Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,611
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    NH8550
    Newest Member
    NH8550
    Joined

January 2nd/3rd Storm Observations


Bostonseminole

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Man that's awesome! Congrats. The 4kft picnic tables are jealous :lol:

I have no idea how you measure that though...wow. There's absolutely no snow on any roof-tops or elevated surface in those pics...forget a nice elevated snow board for measuring, lol. Any idea on liquid equiv? Any cores (I'd assume ASOS wouldn't even be close)?

 

Ha, thanks. I'm a little nervous I may be off an inch or two, but I figured measuring every 12 hrs or so, plus visibility, but best guess in flat area., and radar gives me that total. I really lucked out. That area where you can see the tracks is still blown a little lean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1525041_589335544471684_662171684_n.png

 

 

That map looks mostly very good to me.  They seemed to have filtered out some of the higher reports.  I'd put the probability at 50/50 that my 6-10 shot low here but cannot measure enough to be sure.  I'm going to say 10", I just don't think this compared to other 10-15" events in terms of snow impact. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That map looks mostly very good to me.  They seemed to have filtered out some of the higher reports.  I'd put the probability at 50/50 that my 6-10 shot low here but cannot measure enough to be sure.  I'm going to say 10", I just don't think this compared to other 10-15" events in terms of snow impact. 

 

All in all I think the models handled this fairly well. They were pegging two areas of higher QPF, the WAA band across southern VT and NH and the ocean effect along eastern MA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terrible measuring spot.

Yeah I'm sure Matt will confirm we had 8-9" not 12" later.

Yes.

yeah, that 12" report is too high imo .. I wonder who that is haha .. one of my sisters best friends younger brother is obsessed with the weather but I don't think its him.

~8.5" - 9" seems reasonable for a total .. I could see up to 9.5" if you were consistent with 6 hr measurements / board clearing .. shoveling this snow wasn't as easy as expected, has to be 12:1 or lower. It 'ripped' here between 2 am and 7 am but the snow growth was pretty mediocre. Almost no dendrites (other than a 20 min band), mostly columns and plates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know someone who lives in shrewsbury just s of rt 9 off of oak or lake street ill ask him to measure

 

 

It would be way too late to measure now if you wanted an accurate report...snow depth is probably down 10-20% from its peak, so you'll bias yourself low waiting that long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This coastal missed us 50 miles to the southeast with the best snow banding.  It was this band that would get us widespread 20"+ amounts, but I think models handled this pretty well with the best QPF banding southeast of Nantucket, MA.  I would say we ended up with 16", not a KU for this region given the past storms, 1" shy of the FEB 2013 blizzard that gave us 17" of snow.  It's too bad this could have been a lot bigger if it hadn't missed us to the southeast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All in all I think the models handled this fairly well. They were pegging two areas of higher QPF, the WAA band across southern VT and NH and the ocean effect along eastern MA.

 

Very well overall.  I think some got a little hyped up thinking we would see epic snow ratios over here and that didn't happen until after dawn today, but a nice event.

 

It would be way too late to measure now if you wanted an accurate report...snow depth is probably down 10-20% from its peak, so you'll bias yourself low waiting that long.

 

Yeah, sublimation city here.  Down to 7 or 8".

 

16" of white gold here in Halifax. Still snowing. Maybe squeak in another couple. Awesome storm :snowing:

 

You guys have been cleaning up with these too...nice to see.

 

 

Check out the secondary band that formed over Sandwich.  There was a second area of convergence that moved down...smoked Sandwich in a narrow band.

 

This coastal missed us 50 miles to the southeast with the best snow banding.  It was this band that would get us widespread 20"+ amounts, but I think models handled this pretty well with the best QPF banding southeast of Nantucket, MA.  I would say we ended up with 16", not a KU for this region given the past storms, 1" shy of the FEB 2013 blizzard that gave us 17" of snow.  It's too bad this could have been a lot bigger if it hadn't missed us to the southeast.

 

Yes, this could have been something special sans that initial wave that robbed the moisture and pushed the BZ out for the second main deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This coastal missed us 50 miles to the southeast with the best snow banding. It was this band that would get us widespread 20"+ amounts, but I think models handled this pretty well with the best QPF banding southeast of Nantucket, MA. I would say we ended up with 16", not a KU for this region given the past storms, 1" shy of the FEB 2013 blizzard that gave us 17" of snow. It's too bad this could have been a lot bigger if it hadn't missed us to the southeast.

Congrats though. You beat a lot of people which doesn't happen often on the cape. And the cold was impressive as well. Not an everyday setup for sure

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you guys mean settling not sublimation.

 

No Coastal, I meant sublimation.

 

Especially on a day like today with well-below melting point temps + windy + dry air --> sublimation is relatively significant in eating away accumulation.

 

My point was that the extremely low water content of this snow (ie high SLR) makes this process faster than we are used to seeing. Taken another way, the same rate of sublimation measured by mass / time will eat away snowpack faster because the density of this snow is less.

 

Intuitive example: ice cubes in our freezer disappear over time by sublimation. That is clearly visible over time, but slow because the water density of ice. That process would be much much faster if you put a cup of powdery snowflakes into your freezer.

 

Well described process in places like the Midwest and contributes to disappearance of arctic snow mass, though browsing published papers, it seems difficult to quantify.

 

Obviously, settling or compaction will diminish our apparent accumulation as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Coastal, I meant sublimation.

 

Especially on a day like today with well-below melting point temps + windy + dry air --> sublimation is relatively significant in eating away accumulation.

 

My point was that the extremely low water content of this snow (ie high SLR) makes this process faster than we are used to seeing. Taken another way, the same rate of sublimation measured by mass / time will eat away snowpack faster because the density of this snow is less.

 

Intuitive example: ice cubes in our freezer disappear over time by sublimation. That is clearly visible over time, but slow because the water density of ice. That process would be much much faster if you put a cup of powdery snowflakes into your freezer.

 

Well described process in places like the Midwest and contributes to disappearance of arctic snow mass, though browsing published papers, it seems difficult to quantify.

 

Obviously, settling or compaction will diminish our apparent accumulation as well.

 

Well BOS was 14 with a dewpoint of 1F. RH was 55%. Not exactly prime sublimation weather. Usually you want those cold windy nights where the dewpoint drops rapidly and tha half inch of fluff you got from a squall vanishes. I honestly think compaction is more of an issue. There is some sublimation, but not the way people are making it out to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is def. an event in which your total will suffer if you haven't be sweeping and clearing in 6 hour increments.

Wind and compaction is brutal.

 

You made the point the other day that there's a big difference between snowfall and accumulation. I think this is a great example of why NWS guidance should be for spotters to measure both - do the six-hour sweeps (which also would maintain purer trend) but separately also measure total accumulation.

 

I had 10" of pure fluff at  4 p.m. in my front yard yesterday, it kept snowing all night, and when I woke up mid-morning the measurement at that stick was around 8.5". This afternoon it was 8" there and when I took measurements at numerous places around the property, sheltered and otherwise, I kept coming up with 7-8" with the occasional lolli to 10" ... and it wasn't because of wind. Biggest "drift" I could find was barely a foot.

 

Of course this would have been a slam-dunk 2-footer if I were the Norse god of snow measurement, Jay.

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...