Greatest Snow on Earth & Lake Effect Weather...

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:37:35 -0700, AstroPax
wrote:

As there seems to be some confusion about all of this:

http://www.utahweather.org/UWC/light..._on_earth.html

http://www.utahweather.org/UWC/light...t_weather.html


Thanks. So if I read that correctly, there are usually about a
half-dozen "lake effect" events each year from the Salt Lake, and the
one that dumped 1.5 to 2 feet is still worth remembering 20 years
later. That pretty much answers my questions.

bw

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:51:21 -0700, AstroPax
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:43:36 -0600, bdubya
wrote:

Thanks. So if I read that correctly, there are usually about a
half-dozen "lake effect" events each year from the Salt Lake, and the
one that dumped 1.5 to 2 feet is still worth remembering 20 years
later. That pretty much answers my questions.

Just a few posts back you were denying that the Great Salt Lake (GSL)
even produced lake effect snow:

---
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:23:18 -0600, bdubya
wrote:
you need a Real Lake to have a
lake effect.

Nice snip. Just a line or two earlier in the same post, I was
acknowledging that there was, in fact, an effect from the GSL
(although I was disputing the terminology). Sorry if that was too
hard for you to get your head around.

bw


---

I realize that the GSL is no Lake Superior.

However, the GSL *is* in fact a real lake that produces real lake
effect snows, and it just happens to be the largest body of water in
the continental United States west of the Great Lakes.

Personally, I have no idea how much of an influence the GSL lake
effect snows have upon Wasatch snow pack totals, nor do I really care.

Regardless, the fact remains. The GSL produces lake effect
snow...snow that often ends up under (or over) my skis.

So I'll take it, lake effect or otherwise.

-Astro

"bdubya" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:37:35 -0700, AstroPax
wrote:

As there seems to be some confusion about all of this:

http://www.utahweather.org/UWC/light..._on_earth.html

http://www.utahweather.org/UWC/light...t_weather.html


Thanks. So if I read that correctly, there are usually about a
half-dozen "lake effect" events each year from the Salt Lake, and the
one that dumped 1.5 to 2 feet is still worth remembering 20 years
later. That pretty much answers my questions.

"half dozen" would be the minimum I would expect per year. 1.5 to 2' of snow
from them would be the minimum amount of snow as well. 2-3 with some 4-5 is
more like it. I did miss a little bit on "orographic" though. Maybe you can
take some comfort in that.

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:41:36 -0700, AstroPax
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:52:54 -0600, bdubya
wrote:

Nice snip. Just a line or two earlier in the same post, I was
acknowledging that there was, in fact, an effect from the GSL
(although I was disputing the terminology). Sorry if that was too
hard for you to get your head around.

Below is a full quote:

---
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:23:18 -0600, bdubya
wrote:
Pfaugh. You call that a lake? "Pond effect", maybe, but isn't it
really more of a desert/mountain effect? I mean, granted, it ought
to be better (bite me, btw), but still, you need a Real Lake to have a
lake effect. IMHO, YRSMV, etc.
---

Sorry, but I just don't see an acknowledgement.

What would the "pond effect" be? Jeez, why do I bother? Read it to
mean whatever you like...


Reads more like
someone who is uneducated relative to GSL lake effect snow, geography,
and climatology of the area.

Maybe. I've always been under the impression that the contribution of
the lake was relatively small, with the bulk of the moisture coming
direct from the Pacific. Kind of like the ocean buying the dinner,
and the lake covering the tip. But hey, if you say they're going
dutch, fine. You must be very proud.

bw

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:36:28 -0600, bdubya
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:41:36 -0700, AstroPax
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:52:54 -0600, bdubya
wrote:

Nice snip. Just a line or two earlier in the same post, I was
acknowledging that there was, in fact, an effect from the GSL
(although I was disputing the terminology). Sorry if that was too
hard for you to get your head around.

Below is a full quote:

---
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:23:18 -0600, bdubya
wrote:
Pfaugh. You call that a lake? "Pond effect", maybe, but isn't it
really more of a desert/mountain effect? I mean, granted, it ought
to be better (bite me, btw), but still, you need a Real Lake to have a
lake effect. IMHO, YRSMV, etc.
---

Sorry, but I just don't see an acknowledgement.

What would the "pond effect" be? Jeez, why do I bother? Read it to
mean whatever you like...


Reads more like
someone who is uneducated relative to GSL lake effect snow, geography,
and climatology of the area.

Maybe. I've always been under the impression that the contribution of
the lake was relatively small, with the bulk of the moisture coming
direct from the Pacific. Kind of like the ocean buying the dinner,
and the lake covering the tip. But hey, if you say they're going
dutch, fine. You must be very proud.


As usual I am too tired to google for stats, but this is an easy one
imo. I think that most areas in upper michigan away from the lake
probably average what 60-80 inches of snow per winter as a best guess.
Lake effect areas probably get 3-4 times that amount. Something like
that. Areas on the east side of lake superior (Lutsen ski area) get
around 2 to 2.5 times that amount.

Were Salt Lake to dry up and go away, the mountains of the Wasatch
would still have excellent snow, especially when they get those storms
out of the SW that haven't been rung dry by another huge mountain
range.

Keep in mind that Lake Superior causes huge snowfalls on lands
adjacent to it even without the moisture squeezing adiabatic cooling
caused by the air being shoved up and over mountains.

And so I side with BW for the time being I'm sure Walt will have
googled all the stats by the time I wake up from my nap, but I think
it highly unlikely that anyone can show me a set of numbers that
indicates GSaltL has anywhere near the snow multiplying effect as Lake
Superior.

nate

"bdubya" wrote in message
...

Maybe. I've always been under the impression that the contribution of
the lake was relatively small, with the bulk of the moisture coming
direct from the Pacific. Kind of like the ocean buying the dinner,
and the lake covering the tip. But hey, if you say they're going
dutch, fine. You must be very proud.

Had you read the article posted this morning, you would have seen that much
of the original Pacific moisture is wrung out over the Cascades and Sierra.
Additional moisture is then picked up from the GSL and rapidly
lifted.................oh why bother.

Good "skiing" to you.

pigo

"uglymoney" wrote in message
...
(snip)
Were Salt Lake to dry up and go away, the mountains of the Wasatch
would still have excellent snow, especially when they get those storms
out of the SW that haven't been rung dry by another huge mountain
range.

But Alta would probably average about 300" of it.

The storms out of the SW actually favor the park ****ty and Sundance
mountains. We do get some of those every winter. But the normal get excited
storm for us are the ones out of the NW. Those are the ones that give Alta
double to triple the amount of snow initially and then dump another day or
so after pc dries out. The kind that has us lining up because they are
reporting 40" in the last 24 hrs. I've skied there on days when they report
48 and 52" in 24 hrs, both 24 hr. records, when pc got 15 or so.

Those are reported amounts too. Whatever pc reports, count on about 1/2 of
that. Alta? Expect almost double.

Today? Magnificent!

pigo

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 23:14:22 +0000 (UTC), Kurt
wrote:

In article , uglymoney says...

Keep in mind that Lake Superior causes huge snowfalls on lands
adjacent to it even without the moisture squeezing adiabatic cooling
caused by the air being shoved up and over mountains.

There are MOUNTAINS next to Lake Superior? I need a new map...

No. Specifically, the lake causes major snowfalls _without_ such
"moisture squeezing". No surprise, since there's just not that much
relief. Still, the hill that stands 900' over the lake averages 270"
annual. Does anybody know what the average snowfall is about 900' up
from the SL valley floor? Which puts us dangerously close to arguing
where to draw the line between altitude/terrain effects and lake
effects (that one could go on forever - count me out).


And so I side with BW for the time being I'm sure Walt will have
googled all the stats by the time I wake up from my nap, but I think
it highly unlikely that anyone can show me a set of numbers that
indicates GSaltL has anywhere near the snow multiplying effect as Lake
Superior.

Umm, the GSL doesn't freeze like the Great Lakes. Frozen lakes don't contribute
to Lake Effect snow, eh? Granted, GSL is almost empty now. Antelope Island is
actually Antelope Peninsula.

In a good cold winter, the lower lakes can often freeze over a large
part of their area. Superior _can_ freeze over close to 100% of its
area, but it's rare, and doesn't last long - it takes a serious
sustained cold snap coupled with very light wind, and ye'd be a fool
to try to walk across. Generally, the lake is mostly open water.
Today, for instance:
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/Great...50113color.jpg
It'll be interesting to see how that looks come Monday, after a few
days of cold weather. Last March, the lake hit 90% coverage (thin)
for a short while, but as soon as the winds kick up, that coverage
breaks up.

I gotta start packing; apologies to any Utaghns who felt slighted by
my dissing of yer pondhh lake effect. I still don't believe it's
as significant as on the Great Lakes, but I'll allow it's more than I
figured. But you guys never get the volcanoes, do you?
http://www.geo.mtu.edu/volcanoes/ice...lcone92.8b.jpg

bw

In article , pigo says...


The storms out of the SW actually favor the park ****ty and Sundance
mountains. We do get some of those every winter. But the normal get excited
storm for us are the ones out of the NW. Those are the ones that give Alta
double to triple the amount of snow initially and then dump another day or
so after pc dries out. The kind that has us lining up because they are
reporting 40" in the last 24 hrs. I've skied there on days when they report
48 and 52" in 24 hrs, both 24 hr. records, when pc got 15 or so.

Those are reported amounts too. Whatever pc reports, count on about 1/2 of
that. Alta? Expect almost double.

Today? Magnificent!

pigo



God, Pigo you are such a bull**** artist. PC DOES get less, but not to the
extent your typical hyperbole. You claim double & triple the amount? How do you
then explain the NRCS data that says PC gets 26 inches of Snow-Water-Equivalent,
Brighton gets 27 inches of SWE, and Snowbird gets 42 inches SWE (96% and 62%
less, repsectivley)? Not EXACTLY 2-3 times (that would be between 33 to 50%) as
much, is it?

http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/cgibin/...AYNES%20CANYON

http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/cgibin/... 57s-BRIGHTON

http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/cgibin/... 42s-SNOWBIRD

Oh, well.

BoftheW

"BoftheW" wrote in message
...
In article , pigo says...

God, Pigo you are such a bull**** artist. PC DOES get less, but not to the
extent your typical hyperbole. You claim double & triple the amount? How
do you
then explain the NRCS data that says PC gets 26 inches of
Snow-Water-Equivalent,
Brighton gets 27 inches of SWE, and Snowbird gets 42 inches SWE (96% and
62%
less, repsectivley)? Not EXACTLY 2-3 times (that would be between 33 to
50%) as
much, is it?

OH! Excuse me trunky Jr.

I meant that if park ****ty reports 10 (probably more like 6) , Alta is
likely to report 30 (more like 36). And it's a general skiers impression
over 25 years. I don't think anyone really cares about the amount of water
on a general discussion in a newgroup. This is the first year since I've
lived in SLC that I don't have as much snow in my yard as pc has in town.
But I've had 3 weeks off to ski because of it, so I'm glad. The only thing I
miss about driving up, is emptying my rat trap in swede alley when I get
one.

You can manipulate a statistic if you'd like if it makes your tiny little
life whole. I'll add you to the list with trunky and berfonaise (good
company). Be gone.