PNW January 2022, Contact Info for Phil

[Phil]

1 hour ago, snow_wizard said:

I have a wood splitting maul.

Yes that’s what I use. Will break that s**t right up.

Frozen slush is the worst.

[snow_wizard]

27 minutes ago, Phil said:

That was up at 50mb. 

Yeah...I should have noticed that.

[MossMan]

5 minutes ago, Phil said:

Yes that’s what I use. Will break that s**t right up.

Frozen slush is the worst.

[SilverFallsAndrew]

Nice day. Looking north from silverton. 

[snow_wizard]

14 minutes ago, ShawniganLake said:

For Shawnigan lake, January 1916 is nearly on par with January 1950. Not quite as cold but a little more snow. 

January was fantastic here too.  I have a picture of a kid standing on the middle of Lake Union in Seattle and I think that was the month.

[snow_wizard]

30 minutes ago, Phil said:

There are a laundry list of possible confounding variables to consider in such a calculation, if that’s what they did. I don’t think it’s straightforward at all.

There are also the actual snow measurements given from a number of towns around the Puget Sound.  All in the 4 to 6 foot range for depth on the ground.  Those towns are all at sea level.  One specific number that jumps out is 54 inches in Tacoma.  I had stated 52 inches earlier today, but I went back and looked and it was 54.  The 76 inches in 3 days stat is from the top of Capitol Hill in Seattle.  Over the course of three days that obviously settled a bit.

[Phil]

Based on Eric Webb’s reconstruction of ONI, 1879/80 was a weak La Niña.

And based on the NPAC High structure, it was likely -QBO as well.

http://www.webberweather.com/ensemble-oceanic-nino-index.html

[snow_wizard]

The GFS really shuts off the rain.  Looks pretty inversionary for a while.

[Phil]

3 minutes ago, Phil said:

Based on Eric Webb’s reconstruction of ONI, 1879/80 was a weak La Niña.

And based on the NPAC High structure, it was likely -QBO as well.

http://www.webberweather.com/ensemble-oceanic-nino-index.html

Interestingly enough there have been plenty of +ENSO winters that delivered bigly in the PNW lowlands over the last 150 years.

Definitely more to it than just ENSO.

http://www.webberweather.com/ensemble-oceanic-nino-index.html

[TT-SEA]

1 hour ago, snow_wizard said:

Nope.  That's what makes it so fun! 

The gradient was northerly in Seattle the entire time.  The power it must have taken to keep that kind of pattern so suppressed must have been off the charts.  The key to really untangling the questions from this event are found in the Seattle PI accounts.  It makes it clear they did the calculations on the snow weight before it warmed up.  In fact after the last storm we actually had a couple of solidly cold days before the warmup came.

I see in newspaper articles that they mentioning thawing during that period...

[snow_wizard]

It appears the ECMWF wants to restrengthen the octant 7 MJO wave going forward while the GFS weakens it.  Could be the reason the EPS has such a better look to it than the GEFS.

[Omegaraptor]

1/25

[snow_wizard]

6 minutes ago, Phil said:

Interestingly enough there have been plenty of +ENSO winters that delivered bigly in the PNW lowlands over the last 150 years.

Definitely more to it than just ENSO.

http://www.webberweather.com/ensemble-oceanic-nino-index.html

For sure.  January 1868, the winter of 1865-66, and December 1884 were all top tier events with warm ENSO if that's correct..

I should add that 1888-89 was as big a turd as anything seen in the modern day though.  Strong Nino is usually poison for us.

[Omegaraptor]

Not exactly the ensemble precipitation graph you'd expect to see in the dead of winter in the western PNW.

[Phil]

6 minutes ago, TT-SEA said:

I see in newspaper articles that they mentioning thawing during that period...

“Would have been 6 feet” is an important tidbit.

If the snow was as heavy/waterlogged as claimed, there must’ve been substantial melting.

 

[TacomaWaWx]

13 minutes ago, Omegaraptor said:

1/25

That would mean the models ought to start looking interesting about a week from today. It’s plausible. I’m thinking we see some action on super bowl Sunday. We’ve had snow falling right around super bowl Sunday 3 out of the last 5 years now. 

[Timmy Supercell]

2 minutes ago, Phil said:

“Would have been 6 feet” is an important tidbit.

If the snow was as heavy/waterlogged as claimed, there must’ve been substantial melting.

 

The most important part here is total snowfall. Which rarely equates to that much on the ground. 

[TacomaWaWx]

2 minutes ago, Timmy_Supercell said:

The most important part here is total snowfall. Which rarely equates to that much on the ground. 

Ok cliff mass  

[Phil]

2 hours ago, snow_wizard said:

Yup.  Just found the notation.  The snow in Seattle weighted an insane 52 pounds per square foot in January 1880.  That's what I used to verify the amount of water equivalent the snow had. 

I assume you meant to say cubic foot? A square foot has zero depth and would weight nothing.

A cubic foot of water alone weighs approximately 62 pounds at room temperature. A cubic foot of solid ice weighs approximately 57 pounds since it’s less dense.

I can assure you that, if there was 4+ feet of snow on the ground, it did *not* weigh 52 pounds per square foot. That is physically impossible..it would be a solid block of ice. And would require 3+ feet of liquid water equivalent.

Definitely something wrong with that math. How exactly did you calculate it?

[Timmy Supercell]

6 minutes ago, TacomaWaWx said:

Ok cliff mass  

I can guarantee only I will remember Feb 2019 in Klamath Falls because the depth wasn't any deeper than it normally gets there. Half the snow was wet that month and I kept switching to rain between storms. 

Still had the 2nd snowiest February on record if you look at it on paper.

[Phil]

23 minutes ago, Timmy_Supercell said:

The most important part here is total snowfall. Which rarely equates to that much on the ground. 

6 feet of snow weighing 52 pounds per cubic foot would literally require 5+ feet of liquid equivalent.

There is just no way.

[Geos]

Out working in the Snoqualmie - North Bend area. Definitely bigger snow piles left over out here. 

[snow drift]

30 minutes ago, Timmy_Supercell said:

The most important part here is total snowfall. Which rarely equates to that much on the ground. 

If it snows an inch everyday in January and an inch of snow melts everyday in January, you will never gain any snow depth, but you will receive 31 inches of snow in January.

[MossMan]

Well I was all set to do the post Christmas tree lighting but my wife said it looks awesome standing in the fire pit so let’s leave it for now. Meanwhile my kids were chanting “burn it burn it burn it” So we compromised and burned the little one we had at the upstairs balcony area. On and my snow shovel that I had bought in December 2016 finally gave it up. 
Oh and I had a little mixed precip just a bit ago, 36 degrees. 

[snow_wizard]

43 minutes ago, Phil said:

I assume you meant to say cubic foot? A square foot has zero depth and would weight nothing.

A cubic foot of water alone weighs approximately 62 pounds at room temperature. A cubic foot of solid ice weighs approximately 57 pounds since it’s less dense.

I can assure you that, if there was 4+ feet of snow on the ground, it did *not* weigh 52 pounds per square foot. That is physically impossible..it would be a solid block of ice. And would require 3+ feet of liquid water equivalent.

Definitely something wrong with that math. How exactly did you calculate it?

It actually means a one foot square of the entire column of snow depth.  

[snow_wizard]

Obviously I'm going to have do a topic on January 1880 all by itself.  Not sure why people would doubt it when so many towns reported nearly the same depths.  I have painstakingly reconstructed that month from a number of sources.  I have temperature data also.  When I do the topic it will all be there.

[SilverFallsAndrew]

1 hour ago, Omegaraptor said:

Not exactly the ensemble precipitation graph you'd expect to see in the dead of winter in the western PNW.

Wow that is just awful. 

[Cascadia_Wx]

48/39 day here clearing out now and down to 44 should see a midnight low 

[T-Town]

Nice to see the sunset again. 

[SnowHawks]

So if you were to draw it up for a perfect snow situation. Accumulation of a foot or more throughout the the Puget Sound area. Then obviously, all the players were there on steroids. If you notice though, the time elapsed (1880-1916-1950) is roughly 34 to 36 years. So we should have had another "epic" event sometime in the 80's or 90's and that has not happened. We have had some large snows in the meantime (85-96-2008). But nothing has approached those singular events. The bigger question is why? Just given the law of averages it should have happened by now. Even if you count 1968 as a large region-wide snow event, another history making storm should have occurred since then. On can only hope.

[Geos]

There is definitely some snow left just above the center of North Bend!

City did a great job of plowing.

[TT-SEA]

2 minutes ago, Geos said:

There is definitely some snow left just above the center of North Bend!

Are you up here?   Definitely snow left.    About 6 inches on the ground.      But much less the 26 inches on the ground a few days ago.  

[The Swamp]

I think it's great to talk about weather 100 years ago between cold spells.

Jim this is fascinating.

I thought I'd see goodies showing up on the models by now for late January.  It's not happening though.

Where is DJ Dropping?

[Brian_in_Leavenworth]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

6 feet of snow weighing 52 pounds per cubic foot would literally require 5+ feet of liquid equivalent.

There is just no way.

Agreed.  Rule of thumb is 20# per cubic foot.  If the snow was that wet, it would have a very hard time accumulating.

Been doing research on the weight since I have 4 feet or so on my roof.  Good news is that probably equals no more than 60# per square foot (maybe less, most of the snow this week was light and fluffy).  And the  Leavenworth building code says roofs must be able to withstand 85# per square foot 

[TT-SEA]

31 minutes ago, Geos said:

There is definitely some snow left just above the center of North Bend!

City did a great job of plowing.

Or maybe you mean up on Mt Si... pretty cool view from the cam after sunset.  

And people complained very loudly about the plowing in NB.    They use a rubber blade on the plows so the roads were very rough compacted snow for about a week.   It was insanely rough... like unmaintained dirt roads.   Although all that is left now is bare roads and massive piles of snow.  

Up here we are maintained by King County and they do an amazing job.   No rubber blades.    Lots of pics posted in the last week from people going from the county maintained sections into the city limits where it went from bare pavement to horse paths in the span of about 5 feet. 

 

[TT-SEA]

Here you go Geos...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq0HV7N9SOU

[Geos]

34 minutes ago, TT-SEA said:

Are you up here?   Definitely snow left.    About 6 inches on the ground.      But much less the 26 inches on the ground a few days ago.  

I was up pretty far above town, now I am shopping for someone at Safeway.

I was on your side of the valley.

[Blizzard777]

35 minutes ago, T-Town said:

Nice to see the sunset again. 

Glad you got the shot…..noticed it when taking out the garbage.  Kind of a deer in headlight moment for me!  

[Geos]

3 minutes ago, TT-SEA said:

Here you go Geos...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq0HV7N9SOU

I'll watch that in a bit. What is the purpose of the rubber blades? That does sound rough.

[MossMan]

One thing I am sure noticing now that it has warmed up is the roads did not like the weather of the last few weeks. Potholes all over. Was getting quite bad on Hwy 2 I noticed but really everywhere. I remember that happening in 1990 and 2008 as well.