blue sky Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 I think for the general public the technical definition of a blizzard or Blizzard conditions is too technical. I would change the usage of the word Blizzard to a snowfall amount. To the general public...snow fall amount is greatly more importance in terms of awareness. Any thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mappy Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 But then there would be no need for blizzard at all, if it was snowfall amount. That is what a winter storm watch/warning is for. Blizzard is about wind, not the snow. You could get an inch of snow, but if you have winds greater than 35mph for more than 3 hours, then it is considered a blizzard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue sky Posted January 20, 2016 Author Share Posted January 20, 2016 I know the definition. Just wondering if the word blizzard could better communicate the threat to the masses, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmlwx Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 I know the definition. Just wondering if the word blizzard could better communicate the threat to the masses, I mean most people don't know what a severe thunderstorm is but we aren't changing the definition for that. Perhaps it should be communicated better - but in the days of Google and Wikipedia I'm not sure it's that tough for anybody to look up what the blizzard warning criteria is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercurial Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 Isn't there also a temperature requirement? I seem to recall there used to be one... But yeah, in the windy parts of Montana, Wyoming, and elsewhere, ground blizzards can happen with zero new snowfall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.