Quincy Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 Here's a good visual of some of the snow this morning via satellite imagery: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT Rain Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 Here's a cool loop showing the band developing and the dynamic cooling flipping everything to snow (note low CC becomes high when flip takes place). http://ryanhanrahan.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/mondayloop.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TalcottWx Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 Might be more NYC north. It's possible late April warms here like some want, but my guess is April is BN here...especially NE of NYC. JMHO. I need to see why and how this pattern will break. Evidence shown as to why early April will he warm was a Phail.It definitely reeks of a pattern that is mid Atlantic mild maybe even into s ct while we are cool with transient warmth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Amy Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 ...and it's all gone today, like it never even happened... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damage In Tolland Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 ...and it's all gone today, like it never even happened...late August sun angle will do that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powderfreak Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 I know the VT pony-Os will disagree, but ratios are so overrated. I will take 8" of paste over a foot of sublimation delight. Hands down. I know some of you weenies want to pad the stats with numbers, but I'm actually beginning to dislike fluff. Jan 21 did it for me. Screw that. I could care less about the ratios, just give me the snow. If it's a debate over fluff or no snow, I'll take the fluff. The way I look at it is the synoptic storms should be dense snow makers, and then we can get the fluff through upslope. I can see why you guys would hate it if you track a storm for a week and get 12" of fluff that disappears quickly and then you don't know when your next event will be...but what if you could have that dense synoptic storm and then throw in several 2-5" fluffers to refresh the wintery look inbetween the synoptic events? All snow is good snow, IMO. If the alternative in January 21 event was no snow, I'm assuming you'd take the fluff. I agree that synoptic storms should be dense and pasty. But snow usually settles to 8:1 or 10:1 ratio anyway if it's fluff after a day or two. So if you are getting 1.0" of QPF, does it really matter if you get 16" or 10"? You're still melting the same amount of QPF and I bet they'd both be at about the same depth as each other 3 days later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 I could care less about the ratios, just give me the snow. If it's a debate over fluff or no snow, I'll take the fluff. The way I look at it is the synoptic storms should be dense snow makers, and then we can get the fluff through upslope. I can see why you guys would hate it if you track a storm for a week and get 12" of fluff that disappears quickly and then you don't know when your next event will be...but what if you could have that dense synoptic storm and then throw in several 2-5" fluffers to refresh the wintery look inbetween the synoptic events? All snow is good snow, IMO. If the alternative in January 21 event was no snow, I'm assuming you'd take the fluff. I agree that synoptic storms should be dense and pasty. But snow usually settles to 8:1 or 10:1 ratio anyway if it's fluff after a day or two. So if you are getting 1.0" of QPF, does it really matter if you get 16" or 10"? You're still melting the same amount of QPF and I bet they'd both be at about the same depth as each other 3 days later. I think my argument got taken out of context. I totally understand why you like fluff because 2 days later you'll get another 8" and so on and so on, not to mention skiing. My argument was if it came to like 8" of paste vs 12" of see through fluff...I would choose the former. We just don't have the frequency of fluff events to build on like you do. If it were 15" of fluff vs 8" of paste, then I think fluff wins in that case simply because of the amount of snow falling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powderfreak Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Yeah I get ya now...I would take the paste too. I just enjoy the big plastering QPF events. But I still think it comes down to QPF (Queen)...if you are getting 8" of paste with 1" of SWE or 12" fluff with a SWE of 0.5"...go with that paste every time. I think you just want to go with the higher QPF (whether it's fluff or cement) as the more liquid in it the longer it sticks around. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JC-CT Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Yeah I get ya now...I would take the paste too. I just enjoy the big plastering QPF events. But I still think it comes down to QPF (Queen)...if you are getting 8" of paste with 1" of SWE or 12" fluff with a SWE of 0.5"...go with that paste every time. I think you just want to go with the higher QPF (whether it's fluff or cement) as the more liquid in it the longer it sticks around. . And the heavier it falls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.