Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,606
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    ArlyDude
    Newest Member
    ArlyDude
    Joined

February 5-7 Wintry Mess Potential


weatherwiz
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, The 4 Seasons said:

They definitely should increase it to .75 or even 1.00 because it seems radial ice is about 50% maybe up to 60 or 70% of that of flat ice measurements.

.5 is the threshold for the majority of the Northeast. Which would translate to around .3 for branches.

 

I think radial is even lower than that...its close to 0.4 ratio to flat ice. It does vary a little bit depending on conditions, but if you take the average accretion efficiency of the two then you get around a 0.4 ratio of radial to flat.

But either way...I agree 0.75 flat would be a good number because that is when damage starts to accelerate.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, OceanStWx said:

The math checks out. It's good to remind everyone that ASOS measures an elevated flat surface, so not your typical power line or tree branch radial measurement. That conversion would be more like 0.15" ice.

That's the official method but I find it counterintuitive.  If my bent-over gray birch has 1st-year twigs (among the skinniest of any tree) having ice the diameter of a hot dog, calling it 0.3" accretion doesn't seem to make sense.  If there were 1" precip with extremely efficient accretion, the max for the record could be no greater than 1/2"?  (Not that I expect any change in the standard.)  Or what T4S said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The 4 Seasons said:

They definitely should increase it to .75 or even 1.00 because it seems radial ice is about 50% maybe up to 60 or 70% of that of flat ice measurements.

.5 is the threshold for the majority of the Northeast. Which would translate to around .3 for branches.

Will is right, flat ice to radial is 40%. 

8 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

0.75 would be a good number too since that would be like a third of an inch of radial ice. You start getting the power issues around that mark...I've always noticed around 1/3 to 3/8 when the damae starts accelerating....which made me think that 1/2 radial was too steep a criteria for ice storm warning. .

Anecdotally that's what we hear from utilities. Around 0.3" you start getting power issues. And it wouldn't be that drastic a jump from 0.5 to 0.75" vs going all the way to an inch or more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, dryslot said:

I could post every 30 secs like most of the weenies in SNE do on these events if that would help the page count any.

Its not the count...its the content. Its either a suicidal tirade, a tutorial on the measuring practices of radial ice, or high wind fantasies. If that doesn't say rain in sne, I don't know what does.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, OceanStWx said:

Well the ASOS measurements are relatively new, so we're kind of standardizing them now. We have typically forecast radial and measured that way in New England. I think part of spotter training going forward needs to focus on stating your measurement method and the NWS will have to decide how to report it on an LSR (e.g. reporting flat but remarking that it was taken radial). 

NWS is supposed to forecast flat ice now. This was never how it was done regionally. So ice storm criteria of 0.5" is more akin to damage expected from radial accretion. If we issued ice storm warnings for flat ice that's like 0.2" radial. That's not going to be much damage. 

What is your runoff correction? That's a common topic of debate when forecasting ice at least during my time in the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Its not the count...its the content. Its either a suicidal tirade, a tutorial on the measuring practices for radial ice, or high wind fansies. If that doesn't say rain in sne, I don't know what does.

Seeing there wasn't an obs thread, I guess that's what we have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, tamarack said:

That's the official method but I find it counterintuitive.  If my bent-over gray birch has 1st-year twigs (among the skinniest of any tree) having ice the diameter of a hot dog, calling it 0.3" accretion doesn't seem to make sense.  If there were 1" precip with extremely efficient accretion, the max for the record could be no greater than 1/2"?  (Not that I expect any change in the standard.)  Or what T4S said.

The radial idea I believe came from original load testing on utility lines. They were rated by the radius of ice accretion. So the formula for reporting to the NWS became: (thickness on one side + thickness on the other - thickness of the branch/line)/2. Because even if you had an inch of ice on your hypothetical branch, reporting 0.5" radial accretion is still the same amount of ice and weight on that branch. 

However, flat ice accumulates totally differently than on branches or lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36.5F here on the immediate coast with a wind driven mist. Walking the dog out on the beach wasn't pleasant and the two inches of snow on the ground this morning is already long gone. Wish I could at least rip some winds overnight into tomorrow but the setup doesn't look conductive for that either. What a monster moisture feed on satellite though!

20200371951_GOES16-ABI-eus-Sandwich-2000x2000.thumb.jpg.90c849f2c464eb362adff5411df80c1d.jpg

20200371956_GOES16-ABI-gm-Sandwich-2000x2000.jpg

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

0.75 would be a good number too since that would be like a third of an inch of radial ice. You start getting the power issues around that mark...I've always noticed around 1/3 to 3/8 when the damae starts accelerating....which made me think that 1/2 radial was too steep a criteria for ice storm warning. .

A long time forester and old-growth specialist with experience in the NNE mountains commented following the 1998 ice storm that serious tree damage began at the 20 mm mark.  That has to be the flat surface, because a radial mark of 20 mm would be a repeat of 1998 in the WVL-AUG-Gardiner area.  Twigs plus ice reached 1.5-2" diameter in that part of the state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tamarack said:

A long time forester and old-growth specialist with experience in the NNE mountains commented following the 1998 ice storm that serious tree damage began at the 20 mm mark.  That has to be the flat surface, because a radial mark of 20 mm would be a repeat of 1998 in the WVL-AUG-Gardiner area.  Twigs plus ice reached 1.5-2" diameter in that part of the state.

I'd say that's about ballpark what I think of in my head, 0.3" power issues, 0.75" disaster area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, PivotPoint said:

image.thumb.png.91be764322ee3ac4c151cdf919c7e3fb.png
18z NAM holds serve. Maybe slight tick south with best qpf from prior run

I'd like to lock that now.  Stop the presses on the other model runs.  And I want it exactly as its shown here, none of that "It's the NAM cut back on the qpf by 1/3" BS.  I want the whole enchilada 12" of snow fortified by some sleet and freezing rain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, mreaves said:

I'd like to lock that now.  Stop the presses on the other model runs.  And I want it exactly as its shown here, none of that "It's the NAM cut back on the qpf by 1/3" BS.  I want the whole enchilada 12" of snow fortified by some sleet and freezing rain.

I like where your head is at. Gotta get the next couple runs to pull her back south. Stop the mid level warm air push.

Make Big Snow Storms Great Again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...