Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,588
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    LopezElliana
    Newest Member
    LopezElliana
    Joined

November II Discussion


CapturedNature

Recommended Posts

From Bufalo NWS.  lol and HOLY CRAP.

 

* ACCUMULATIONS...SNOWFALL RATES OF 2 TO 4 INCHES PER HOUR IN THE  MOST INTENSE PORTION OF THE BAND. STORM TOTALS WILL REACH 3 TO  4 FEET IN MANY AREAS ALONG AND SOUTH OF A LINE FROM SOUTH  BUFFALO TO BATAVIA. LOCAL AMOUNTS OF 5 TO 6 FEET FROM LACKAWANNA  TO LANCASTER AND ELMA FROM THE FIRST STORM ENDING ON WEDNESDAY.  ADDITIONAL ACCUMULATIONS OF UP TO 2 FEET IN THE SECOND STORM  LATE WEDNESDAY NIGHT THROUGH THURSDAY NIGHT IN PERSISTENT BANDS.  THE HEAVIEST AMOUNTS MAY AGAIN FOCUS ON THE BUFFALO SOUTHTOWNS.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Eyewall post this on the NNE thread, didn't see it here.  Just amazing timelapse a mile or so north of the band. If you stop the video and look at some of the visibility at the snow edge it is truely just a few hundred feet. 

 

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152845826274568

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eyewall post this on the NNE thread, didn't see it here.  Just amazing timelapse a mile or so north of the band. If you stop the video and look at some of the visibility at the snow edge it is truely just a few hundred feet. 

 

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152845826274568

 

Beautiful.

 

21.5/4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah - especially with how fluffy the snow is. I imagine how you measure snow makes a huge difference up there.

Obviously the best way would be 6-hr measurements but after a point I'm not sure how you could do that. 4-5 feet on the ground at some point just makes taking exact measurements to a tenth of an inch obsolete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously the best way would be 6-hr measurements but after a point I'm not sure how you could do that. 4-5 feet on the ground at some point just makes taking exact measurements to a tenth of an inch obsolete.

some Mets are saying this is not the usual fluff bomb

Chinook

3 minutes ago

You usually don't see this kind of radar-indicated storm total for a snow storm. In fact, radar-indicated storm totals generally underestimate snow water equivalent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL--I was thinking the very same thing.  Kevin, muttering to himself, "I have to get the leaves.  I have to get the leaves. I have to get the leaves".

He would be in kind of a pleasure and pain situation if he lived out there.  Still trying to deal with the leaves, yet anticipating a mega LES event.  I am not sure if he would be able to handle all of that within such a short span of time.  I sense he would have a break down, drop to the ground, get burried by tons upon tons of snow, and not be found until thaw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He would be in kind of a pleasure and pain situation if he lived out there. Still trying to deal with the leaves, yet anticipating a mega LES event. I am not sure if he would be able to handle all of that within such a short span of time. I sense he would have a break down, drop to the ground, get burried by tons upon tons of snow, and not be found until thaw.

well in this case, it will all be gone by Tuesday morning. Nothing but grass and piles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

some Mets are saying this is not the usual fluff bomb

Chinook

3 minutes ago

You usually don't see this kind of radar-indicated storm total for a snow storm. In fact, radar-indicated storm totals generally underestimate snow water equivalent.

That's interesting...but I bet it's still 15-20:1 at least. I see those flakes in the videos, those aren't wet aggregates or dense needles. I can't see how that flake structure would cause dense snow. There's certainly substance there though...looks like perfect champagne powder for skiing. Enough substance to cause some resistance but also enough air in there that you can easily walk through it.

I'd bet 18:1 ratios.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's interesting...but I bet it's still 15-20:1 at least. I see those flakes in the videos, those aren't wet aggregates or dense needles. I can't see how that flake structure would cause dense snow. There's certainly substance there though...looks like perfect champagne powder for skiing. Enough substance to cause some resistance but also enough air in there that you can easily walk through it.

have you seen Bettis on TWC? That's not fluff upslope, he was out of breath after walking 100 ft in the snow. I bet its the lower end of 15 20/ to 1 .not your typical LES at least in Hamburg, hopefully somebody cores it. Even when he swept it off a car you could tell it was dense. When it's full of air when you sweep it, it blows around, his came off held together.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

have you seen Bettis on TWC? That's not fluff upslope, he was out of breath after walking 100 ft in the snow. I bet its the lower end of 15 20/ to 1 .not your typical LES at least in Hamburg, hopefully somebody cores it. Even when he swept it off a car you could tell it was dense. When it's full of air when you sweep it, it blows around, his came off held together.

Yeah hopefully some cores come out of it, but you'd probably need an Adirondack Snow Sampler tube like the one I use for spring on Mansfield to collect those snow depths.

Sounds like we are thinking similar though if I'm saying 18:1 and you are saying lower end of 15-20:1. That's splitting hairs haha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

some Mets are saying this is not the usual fluff bomb

Chinook

3 minutes ago

You usually don't see this kind of radar-indicated storm total for a snow storm. In fact, radar-indicated storm totals generally underestimate snow water equivalent.

 

Was that with Dual-pol?

 

Radar-derived rain measurements are much improved with dual-pol because the different parameters provide more information about the drop size distribution than just reflectivity. With snow, it's still difficult to estimate SWE because different types of crystals have different densities, there can be a mix of aggregates and/or graupel, and it is harder to determine the ice particle size distribution, even with dual-pol.

 

In this case, the ZDR near zero in the center of the band and relatively high reflectivity suggest that there is a significant population of aggregates present. KDP, which can be thought of as roughly related to the ice water content, will not be affected by these spherical particles and so you have no idea what the mass flux of snow is for these aggregates and thus no reliable estimate of the SWE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Ginxy you're right in that it's not 30-40:1 fluff that people expect out of meso-scale snow.

I mean our upslope can be very fluffy like lake effect, or it can be really dense depending on temps and if there's a lot of convective graupel and stuff mixed in. The largest upslope precip event I can remember was April 2012 when we had 30" on like 3.5" of QPF. All needles and graupel and just really dense snow.

528836_10101286475584480_1830893757_n.jp

So I think early and late season especially you have the potential for dense meso-scale snow, probably just because there's usually more moisture around anyway.

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...