Winter 2017-18 banter thread

[gravitylover]

12 hours ago, Snowshack said:

Wrong again.  Snowcover hung on for another day. Tonight’s fog will have plenty to eat.  

Yup the fog did it in here. Full cover yesterday t patches this morning

[Snowshack]

13 minutes ago, gravitylover said:

Yup the fog did it in here. Full cover yesterday t patches this morning

Down to about 50% coverage here this morning.  Still a good run and hopefully we get the ground covered again next week.  

[IrishRob17]

About 50% patchy coverage here as well, nothing at the stake this morning. After walking around the yard a bit it’s still rock solid with puddles from the melting snow, only .01 in rain so far...this has all the makings for an ugly day for many with flooding issues. 

[tdp146]

So what is it about fog in particular that eats snow so fast?

[CPcantmeasuresnow]

32 minutes ago, Snowshack said:

Down to about 50% coverage here this morning.  Still a good run and hopefully we get the ground covered again next week.  

So it looks like today will end 18 consecutive days of snow pack. Nothing earth shattering streak wise for this time of year but a decent run. I'll deal with a few days of bare ground for a good midweek snow next week. Hopefully it happens.

[JetsPens87]

22 minutes ago, tdp146 said:

So what is it about fog in particular that eats snow so fast?

Yes fog can eat snow, the fog droplets release latent heat right at the surface (this happens from the process that creates the fog itself, condensation) . Also the fog acts as a blanket pressing all the moisture with latent heat release and warmer air against the snow.

[gravitylover]

1 hour ago, IrishRob17 said:

About 50% patchy coverage here as well, nothing at the stake this morning. After walking around the yard a bit it’s still rock solid with puddles from the melting snow, only .01 in rain so far...this has all the makings for an ugly day for many with flooding issues. 

That's a good point about the frozen ground. The melt and rain has nowhere to go so it's all running off onto the roads and many storm drains are blocked or have frozen pipes so are backing up. Be careful driving today.

[NorthShoreWx]

Still 3" snow cover this morning.  The few bare spots are the areas that were mostly blow bare by the wind.  It's fully ripe though...won't last much longer in this heat.

[BxEngine]

I just have piles left as of about 9am. 

[Juliancolton]

I had a pretty uniform 6" OTG when I went to bed late last night, and woke up to bare ground. Brutal. Lesson of the day: snow doesn't like dews in the 60s.

[NorthShoreWx]

A day late and a dollar short, but here's the blizzard video from my hood:

 

[Paragon]

3 hours ago, JetsPens87 said:

Yes fog can eat snow, the fog droplets release latent heat right at the surface (this happens from the process that creates the fog itself, condensation) . Also the fog acts as a blanket pressing all the moisture with latent heat release and warmer air against the snow.

This is going to sound like a silly question but I'll ask it anyway since we do the reverse.

 

Is there a way to chemically treat snow to make it harder to melt and what chemical could do the job?  Failing that is there something else that can be done to slow down snow melt during fog? I was thinking of laying a tarp over my yard to protect the snow from the fog  I live 2 miles from the ocean and it's annoying how fast snow melts around here.

 

[Paragon]

43 minutes ago, NorthShoreWx said:

A day late and a dollar short, but here's the blizzard video from my hood:

 

Ed we had 6-8 hours of blizzard conditions from Queens out to Suffolk County, would you say that's the most consecutive hours of it you've ever seen?

I think the Jan 2016 blockbuster had 6 hours of it at JFK if I remember correctly.

[NorthShoreWx]

52 minutes ago, Paragon said:

Ed we had 6-8 hours of blizzard conditions from Queens out to Suffolk County, would you say that's the most consecutive hours of it you've ever seen?

I think the Jan 2016 blockbuster had 6 hours of it at JFK if I remember correctly.

Not even close.  2/6/78 hands down.  All day and most of the night.

[JetsPens87]

1 hour ago, Paragon said:

This is going to sound like a silly question but I'll ask it anyway since we do the reverse.

 

Is there a way to chemically treat snow to make it harder to melt and what chemical could do the job?  Failing that is there something else that can be done to slow down snow melt during fog? I was thinking of laying a tarp over my yard to protect the snow from the fog  I live 2 miles from the ocean and it's annoying how fast snow melts around here.

 

Haha interesting question, but I believe not, the most pure water obviously freezes at 32 and any impurities whatsoever can lower that freezing point. 

Blast it with liquid nitrogen haha?

Edit:

I did in fact come across this, theoretically raising the pressure would raise the melting point/increase freezing point.

https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-78f0c08e21228c6bee4f3428d741e6ba

Find a way to achieve that and there you go lol.

 

[Paragon]

4 minutes ago, NorthShoreWx said:

Not even close.  2/6/78 hands down.  All day and most of the night.

I wish I could remember that.  What a storm! Could this have rivaled it with a closer track and a better block, Ed?

 

 

[Paragon]

4 minutes ago, JetsPens87 said:

Haha interesting question, but I believe not, the most pure water obviously freezes at 32 and any impurities whatsoever can lower that freezing point. 

Blast it with liquid nitrogen haha?

That sounds creative!  That's an interesting asymmetry that we can make ice/snow melt at a lower temp with chemicals but can't do the reverse with chemicals.  Liquid nitro or even liquid helium sounds like a good idea though, must be very expensive to do lol.

I guess putting tarp over snow when it's foggy or raining won't help either

 

What is it they use on outdoor hockey rinks when it's above freezing? I remember the Pens I think played a game in conditions like that around New Years  a couple years ago.

 

 

 

 

[JetsPens87]

2 minutes ago, Paragon said:

That sounds creative!  That's an interesting asymmetry that we can make ice/snow melt at a lower temp with chemicals but can't do the reverse with chemicals.  Liquid nitro or even liquid helium sounds like a good idea though, must be very expensive to do though lol.

I guess putting tarp over snow when it's foggy or raining won't help either

 

 

Check out my edit that I found RE: Pressure

[Paragon]

6 minutes ago, JetsPens87 said:

Haha interesting question, but I believe not, the most pure water obviously freezes at 32 and any impurities whatsoever can lower that freezing point. 

Blast it with liquid nitrogen haha?

Edit:

I did in fact come across this, theoretically raising the pressure would raise the melting point/increase freezing point.

https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-78f0c08e21228c6bee4f3428d741e6ba

Find a way to achieve that and there you go lol.

 

Oh thanks a great find!  I was wondering what they use on outdoor hockey rinks when it's above freezing.

[NorthShoreWx]

56 minutes ago, Paragon said:

I wish I could remember that.  What a storm! Could this have rivaled it with a closer track and a better block, Ed?

 

 

Sure it could have.  And if the Queen had different equipment, she'd be King.

Here is all you need to know about 1978  12+ hours of mostly 0/0 whiteout at ISP:

 

[NorthShoreWx]

Really cool how you can see the coastal front toying with ISP around midnight.  I was northwest of the coastal front and it just ripped all night.  Notice the thunder obs too.

[Paragon]

4 minutes ago, NorthShoreWx said:

Sure it could have.  And if the Queen had different equipment, she'd be King.

Here is all you need to know about 1978  12+ hours of mostly 0/0 whiteout at ISP:

 

Ed that almost makes it seem like the 18" recorded there at Islip was also an undermeasurement.

[Paragon]

5 minutes ago, NorthShoreWx said:

Really cool how you can see the coastal front toying with ISP around midnight.  I was northwest of the coastal front and it just ripped all night.  Notice the thunder obs too.

Wow hit 33 there at ISP, looks like you were in the best area being NW of it.  How much snow did you personally measure from that- around 2 feet or so I would guess.

[NorthShoreWx]

If memory serves, ISP claimed 26" at the time.  Frankly, it was a crapshoot because of the wind.  The snowfall climo record at ISP is an abysmal mess before about 2005.  For example, there was no snow at ISP in December 2003.  Go figure.

[NorthShoreWx]

4 minutes ago, Paragon said:

Wow hit 33 there at ISP, looks like you were in the best area being NW of it.  How much snow did you personally measure from that- around 2 feet or so I would guess.

I came up with 24", but it was a total crapshoot.  There were bare areas and huge drifts.  My friends split level house had a drift up to the roof line on the tall side (he was across the street from an open area).  This first one was from my cul de sac:

 

 

[Paragon]

1 minute ago, NorthShoreWx said:

I came up with 24", but it was a total crapshoot.  There were bare areas and huge drifts.  My friends split level house had a drift up to the roof line on the tall side (he was across the street from an open area)

 

 

Wow  that looks like what I saw in the Poconos after March 1993. snow drifts up to the tops of first floors of houses.

[forkyfork]

why look at radar when you can just post HRRR totals

[Paragon]

7 minutes ago, NorthShoreWx said:

If memory serves, ISP claimed 26" at the time.  Frankly, it was a crapshoot because of the wind.  The snowfall climo record at ISP is an abysmal mess before about 2005.  For example, there was no snow at ISP in December 2003.  Go figure.

Years like that shouldn't even be calculated into seasonal averages, they taint the results.  Is BNL's snowfall measuring more accurate, Ed?  I remember back in 1995-96 newspapers were talking about them going after the seasonal record from 1966-67, so their record goes fairly far back.  Perhaps we should use their numbers too.

 

[NorthShoreWx]

2 minutes ago, Paragon said:

Years like that shouldn't even be calculated into seasonal averages, they taint the results.  Is BNL's snowfall measuring more accurate, Ed?  I remember back in 1995-96 newspapers were talking about them going after the seasonal record from 1966-67, so their record goes fairly far back.  Perhaps we should use their numbers too.

 

BNL is good.  You should probably add 4 or 5" to the ISP 1980 -2010 climo.  Most of teh coop stations aren't great either.  I suspect LI isn't the only place where that is true, but I still cringe when I see official average snowfall maps with most of LI <25", like this thing:

 

[Paragon]

5 minutes ago, NorthShoreWx said:

BNL is good.  You should probably add 4 or 5" to the ISP 1980 -2010 climo.  Most of teh coop stations aren't great either.  I suspect LI isn't the only place where that is true, but I still cringe when I see official average snowfall maps with most of LI <25", like this thing:

 

I love how part of the south fork is 25-30 while Huntington and Port Jeff are in the 20-25 range lol.  Is that the new NWS map, Ed? I thought they had the lower half of Long Island in 20-25 and the upper half of Long Island in 25-30.