The snow in Peking is a little a tiny tot

Excuse the refuse like My Fair Lady. The fact is that it is what there suggest the dozens of means on that they have published, spurred for Efe, that Peking remained paralyzed for "precipitations in the shape of snow of 4,8 millimeters, which in the north of the city became of up to 12,6 millimeters": Abc.es, Elpais.com, Lasprovincias.es (and the rest of the group Vocento), Wave Zero, The Avant-garde, Antena3, The Economist... and so many people others.
As Manuel says to me (thank you): Is nobody surprised of that a 0,5 cm snowfall to 1,3 cm paralyzes a city and it is considered to be historical? Perhaps yes, but the production line cannot stop in these minutiae.
On the other hand: where from has Efe extracted his fact? I have two theories.
The first one is that the said information is of meteorological stations, that they give the precipitation measurement in mm (liters of water per square meter), although this one has been in the shape of snow, and in effect, the information coincides approximately with those of Weatheronline for the sum of the 2nd and 3rd of January in Peking.
But as the meteorologists say to me, the precipitation in the shape of snow usually reaches a height 10 times major than the water (with changes), concerning 1 cm of snow per 1 mm of water. So that 12,6 mm of water might be equivalent to approximately 12 cm of snow, which begins being a considerable height, although very far of 30 cm about which they speak means of other countries (for example, the Sydney Morning Herald, quoting Frances Press), and that seems more logical for a "historical" snowfall (although it would not coincide with the Weatheronline information).
The second theory is even more simple: 30 centimeters are approximately 12 inches, as us remembers proper France Press. 12 inches, 12 millimeters...
You with which do they remain? Torrent The Wanda Sykes Show S01E16 Episode 16 now