34 INCHES ON MT. WASHINGTON

sven

sven

New member
Here it is, from http://www.mountwashington.org:

03:29 PM Mon Oct 17, 2005 EDT


136 mph.

34 inches of snow.

Wow.

Looking outside it could well be February. That is not a figure of speech, it really could be.

Fins of ice 2ft tall stick up from the deck. A fall in the winds would really hurt now. I wailed a knee on one yesterday while they were still small. It hurt.

Portions of the tower have more than 3ft of solid ice on them. Deicing the instruments has been constant and utterly exhausting. My arms are jelly from swinging the crowbar. We?ll all be buff by the end of the winter at this rate. That is of course if we stop gorging on the feasts prepared by Judy Richardi in the kitchen. It seems she has kept pace with the storm baking a loaf of bread for each time the winds gusted above 120 mph, which was a lot.

There is a drift near the precip can that is gargantuan. I?ve never seen anything like it. It stands well over 10 ft tall. Stranger still is the composition of the snow. It isn?t really snow at all. It is ice pellets. Do you know how hard it is to accumulate 34? of ice pellets?? This is simply absurd. The result is a very dense pack with little ?fluff? factor. There is little to no air space stored inside and tremendous water content. At the height of the storm last night we received 9.2? in 6 hours. The water equivalent was 3.84.? That just ain?t right.

I?ve always heard of crazy October storms up here. Now I?ve lived one.

Neil Lareau - Observer




I wonder what would be skiable once that melts down a bit?

Sven
 
I was wondering who here would notice that first. :lol: lftgly's friend Jonathan is heading up for some turns, maybe lftgly is going with him, I don't know.
 
Im tempted to try skiing it on Wednesday (allowing myself time to rally up some partners in crime)... maybe Lftgly would know better than I would where the best spot to ski would be. Id guess it'd probably not be tucks itself cause that usually takes a while to fill in? I haven't ever skied the summit so I wanted to look into this pretty carefully before I make the long drive. I wonder what the accumulation amounts were at the different altitudes? Also, I wonder if some of the higher elevations in VT/NH might have gotten some snow out of this as well... even with ASC's penny pinching I cant imagine that Killington is too far off from opening.... (maybe I shouldnt get the Killington debate started again)

Sven
 
Id guess it'd probably not be tucks itself cause that usually takes a while to fill in?
Click to expand...
you better believe it. tucks isn't even getting much snow, the freezing line has consistantly been 4-5k these past few days and the summit reports are saying most of the precip is frozen but not necs. snow. i don't think it would be worth the hike and i would gladly make the hike for a few worth while turns. even if it was all snow, how much is gonna stick with winds consistantly going 100+? i only live an hour away, am ready willing and able, but consider that not worth the hike. not to mention going above tree line in what tim kelly on NECN called the worst october storm recorded up there. :shock: i'll wait for some pics from the obs once things clear out in another five weeks or what not to see what's actually skiable up there :lol: seriously though, this is summit cone only and i can't imagine much is skiable up there given the reported nature of the precip.
 
I know theres a few people from another forum that are planning on heading up. So it'll be interesting to hear peoples reports. From their description of the snow it can't be anything incredible but it would be cool to get october turns on natural snow in new england.
 
This is why published snow averages (I use 306 inches since 1966-67) don't mean a whole lot for Mt. Washington. 42% water content??? And how do you measure snowfall when it's blowing 136mph?

I calculated a long term average snow/water ratio of 17% for Mt. Washington's winter months, which normally implies substantial rain. Perhaps not so much rain in this unique case.

I had a long e-mail correspondence with a couple of eastern skiers, one of whom thought the "real" number consistent with normal areas might be 500+. I conceded that 400 was likely.

And note the altitude effect. No New England lift service over 4,100 ft., therefore no lift serviced snow.
 
OK, 34 inches of "frozen precipitation" and 100+ mph winds.... you east coast guys take the prize if you survive that. Screw avalanches.... :lol:
 
Just not worth the 6 hour drive for me.

I'm sure I'll be envious if someone does go and posts pics though.
 
Tony and others,

As an affirmation (after being an employee of the obs) it is certainly hard to measure the snow/sleet/precip during events with winds that strong. However, after traipsing to the precip can with sleet pounding your face, considerable ice build-up, and returning with the can itself. I believe that the methods used by the Observatory are not only the most accurate after 80 years of different trials, but some of the better measurements for snow fall anywhere in the United States. There are not many microclimates this strong that have continuous records from the 1930's. In addition, the snow that does not get in the precip can during a storm, may conversely get deposited in the can during a wind event that is not producing any precip. i.e. during observation times of "blowing snow" it is possible to get a precip record despite the lack of precip falling from the sky, also it is possible to get no precip recorded during times of "heavy snow". Paradoxically we hope this evens out the measurements, however, it will assuredly be almost impossible to tell. Having said all this, I think that the measurements used during the storm were incredibly accurate.

After being on the mountain through a similar storm on April 3rd of this year, it is incredible to watch the wind move snow that is 42% water content. I could not believe my eyes, watching 6-8ft drifts of pure sleet, not only is it amazing, but extremely difficult to shovel, move, ski, walk in... In addition the rime build up during these events is astounding. Rates of 4in plus per hour.

If you guys have any questions I'll try to answer them as best I can.

-Porter
 
I certainly do not question the professionalism of those who have been making weather observations in this extreme climate since the 1930's.

I do think it's an apples-and oranges comparison vs. your typical snow measuring station in a sheltered forest. Therefore my methods such as dividing total water by total snow don't yield the same information at Mt. Washington as they would somewhere else.
 
Admin":16pi3whn said:
I was wondering who here would notice that first. :lol: lftgly's friend Jonathan is heading up for some turns, maybe lftgly is going with him, I don't know.
Click to expand...

I posted that on zoneski after work yesterday...there was a discussion about snow and when.
 
I didn't mean to infer that you thought they were unprofessional, I was just trying to defend their techniques for measurement.

As for the high snow/water ratio, it is high because they do infact recieve a signifigant amount of icing (rime, sleet, freezinging rain), which can be counted as snow in some situations and/or frozen precip...

-porter
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top