Clinch Leatherwood Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Lost of talk about measuring. When we have another 1978 I think a lot of people will be stunned. It'll happen someday, and all the preparation we think we do will be meaningless. Great video, check out how young Harv is in this video. Just a kid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 I dunno, I see that at the mountain a lot if we have fluffy snow and high winds. It can snow hard with 1/4sm visibility for hours in squalls and only end up with a couple inches. Especially if its generally higher ratio stuff to begin with and good dendrites that are effective in lowering visibility. But once those things get on the ground and blow around, the flakes that were reducing visibility so efficiently get absolutely crushed. I'm not sure I would say its too low, but just that if the wind wasn't there amounts probably would've been double. But it was there and you're left with 3-6 inches instead of 6-12". I mean that because of the wind, it's impossible to measure and you are left saying "it is what it is..". No biggie. I deal with this all the time on the coast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 I suppose it is possible the dendrites got pulverized on the ground too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powderfreak Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 I mean that because of the wind, it's impossible to measure and you are left saying "it is what it is..". No biggie. I deal with this all the time on the coast. Ahhh I see what you mean. I thought you were saying people were reporting too low or measuring in scoured areas. The crusty and hard snow layer certainly doesn't help...those fluffy dendrites will just get crushed on that stuff. You could've had visibility reductions similar to a 6-12 inch event actually falling out of the sky, but when you measure its half that after it gets blown around. But I love a good low visibility snow, no matter how much ends up on the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Ahhh I see what you mean. I thought you were saying people were reporting too low or measuring in scoured areas. The crusty and hard snow layer certainly doesn't help...those fluffy dendrites will just get crushed on that stuff. But I love a good low visibility snow, no matter how much ends up on the ground. It makes the pack a thicker type of lighter snow regardless...just think of it as less settling. At least I do..lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clinch Leatherwood Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Ahhh I see what you mean. I thought you were saying people were reporting too low or measuring in scoured areas. The crusty and hard snow layer certainly doesn't help...those fluffy dendrites will just get crushed on that stuff. You could've had visibility reductions similar to a 6-12 inch event actually falling out of the sky, but when you measure its half that after it gets blown around. But I love a good low visibility snow, no matter how much ends up on the ground. Small flakes today, same visibility as last weekend during the day, 1/2 the accumulation. It just didn't stack up like the big flakes we had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powderfreak Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 It makes the pack a thicker type of lighter snow regardless...just think of it as less settling. At least I do..lol. Yeah its already wind-packed. Essentially what you would've ended up with like 24 hours later on the ground even if it had been 8-10" of 30:1 snow, lol. But I totally know what you are saying/thinking. Plenty of times I watch it dump all day long at the ski resort and then go check the snow boards and find like 3 inches in 6 hours of 1/2-1/4sm snow... and you're like ehhhh, huh? I do think a lot more damage happens to snow once its on the ground than when its in the air...really weak dendrites will shatter before hitting the ground, but if you get true, well formed dendrites they'll get to the surface even in high winds. But throw in an old crusty, objects, downward compression from wind gusts, etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Yeah its already wind-packed. Essentially what you would've ended up with like 24 hours later on the ground even if it had been 8-10" of 30:1 snow, lol. But I totally know what you are saying/thinking. Plenty of times I watch it dump all day long at the ski resort and then go check the snow boards and find like 3 inches in 6 hours of 1/2-1/4sm snow... and you're like ehhhh, huh? I do think a lot more damage happens to snow once its on the ground than when its in the air...really weak dendrites will shatter before hitting the ground, but if you get true, well formed dendrites they'll get to the surface even in high winds. But throw in an old crusty, objects, downward compression from wind gusts, etc... Yeah good points. Regardless, good to see 1/4sm S+ obs thrown in. It was snowing quite hard earlier...this time with nice flakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powderfreak Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Small flakes today, same visibility as last weekend during the day, 1/2 the accumulation. It just didn't stack up like the big flakes we had. Did you get aggregates last weekend or were the big flakes single dendrites from great snow growth? This is why I love analyzing snow... so many variables go into actual accumulations. We always spend so much time worrying about QPF (well that's very important) but there's a whole other set of variables that go into it. Wind, flake structure, RH... last weekend seemed much moister (in a RH type of way) and maybe weak dry air at the surface (or fractional difference in T/Td depressions) was causing the dendrites to be more brittle or something when they hit the ground this time? Who knows. Its fascinating stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 I had great flakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dryslot Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Yeah they were great here. That's Blue Hills official report so have to go with it. Most of my immediate are reported 2.5-3. 0, reports seem pretty uniform, everybody can not be low, some folks are not as wind prone. Even with lt snow this AM visibility was under 1/2 here. I think reports are pretty good representation. Opposite here from last week, Flakes were destroyed this week Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthCoastMA Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 I was just in Wareham and the snow depth is greater than Acushnet. Measured as best I could between 6.5 nd 8 inches. So I'll go with around 7.5" there. For acushnet I had 1.5" yesterday and approx 4.5" overnight. Storm total of ~6" there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthCoastMA Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 [quConsote name=redsoxdude1714" post="2134593" timestamp="1361140322] What do you mean? Conditions in CT were just as bad Friday night, with 5-6" per hour rates at the height, and even snow plows were getting stuck. The difference in 2013 is that people are warned of storms for days and the roads Friday night/Saturday were closed pre-storm. I guess '78 was much worse at the coast, maybe that's what you were speaking of. Now imagine that being wet snow. And a day longer. That was Feb 78 in eastern mass and RI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weathafella Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 I was in the woods with the dog for 2 hours earlier and it's cold. Also, the snowpack is very robust and seemingly durable with the bottom part crusty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Show me the 10-15 ft drifts from 13 Blizz and sustained winds, snow was better in 13 in CT than 78 but still a step below in intensity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joey2002 Posted February 17, 2013 Author Share Posted February 17, 2013 Now imagine that being wet snow. And a day longer. That was Feb 78 in eastern mass and RI Yeah, you're right. The winds and coastal destruction were worse in Feb 78, especially in Mass and RI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 I was in the woods with the dog for 2 hours earlier and it's cold. Also, the snowpack is very robust and seemingly durable with the bottom part crusty.Yes the pack is rock solid again, still have 10 -14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moneypitmike Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Yes the pack is rock solid again, still have 10 -14 Steve--were you able to cash in on things today? Don't know if any snow came down here yesterday, radar showed it was, but no sign of anything once I got home today at 1:30p.m. 18.6/-2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Steve--were you able to cash in on things today? Don't know if any snow came down here yesterday, radar showed it was, but no sign of anything once I got home today at 1:30p.m. 18.6/-2 2. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moneypitmike Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 2. 5 Congrats--a good year for eastern CT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Tons of BLSN. Roads slippery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Tons of BLSN. Roads slipperyyeah even 2.5 made some great drifts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 yeah even 2.5 made some great drifts Maybe Advisory stuff. Couple of scary moments. Nasty out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cold Miser Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 yeah even 2.5 made some great drifts Agree. Driving around I was surprised at all of the snow snakes slinking across the road from the high winds, and the resulting drifts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clinch Leatherwood Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 I was just in Wareham and the snow depth is greater than Acushnet. Measured as best I could between 6.5 nd 8 inches. So I'll go with around 7.5" there. For acushnet I had 1.5" yesterday and approx 4.5" overnight. Storm total of ~6" there Yeah. I think a lot of the normal reporters are off on school vacation type stuff. It was a 6.5 to 8" type of deal through this zone. Wareham has more than me for sure they were in the band at peak intensity. Just a lack of reports really, kind of odd. [quConsote name=redsoxdude1714" post="2134593" timestamp="1361140322] What do you mean? Conditions in CT were just as bad Friday night, with 5-6" per hour rates at the height, and even snow plows were getting stuck. The difference in 2013 is that people are warned of storms for days and the roads Friday night/Saturday were closed pre-storm. I guess '78 was much worse at the coast, maybe that's what you were speaking of. Now imagine that being wet snow. And a day longer. That was Feb 78 in eastern mass and RI When we have the next 1978 the reported amounts will be enormous. The changes in the way people measure, the number of people measuring and the overall reporting are enormous. Harvey was very right in what he said, there hasn't been another storm in the 35 years since that came close to the duration, damage, winds and snow. I've been in this same area throughout and nothing has come all that close. 97 was probably more intense for a shorter duration, 05 down here was pretty nasty too. 13 did more damage to the grid, but none have had that combination of winds, flooding, duration and snow. Just look at places like Hull and Scituate. Hull there were waves breaking on porches back by the ballfields. Literally the ocean was back beyond the main drag. But, when we have the next 78 we'll think we're prepared but there will highways closed for days. Remember in 78 they had to use backhoes, front end loaders and graders to clear roads in the Stoughton, Randolph back to Cumberland RI areas. Not even the heaviest of other plows could get it done. I remember days afterwards my dad walking to the store with our neighbors in waist deep street snow. We will eventually get one of these 945-960mb lows to stall in the right spot and when it does I shudder to think about the coastal damage, grid damage and just overall how much it paralyzes the region. I really believe there was a large area of 40-45+" snows much like what you saw with that band in CT, but it lasted even longer in 78 and then on top of that the duration of the event was longer. We just capture these bands better now because the density of the reporting network is so much greater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanStWx Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 But, when we have the next 78 we'll think we're prepared but there will highways closed for days. Remember in 78 they had to use backhoes, front end loaders and graders to clear roads in the Stoughton, Randolph back to Cumberland RI areas. Not even the heaviest of other plows could get it done. I remember days afterwards my dad walking to the store with our neighbors in waist deep street snow. I wholeheartedly agree with this. Sandy proved it to a degree. We think just because we can see it coming days in advance, that we're prepared for it. The country as a whole suffers from a lack of preparation when it comes to significant weather events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damage In Tolland Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Yeah. I think a lot of the normal reporters are off on school vacation type stuff. It was a 6.5 to 8" type of deal through this zone. Wareham has more than me for sure they were in the band at peak intensity. Just a lack of reports really, kind of odd. When we have the next 1978 the reported amounts will be enormous. The changes in the way people measure, the number of people measuring and the overall reporting are enormous. Harvey was very right in what he said, there hasn't been another storm in the 35 years since that came close to the duration, damage, winds and snow. I've been in this same area throughout and nothing has come all that close. 97 was probably more intense for a shorter duration, 05 down here was pretty nasty too. 13 did more damage to the grid, but none have had that combination of winds, flooding, duration and snow. Just look at places like Hull and Scituate. Hull there were waves breaking on porches back by the ballfields. Literally the ocean was back beyond the main drag. But, when we have the next 78 we'll think we're prepared but there will highways closed for days. Remember in 78 they had to use backhoes, front end loaders and graders to clear roads in the Stoughton, Randolph back to Cumberland RI areas. Not even the heaviest of other plows could get it done. I remember days afterwards my dad walking to the store with our neighbors in waist deep street snow. We will eventually get one of these 945-960mb lows to stall in the right spot and when it does I shudder to think about the coastal damage, grid damage and just overall how much it paralyzes the region. I really believe there was a large area of 40-45+" snows much like what you saw with that band in CT, but it lasted even longer in 78 and then on top of that the duration of the event was longer. We just capture these bands better now because the density of the reporting network is so much greater. Umm..that's what we just had in CT..Plows didn't work and broke..All cities and towns needed payloaders and tractors to clear roads. That was the problem. We just had our blizzard of 78 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT Rain Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Umm..that's what we just had in CT..Plows didn't work and broke..All cities and towns needed payloaders and tractors to clear roads. That was the problem. We just had our blizzard of 78 Winds were obviously less in 2013 than 1978 but yeah those problems that Scott described was exactly what we had to deal with here in CT. The highways would have been in much worse shape had the worst of the storm occurred midday on a Monday as opposed to late evening Friday night. Time of day/week matters quite a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Umm..that's what we just had in CT..Plows didn't work and broke..All cities and towns needed payloaders and tractors to clear roads. That was the problem. We just had our blizzard of 78 It wasn't like '78 with thousands of stranded cars. The timing of the storm was fortunate that it mostly occurred on a weekend and came in gradually rather than a wall of S+...next time we get a midday storm that comes in as a wall of white and is 20+ inches, we'll see the stranded car scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damage In Tolland Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 It wasn't like '78 with thousands of stranded cars. The timing of the storm was fortunate that it mostly occurred on a weekend and came in gradually rather than a wall of S+...next time we get a midday storm that comes in as a wall of white and is 20+ inches, we'll see the stranded car scenario. other than that..it was EXACTLY the blizzard of 78.. 30-40 inches of snow..it was especially bad in the bigger cities..but even rural towns had to get heavy equipment..Plenty of folks were stranded..but fortunately we have technology now and everyone has an iphone etc and was aware. Back then noone had a clue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.