerned that a dry winter is foreshadowing a dry spring and summer.

Seems like breaking previous weather records is now a routine
occurrence.......not sure I want to see what the next weather record is
that may get broken. IME, it is never a "good" record :-))

The best, earliest, warmest spring without backlashes ever experienced. That's what's coming next. Maybe.

Well, record crops are always good. Several of them lately.

Interesting situation coming up w/rain & the surface is frozen solid. That may cause flooding here (even tho it's been dry) as the rain will all run off.

I hope at least some thawing occurs to help the lime I tilled into my vegetable plot work.

The soil is moist enough to have frozen, so it probably will work, but more rain would be better.

Our snow has settled down with mid 30's and sun the last couple of days. Freezing rain (Ugh!) predicted tonight turning to snow (2-4") by morning. Then the cold moves in for another week.

Driving conditions will be main concern but ice/wet snow on the trees could spell problems for electric companies with fallen branches. A lot of variables need to line up for that to happen tho.

Bright side is, we've gained over 20 minutes of day light since Dec 21st (shortest day). Ya! :-)

Where did the idea come from that NWS precipitation figures do not include snow? I think that's the reasoning behind calling them precipitation instead of rainfall! It's always been my understanding the snow is either manually melted or automatically (any modern, major weather station) to convert to an equivalent rainfall amount.

http://www.sercc.com/cgi-bin/sercc/cliMAIN.pl?md6620

If that was true of a place like Oakland, MD, you'd have to assume there's some unusual climatological mechanism going on, since the Appalachians mountains are not otherwise so much wetter in winter than summer. If those were rain-only figures, Oakland's "real" January precipitation would be something like 6 inches.

David, I look at the data sheets and they should, but never do the melting part. Don't you think I've looked at it? M (missing) is put in the "precip" column & nothing ever gets added to the water-totals. Don't know for sure, but most stations prb'ly use the automated, wireless stations now, and I know people that have them -- those do not measure snow-water equivalent. There are the manual, melting methods, but almost no one does it (lazy, incompetent, uninterested, whatever). I think I saw a station or two that did it properly (water equivalent was added a couple days after the event) -- I think Buffalo, NY did.

I can say that on the Baltimore/Washington NWS page, they most definitely count melted snow.

Look at the data for months with big snowstorms - January, 2016, February 2010.

Ok...but look at the link I posted. It says that modern stations use "heating strips". By modern I mean the expensive ones used by airports and universities, not what is sold on Amazon. I too have looked at the raw data sheets, I know data can be missing - especially in smaller towns - but I really doubt it has been a major factor or otherwise the NWS would discuss it more. (You sometimes see M marked for the middle of summer. The reading just wasn't taken that day. Nothing involving snow.) In other words, for example, the Oakland data I posted would have some kind of disclaimer saying winter figures were low quality data.

COCORAHS/amateur stations are an entirely different matter...which is why they aren't used for official precipitation figures...

I think for any major city it's safe to assume the precip. figure has always included snow. If you consider the origins of the NWS, one of the main goals involved improving agronomic efficiency. It was part of the Department of Agriculture for 50 years. It would have been pretty pseudoscientific to skip counting snow as precipitation.

Hair, you're right -- I actually remember a newspaper article about the DC/Baltimore snows and they did do it (but IIRC one of the official stations admitted failing to do it). But those were an exception.

David, the Ms fill all the records for snow events that I've seen. What I look for then is an increase some time later in the total monthly precip. If it doesn't happen in a couple days, they almost certainly missed it. I've watched some of the snow-belt records, and a few do show added totals soon after (Erie, PA, Buffalo, NY for ex). Granted, there are complexities -- rain or more snow afterwards. But that can be recognized w/some experience.