Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,586
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    LopezElliana
    Newest Member
    LopezElliana
    Joined

NNE Groundhog Day Storm Thread


dryslot

Recommended Posts

Completely different up here... we are now over 2" here and its total fluff. I can't believe we picked up the same as those near Rutland-Plymouth but this is low ratio snow. Good sized flakes today and I doubt we got much over 0.1" of liquid in this 2.2" of snow.

I'd be curious to see what J.Spin's ratios come out to as he usually has pretty good measurements. If we get this type of snow with the QPF forecast tomorrow, we are going to get crushed.

3" on the snow board at 3,000ft... 2.2" in the village at 800ft.

Ours is a dense "fluff". Melt me down a snow core and tell me how much QPF. :)

With heavier amounts you won't sustain ratios like this anyway. I have to question J.Spin's 80:1 and 120:1 ratios lately with 0.01" liquid. I don't think it's legitimately possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 384
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Ours is a dense "fluff". Melt me down a snow core and tell me how much QPF. :)

With heavier amounts you won't sustain ratios like this anyway. I have to question J.Spin's 80:1 and 120:1 ratios lately with 0.01" liquid. I don't think it's legitimately possible.

You know, I've never melted a core sample but I should really try to... this stuff has been crazy this year. The ASOS at the airport is no good because KMVL never reports more than a trace on the BTV page. All I'm thinking is that this storm might actually work out... I see no reason why this won't hit everyone pretty good, even borderwx up in Newport

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 degrees, 3.5 inches of snow, light snow falling steadily and accumulating slowly. Yes crappy snow growth today but a beautiful scene outside. I went into Concord for a few hours and the ride back as the light was diminishing, with the low visibility/foggy look to the sky and light snow. The snow was sticking to the trees and the open fields up this way are huge expanses of white. I usually stay at home and in my yard during storms but I going to take a ride around tomorrow, bring my snowshoes, and walk around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just over 3" here in boscawen. i was hoping for a bit more, but oh well. maybe tomorrow will drop a foot. please?

I thought you were in Penacook. Just drove through Boscawen. The scene I was describing in the last post was my ride through Boscawen, up Water Street and onto Long Street. I was in Concord from noon til 5. Did this light snow continue all afternoon up here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, I've never melted a core sample but I should really try to... this stuff has been crazy this year. The ASOS at the airport is no good because KMVL never reports more than a trace on the BTV page. All I'm thinking is that this storm might actually work out... I see no reason why this won't hit everyone pretty good, even borderwx up in Newport

I think we all do well. And yes...you definitely have potential with better ratios getting into the better deformation. I should also add that I enjoy J Spin's obs too and read all of them. Rereading my own post it may have come across as hasty, but that wasn't my intention. :)

14.9F with some very light snow. Looks like I'm getting paid back for my deform success in past storms this year. All of the bands over the last few hours have either been to my north or south.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh, got home a bit ago and found 4.5" of the lightest, easiest-to-move snow that I've seen from an event beyond upslope fake snow (;)). I was surprised to see this much, but here it is. Haven't yet melted down--will do that in the morn............prolly not 80:1 though. J/K!

Still quite cold at 12F. Surely that helped.

Out to plow in a bit. :scooter:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With heavier amounts you won't sustain ratios like this anyway. I have to question J.Spin's 80:1 and 120:1 ratios lately with 0.01" liquid. I don't think it's legitimately possible.

You're absolutely right that those ratios are high dendrite, and I wouldn't put too much stock in the ratios that come out of samples down in the 0.01" of liquid range (which applies to both of those calculations you cited above). Since the reporting standard is to only go out to hundredths of an inch for liquid, I’ve set up my spreadsheet to round my liquid samples to the nearest hundredth, and then it calculates the ratio off that. So, a value of 0.0051” of liquid is getting rounded to 0.01” of liquid, or a value of 0.0149” of liquid is getting rounded to 0.01” of liquid, and we’re talking up to 50% error in the density calculation. That 120:1 ratio could easily be a 60:1 ratio etc. At the same time, if I measure 0.0049” of liquid, it gets rounded down to 0.00” of liquid, it goes down as a trace, and no ratio is calculated. For liquid reporting purposes, presumably everything will average out and the overall numbers will be fine over time, but reporting the ratios of fluff down in the 0.01” range is more for the fun of it. However, put a few tenths of liquid into the equation and the rounding error quickly drops way off, so I’m quite confident on the ratios with samples of 0.03” of liquid or more. I made tonight’s observations and took my core sample at 7:00 P.M., so I’ll work up the numbers in a minute. Based on the amount of liquid from a single 68 mm diameter core tonight (13.74 mL), it will be well above 0.03” of liquid, and we’ll have a nice accurate measurement for the snow density in this part of the storm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're absolutely right that those ratios are high dendrite, and I wouldn't put too much stock in the ratios that come out of samples down in the 0.01" of liquid range (which applies to both of those calculations you cited above). Since the reporting standard is to only go out to hundredths of an inch for liquid, I’ve set up my spreadsheet to round my liquid samples to the nearest hundredth, and then it calculates the ratio off that. So, a value of 0.0051” of liquid is getting rounded to 0.01” of liquid and we’re talking up to 50% error in the density calculation. That 120:1 ratio could easily be a 60:1 ratio etc. At the same time, if I measure 0.0049” of liquid, it gets rounded down to 0.00” of liquid, it goes down as a trace, and no ratio is calculated. For liquid reporting purposes, presumably everything will average out and the overall numbers will be fine over time, but reporting the ratios of fluff down in the 0.01” range is more for the fun of it. However, put a few tenths of liquid into the equation and the rounding error quickly drops way off, so I’m quite confident on the ratios with samples of 0.03” of liquid or more. I made tonight’s observations and took my core sample at 7:00 P.M., so I’ll work up the numbers in a minute. Based on the amount of liquid from a single 68 mm diameter core tonight (13.74 mL), it will be well above 0.03” of liquid, and we’ll have a nice accurate measurement for the snow density in this part of the storm.

OK...that makes a little more sense to me then. I've been doing this for 15 years too and had never gotten anything ever close to over an inch of snow with a hundredth of liquid so it made me do a double take. :snowman:

How do you melt down your cores? Do you do it the quick way by adding warm water and then subtracting the amount you added out? I had a friend who used to nuke it in the microwave, but I was never a fan of that method.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...