Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,586
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    LopezElliana
    Newest Member
    LopezElliana
    Joined

December 12th Storm Obs


dryslot

Recommended Posts

Maintained pretty solid coverage in the back yard, definitely more patches of green in the front. It was a more classic climo drive driving on 91 to and from HVN today, nothing south of HFD except up on the hill in Meriden on the way down, and very patchy coverage up until near  BDL on the way home where things started to fill in some if you looked in the woods and shaded areas off the highway with the most snow right on my street which is more of a side street off of Elm St 220 in Enfield. Still peanuts compared to folks up north but at least something is still there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 381
  • Created
  • Last Reply
25 minutes ago, CTValleySnowMan said:

Maintained pretty solid coverage in the back yard, definitely more patches of green in the front. It was a more classic climo drive driving on 91 to and from HVN today, nothing south of HFD except up on the hill in Meriden on the way down, and very patchy coverage up until near  BDL on the way home where things started to fill in some if you looked in the woods and shaded areas off the highway with the most snow right on my street which is more of a side street off of Elm St 220 in Enfield. Still peanuts compared to folks up north but at least something is still there.

We had a solid snowcover this morning in Southington...which caused us a two hour school delay.  Plows were out scraping the inch off of the roads.  However it has melted to nothing now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7.0" of powder at temps 15-low 20s, LE 0.52" for a 13.5-to-one ratio, pretty good for flakes 1/4" and smaller.  Lack of wind helped.  Most snow I've had disappear (as in brown ground, not just reduced pack) in December here is 5", in 2000, so I don't see my yard being Grinched back to grass this year.  (And if it did happen, I'd certainly take a 2000-01 reprise.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, tamarack said:

7.0" of powder at temps 15-low 20s, LE 0.52" for a 13.5-to-one ratio, pretty good for flakes 1/4" and smaller.  Lack of wind helped.  Most snow I've had disappear (as in brown ground, not just reduced pack) in December here is 5", in 2000, so I don't see my yard being Grinched back to grass this year.  (And if it did happen, I'd certainly take a 2000-01 reprise.)

Nice young man 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, radarman said:

I owe you a thanks because when you posted the $12 deal that directly lead to us being there today...  We drove up 116 to 112 and can attest to the 6-7" reports in the higher parts of GC.  I'd say 7-8" at the mountain.  (4" IMBY)  

I thought the skiing was fantastic.  It's a pleasure to have that kind of snow on the base.  Not sure there was a noisy turn the entire day, nothing groomed, small bumps everywhere by afternoon.  Seemed like 3/4ths of the trails were open amd good edge to edge. Big crowd in the parking lot but the mountain spread them out very well with zero liftlines.  Should ski well the next few days as well.

That's a great day anyday

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, mahk_webstah said:

Hats off to Mr. Curtis.  You verified warning and here we verified high end advisory.  I suspect that was an extremely well done forecast despite my desperate grasp for a warning....

Mrs. ;)

But overall I think the storm behaved fairly well, as did the forecasters. Nobody got sucked in by NAM QPF, or waffling warmer and colder solutions. We look like we stayed consistently colder than guidance, and put out some good warnings. I know the impacts between 5.5" and 6.5" are pretty similar, but those numbers matter at the end of the year for us. 

We got brutalized last winter on a bunch of 4-8" events that we either over-warned or under-warned. It's nice to get one right to start the year off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, OceanStWx said:

Mrs. ;)

But overall I think the storm behaved fairly well, as did the forecasters. Nobody got sucked in by NAM QPF, or waffling warmer and colder solutions. We look like we stayed consistently colder than guidance, and put out some good warnings. I know the impacts between 5.5" and 6.5" are pretty similar, but those numbers matter at the end of the year for us. 

We got brutalized last winter on a bunch of 4-8" events that we either over-warned or under-warned. It's nice to get one right to start the year off. 

You guys did a great job on this one, Right from the opening bell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, OceanStWx said:

Mrs. ;)

But overall I think the storm behaved fairly well, as did the forecasters. Nobody got sucked in by NAM QPF, or waffling warmer and colder solutions. We look like we stayed consistently colder than guidance, and put out some good warnings. I know the impacts between 5.5" and 6.5" are pretty similar, but those numbers matter at the end of the year for us. 

We got brutalized last winter on a bunch of 4-8" events that we either over-warned or under-warned. It's nice to get one right to start the year off. 

Not getting sucked into the NAM QPF is always a key obstacle to avoid in these events...and while I like the RGEM it can occasionally go too high as well. But I think it did pretty well in this one. Might have been slightly high in that jackpot zone over C NH but otherwise pretty good. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ORH_wxman said:

Not getting sucked into the NAM QPF is always a key obstacle to avoid in these events...and while I like the RGEM it can occasionally go too high as well. But I think it did pretty well in this one. Might have been slightly high in that jackpot zone over C NH but otherwise pretty good. 

I definitely took note of the NCAR ensemble ticking colder in the last minutes there as snow was breaking out. It's a shame it only runs once a day, but it would be nice if becomes a good trend tool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I owe you a thanks because when you posted the $12 deal that directly lead to us being there today...  We drove up 116 to 112 and can attest to the 6-7" reports in the higher parts of GC.  I'd say 7-8" at the mountain.  (4" IMBY)  

I thought the skiing was fantastic.  It's a pleasure to have that kind of snow on the base.  Not sure there was a noisy turn the entire day, nothing groomed, small bumps everywhere by afternoon.  Seemed like 3/4ths of the trails were open and good edge to edge. Big crowd in the parking lot but the mountain spread them out very well with zero liftlines.  Should ski well the next few days as well.


Glad it worked out for you!

I've never been a big powder guy. I always love the day after the powder day. True "hero snow."

Maybe it's because I'm not a fan of being in the back seat? Maybe it's because I'm not in shape? I dunno. I've always felt the urge to venture into fresh snow. Every time I think it sucks.

I'm sure it's much different out west.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, OceanStWx said:

Mrs. ;)

But overall I think the storm behaved fairly well, as did the forecasters. Nobody got sucked in by NAM QPF, or waffling warmer and colder solutions. We look like we stayed consistently colder than guidance, and put out some good warnings. I know the impacts between 5.5" and 6.5" are pretty similar, but those numbers matter at the end of the year for us. 

We got brutalized last winter on a bunch of 4-8" events that we either over-warned or under-warned. It's nice to get one right to start the year off. 

You have just pointed out to me, my unconscious biases.  I assumed you were male.  I feel like an idiot.  I think it is the banter you have engaged in that I was interpreting as male.  LOL. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, mahk_webstah said:

You have just pointed out to me, my unconscious biases.  I assumed you were male.  I feel like an idiot.  I think it is the banter you have engaged in that I was interpreting as male.  LOL. 

He is a male, But i suppose the name Chris could go either way..........:lol:

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...