Jump to content

  • Member Statistics

    17,606
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    ArlyDude
    Newest Member
    ArlyDude
    Joined

Snow-liquid ratios for this storm vs. Halloween Eve storm of 2011?

RU848789

By RU848789,
in New York City Metro

Recommended Posts

RU848789

RU848789

Posted
Posted

I'm insanely busy at work, so no time to comb through the threads or find the info from the internet (I tried for a few minutes but with no luck), but thought perhaps someone out there has the data at their fingertips. My gut tells me that the Halloween Eve storm last year had snow with significantly greater water content, leading to more weight on trees/power lines for a given snow depth: at my house we got about 6.5" this year and 5.5" last year, yet last year there were far more trees brought down in our area than this year. Also wondering if the "stickiness" factor of the wetter snow meant that the snow didn't fall off or blow off the trees/power lines as easily, relative to this week's storm, which would have also helped make last year worse.

If there was a significant difference in water content that would be pretty good evidence that that is the root cause of the greater rate of trees being brough down last year. If there wasn't much difference in water content, then for the same snow depth, I guess it's possible that Sandy brought down most of the weak tree stock out there, leaving a higher proportion of strong trees in place, relative to when last year's storm hit (leading to more trees being brought down last year relative to this year). Another factor could be that we're 10 days later this year, so there should have been less leaves on the trees (and even moreso, given that Sandy likely removed a lot of leaves). So, anyone have the snow density data for both storms for anywhere near the Edison, NJ area? Thanks...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sey-Mour Snow

Sey-Mour Snow

Posted
Posted

I'm insanely busy at work, so no time to comb through the threads or find the info from the internet (I tried for a few minutes but with no luck), but thought perhaps someone out there has the data at their fingertips. My gut tells me that the Halloween Eve storm last year had snow with significantly greater water content, leading to more weight on trees/power lines for a given snow depth: at my house we got about 6.5" this year and 5.5" last year, yet last year there were far more trees brought down in our area than this year. Also wondering if the "stickiness" factor of the wetter snow meant that the snow didn't fall off or blow off the trees/power lines as easily, relative to this week's storm, which would have also helped make last year worse.

If there was a significant difference in water content that would be pretty good evidence that that is the root cause of the greater rate of trees being brough down last year. If there wasn't much difference in water content, then for the same snow depth, I guess it's possible that Sandy brought down most of the weak tree stock out there, leaving a higher proportion of strong trees in place, relative to when last year's storm hit (leading to more trees being brought down last year relative to this year). So, anyone have the snow density data for both storms for anywhere near the Edison, NJ area? Thanks...

yes the snow was much much drier this time around as surface temperatures and 850s were much colder this time.. I had no problem shoveling the snow as it was surprisingly fluffy for this time of year.

Also the winds caused a lot of drifting in the back yard this also prevented much accumulation on trees and power lines, the october snowstorm was so wet and just stuck to everything!

Also the hurricane knocked down any leaves that were left. last year the trees were full of leaves. this made tree branches much lighter and they had less stress due to the snow..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
famartin

famartin

Posted
Posted

Personally I think the much lower leaf load was the single biggest difference, everyone back there has told me that this fall peak color was considerably earlier than last year and thus leaf drop was considerably earlier, and this year's storm was 9 days later than last year's was. Thus, there was a lot more time for most trees to shed their leaves.

A second difference was probably that Sandy helped to both scour more leaves off than otherwise would've been the case, and to take down a lot of things that were vulnerable.

Finally there was more wind, as mentioned above, so that decreased the amount of snow that actually was able to stick to the trees.

All that having been said, yes snow ratios were higher with this storm than during Snowtober, though this is somewhat location dependent. For example, at my parents they measured 1.63" of liquid for 3.2" of snow in Snowtober, while with the recent storm it was 0.71" liquid for 3.5" of snow. 2:1 ratio versus a 5:1 ratio. Now, not all the precip in Snowtober was snow as it started as rain, but some of the snow early in this storm also melted on contact instead of sticking, so that still leaves a significant difference in ratio. I suspect that in Snowtober, the ratio was 3:1 or 4:1 overall, while during the latest storm it was probably more like 7:1 or 8:1.

In any case, the place to get a feel for what snow ratios were is probably CoCoRaHS.org, since they recommend doing core samples when precipitation is in the form of snow. Let me know if you have questions about using the site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Analog96

Analog96

Posted
Posted

Personally I think the much lower leaf load was the single biggest difference, everyone back there has told me that this fall peak color was considerably earlier than last year and thus leaf drop was considerably earlier, and this year's storm was 9 days later than last year's was. Thus, there was a lot more time for most trees to shed their leaves.

A second difference was probably that Sandy helped to both scour more leaves off than otherwise would've been the case, and to take down a lot of things that were vulnerable.

Finally there was more wind, as mentioned above, so that decreased the amount of snow that actually was able to stick to the trees.

All that having been said, yes snow ratios were higher with this storm than during Snowtober, though this is somewhat location dependent. For example, at my parents they measured 1.63" of liquid for 3.2" of snow in Snowtober, while with the recent storm it was 0.71" liquid for 3.5" of snow. 2:1 ratio versus a 5:1 ratio. Now, not all the precip in Snowtober was snow as it started as rain, but some of the snow early in this storm also melted on contact instead of sticking, so that still leaves a significant difference in ratio. I suspect that in Snowtober, the ratio was 3:1 or 4:1 overall, while during the latest storm it was probably more like 7:1 or 8:1.

In any case, the place to get a feel for what snow ratios were is probably CoCoRaHS.org, since they recommend doing core samples when precipitation is in the form of snow. Let me know if you have questions about using the site.

I had 0.71" to 5.6", and had a bit of rain mix in at the beginning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
famartin

famartin

Posted
Posted

Here's an example of what can happen sometimes with snow... the observer measured 0.56" in the gauge (presumably) but came up with a much higher core sample. Which one is right? I'd lean toward the core sample.

post-39-0-27226200-1352521596_thumb.png

Now, here's the closest core sample to Edison:

post-39-0-53859200-1352521674_thumb.png

Between these two, you could argue for a ratio of 9:1 to 10:1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NorthShoreWx

NorthShoreWx

Posted
Posted

Personally I think the much lower leaf load was the single biggest difference, everyone back there has told me that this fall peak color was considerably earlier than last year and thus leaf drop was considerably earlier, and this year's storm was 9 days later than last year's was. Thus, there was a lot more time for most trees to shed their leaves.

A second difference was probably that Sandy helped to both scour more leaves off than otherwise would've been the case, and to take down a lot of things that were vulnerable.

Finally there was more wind, as mentioned above, so that decreased the amount of snow that actually was able to stick to the trees.

All that having been said, yes snow ratios were higher with this storm than during Snowtober, though this is somewhat location dependent. For example, at my parents they measured 1.63" of liquid for 3.2" of snow in Snowtober, while with the recent storm it was 0.71" liquid for 3.5" of snow. 2:1 ratio versus a 5:1 ratio. Now, not all the precip in Snowtober was snow as it started as rain, but some of the snow early in this storm also melted on contact instead of sticking, so that still leaves a significant difference in ratio. I suspect that in Snowtober, the ratio was 3:1 or 4:1 overall, while during the latest storm it was probably more like 7:1 or 8:1.

In any case, the place to get a feel for what snow ratios were is probably CoCoRaHS.org, since they recommend doing core samples when precipitation is in the form of snow. Let me know if you have questions about using the site.

Strongly agree with the bolded part.

I had a w.e. of .83 in snowcover that had compressed to 2.8" depth by the time I melted a "core sample". This doesn't include snow that melted before it began to stick as well as any water that seeped into the ground from the compressing snow cover. We seem to have had among the lowest ratios. That makes sense though because we were not far west of the edge of accumulating snow for this one.

My best efforts snowfall measurement was 3.5" and even at that much 0.83" is a lot of water. Presumably the ratio was even lower than that.

FYI, Almost all of the precip here fell as snow. There was some rain mixed in during the extensive periods when the precip was lighter during the day, but it wasn't much. I didn't have the rain gage out, but I am confident total liquid exceeded an inch based on the .83" in the sample that I melted the next morning.

The main issue for not getting higher accumulations was the snow melting on contact. It was a big improvement over last years October storm when we didn't even get a coating despite many hours of mix and then a couple hours of all snow. Being just over a mile from the sound helps with snowfall in the winter and spring, but not in the fall. I think this years improved snow accumulation had more to do with the northerly flow of cold dry air than the fact that the sound is a few degrees cooler than last October, but if the sound wasn't there we would have gotten buried this time (maybe both times). I think I saw 57 or 58 for mid-sound water temps this year vs 61 or 62 last October. If memory serves, both are historically high for this time of year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Pamela

Guest Pamela

Posted
Posted

I think I saw 57 or 58 for mid-sound water temps this year vs 61 or 62 last October. If memory serves, both are historically high for this time of year.

There is nothing out of the ordinary about having a Sound water temperature of 57 F during the first week of November...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JBG

JBG

Posted
Posted

Personally I think the much lower leaf load was the single biggest difference, everyone back there has told me that this fall peak color was considerably earlier than last year and thus leaf drop was considerably earlier, and this year's storm was 9 days later than last year's was. Thus, there was a lot more time for most trees to shed their leaves.

A second difference was probably that Sandy helped to both scour more leaves off than otherwise would've been the case, and to take down a lot of things that were vulnerable.

I think both factors were important. Last year I think we had about 2"precipitation as against approximately 1" this time around from the event, yet roughly the same amounts of snow, in my case 6". Of course more of last year's event was rain but still I think the moisture content last year was far higher.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Pamela

Guest Pamela

Posted
Posted

Is that for the more recent years or long term averages?

I base it mostly on what I took out of Newsday in the 70's and 80's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...