Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,589
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    LopezElliana
    Newest Member
    LopezElliana
    Joined

Historical Blizzard Obs Thread


Rtd208

Recommended Posts

Glad to hear that you trust me.  That 20" report is bogus and not mine.  14" or 15" tops here.

That's fine Ed...I just figured it was you. And I did wonder how you got to 20" so quick as I was writing the post!!!

I also thank you for your courteous responses...I tend to write quite a bit; much of it goes unanswered...which, I must confess, bothers me a bit.

Another member from NJ paid me a compliment this morning on the board about my wit...and I must say, it made my day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Jesus <bleeping> Christ.  You have to do the math, you can't just pull stuff out of your ass. 

 

 

Here's the math.  Typical asteroid density is approximately 2g/cm^3. Per radar observations, 2004BL86 has a radius of approximately 165M.  It is roughly spherical.  That means roughly, its mass was 3.75*10^11 kilograms.

  

It passed approximately 3 lunar distances from earth.  That means it was approximately 115,320,000 meters away.

 

the gravitational force at a given distance from the center of a spherical object equals (Gm)/r^2, where G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the attractor, and r= the distance from the center of the object.

 

so let's do the math to calculate the gravitational acceleration caused by the asteroid at the Earth's surface:

 

((6.67*10^-11)(3.75*10^11))/(115320000^2)

 

which equals 1.8*10-13 m/s

 

For comparison, "g" (the earth's gravitational acceleration at the earth's surface) is 9.8 m/s

 

So the gravitation force of the asteroid was 0.000000000019% the gravitational force of the earth.

 

two hundred billionths as strong.

 

It had no impact.  REMEMBER THAT SCIENCE WITHOUT MATH IS NOTHING.

 

(p.s., if I got any of these unit conversions slightly wrong, I apologize.  Was working fast and without paper.)

 

1.8*10-13 m/s^2

and

9.8 m/s^2

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus Christ. You have to do the math, you can't just pull stuff out of your ass.

Here's the math. Typical asteroid density is approximately 2g/cm^3. Per radar observations, 2004BL86 has a radius of approximately 165M. It is roughly spherical. That means roughly, its mass was 3.75*10^11 kilograms.

It passed approximately 3 lunar distances from earth. That means it was approximately 115,320,000 meters away.

the gravitational force at a given distance from the center of a spherical object equals (Gm)/r^2, where G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the attractor, and r= the distance from the center of the object.

so let's do the math to calculate the gravitational acceleration caused by the asteroid at the Earth's surface:

((6.67*10^-11)(3.75*10^11))/(115320000^2)

which equals 1.8*10-13 m/s

For comparison, "g" (the earth's gravitational acceleration at the earth's surface) is 9.8 m/s

So the gravitation force of the asteroid was 0.000000000019% the gravitational force of the earth.

two hundred billionths as strong.

It had no impact. REMEMBER THAT SCIENCE WITHOUT MATH IS NOTHING.

(p.s., if I got any of these unit conversions slightly wrong, I apologize. Was working fast and without paper.)

I stand corrected. Thank you for the explanation (sir or maam).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Bellmore guy aways comes in low and it's pretty annoying. He's not even close most of the time.

 

I've noticed that over the years too, there used to be a regular Merrick report that was lower than mine too regularly, they reported like 5 inches on 12/25/02, we easily had 8-9, it was hard to measure but it was not 5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad to hear that you trust me.  That 20" report is bogus and not mine.  14" or 15" tops here.

I mean who knows the climate of this area like us...we learned from the best...Ludlum...its like being taught the piano by Beethoven...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mine run lower than yours. This was tough to measure and rather subjective, but even so I feel just a hint of guilt that my 15" obs may be slightly on the high side. Whoever reported 20" from Smithtown is full of it. Highest total I measured was 19.5" right in front of the garage door. Anyplace that wasn't an obvious drift was nowhere near 20".

A lot of the Nassau County measurements also seem suspect to me. Along the middle of the island, ok because they got a few extra inches in that LES look-alike band yesterday, but I think there are a lot of neighborhoods with houses on 60 x 100 lots where the snow blowing off the roofs really piles up between the houses. Some of these guys may be doing the best they can measuring, but there just isn't a good place to measure. I'd bet some of those high totals would be halved if the measurements were taken from an appropriate location.

It was a tough measuring job. Drifs all over and then only 6" in some spots. 13-17" looks right for Nassau. I don't think everyone could have been wrong.

I can tell you must think Nassau had 12" or under If you only had 14-15".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a tough measuring job. Drifs all over and then only 6" in some spots. 13-17" looks right for Nassau. I don't think everyone could have been wrong.

I can tell you must think Nassau had 12" or under If you only had 14-15".

 

Actually, you deserve a better answer than I posted above.  I find the majority of snowfall reports to be nonsense for the windy storms.  As opposed to the non windy storms where there is a significantly lower percentage of nonsense.

 

I don't want to get into any specific debates because it is like telling someone their baby is ugly.  Not going to be well received even if the baby is hideous...or especially if the baby is hideous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's NorthShoreWx's post. yes, it's awesome indeed!

I'm feeling the need to retire because my lack of sleep from the past several days of work is really messing up my posts and perceptions (as evidence by my earlier posts as well). Folks enjoy your evening and until next time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, you deserve a better answer than I posted above. I find the majority of snowfall reports to be nonsense for the windy storms. As opposed to the non windy storms where there is a significantly lower percentage of nonsense.

I don't want to get into any specific debates because it is like telling someone their baby is ugly. Not going to be well received even if the baby is hideous...or especially if the baby is hideous.

What you said makes complete sense and I'm inclined to agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a tough measuring job. Drifs all over and then only 6" in some spots. 13-17" looks right for Nassau. I don't think everyone could have been wrong.

I can tell you must think Nassau had 12" or under If you only had 14-15".

But western Suffolk for the most part missed that megaband during the late overnight as well...and that initial thin mega band actually strengthened and slowed down as it got into Nassau before it died just east of KNYC...then of course this morning that nice moderate band helped as well.

Long story short, I think the totals for most of Nassau into Western Suffolk could have been nearly uniform. Places who got clipped by the super mega band and east is where the totals should have theoretically quickly ramped up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a tough measuring job. Drifs all over and then only 6" in some spots. 13-17" looks right for Nassau. I don't think everyone could have been wrong.

I can tell you must think Nassau had 12" or under If you only had 14-15".

My parents think 14 or 15" or so at home, but measuring in LB was probably close to impossible. Lots of higher drifts and areas with snow blown away. My parents also couldn't care less about measuring correctly and still think I'm a whack-job for scrutinizing that stuff. Most of our conversation was about how much they wish they were down here. 

 

I agree that totals in Nassau were in the 12-18" range-the low spot was actually the north shore of Nassau, since the heavier snow this morning and the band yesterday morning were south of them. That superband might have killed Nassau's chances at 20" because that's what killed off the heavier returns west of that band, and it only reached to around Islip. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://radar.weather.gov/radar.php?product=NCR&rid=okx&loop=yes Still going .

75 miles west and we would still be snowing

I've been trying to be positive and I gotta say that post just rub salt in a wide open gaping wound because I realize how true it is. We stopped snowing 12 hours ago. Even if it was at a moderate pace that would have translated to 18 inches without any of the best bands. I'm happy for our friends in Long Island. Downright envious of the ma coast.but I also realize where I live geographically so I'll bite it and hope for the best next time
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...