Deepest Depth of Snow
1800 UTC on Saturday, 23 January 2016
In WMO Blocks 72 & 74

[01] 72403 Washington 51 [20.1"]
[02] 72406 Baltimore 46 [18.1"]
[03] 72502 Newark 43 [16.9"]
72414 Charleston 43 [16.9"]
[04] 72503 Hempstead 41 [16.1"]
[05] 74486 New York City 36 [14.2"]
[06] 72519 Syracuse 33 [13.0"]
72405 Washington 33 [13.0"]
[07] 72636 Muskegon 20 [7.9"]
72401 Richmond 20 [7.9"]
[08] 72529 Rochester 13 [5.1"]
72658 Minneapolis 13 [5.1"]
[09] 72635 Grand Rapids 8 [3.1"]
72550 Omaha 8 [3.1"]
72617 Burlington 8 [3.1"]
72528 Niagara Falls 8 [3.1"]
72423 Louisville 8 [3.1"]
[10] 72640 Milwaukee 5 [2.0"]
72525 Youngstown 5 [2.0"]
[11] 72524 Cleveland 3 [1.2"]
72543 Rockford 3 [1.2"]
72317 Greensboro 3 [1.2"]
72438 Indianapolis 3 [1.2"]
72434 St Louis 3 [1.2"]
72446 Kansas City 3 [1.2"]
72546 Des Moines 3 [1.2"]
72641 Madison 3 [1.2"]
72421 Covington 3 [1.2"]
72306 Raleigh 3 [1.2"]

In message ,
xmetman writes
Deepest Depth of Snow
1800 UTC on Saturday, 23 January 2016 In WMO Blocks 72 & 74

[01] 72403 Washington 51 [20.1"]
[02] 72406 Baltimore 46 [18.1"]
[03] 72502 Newark 43 [16.9"]
72414 Charleston 43 [16.9"]
[04] 72503 Hempstead 41 [16.1"]
[05] 74486 New York City 36 [14.2"]
[06] 72519 Syracuse 33 [13.0"]
72405 Washington 33 [13.0"]

Interesting that two stations both in Washington should have such
divergent totals. I suppose that with so muchdrifting of the snow it's
more or less impossible to get an accurate figure. In fact you could
argue that "accurate" is pretty much meaningless when there's severe
drifting, and the best you can hope for is a representative figure.
--
John Hall
"Honest criticism is hard to take,
particularly from a relative, a friend,
an acquaintance, or a stranger." Franklin P Jones

On Saturday, 23 January 2016 19:34:05 UTC, John Hall wrote:
In message ,
xmetman writes
Deepest Depth of Snow
1800 UTC on Saturday, 23 January 2016 In WMO Blocks 72 & 74

[01] 72403 Washington 51 [20.1"]
[02] 72406 Baltimore 46 [18.1"]
[03] 72502 Newark 43 [16.9"]
72414 Charleston 43 [16.9"]
[04] 72503 Hempstead 41 [16.1"]
[05] 74486 New York City 36 [14.2"]
[06] 72519 Syracuse 33 [13.0"]
72405 Washington 33 [13.0"]

Interesting that two stations both in Washington should have such
divergent totals. I suppose that with so much drifting of the snow it's
more or less impossible to get an accurate figure. In fact you could
argue that "accurate" is pretty much meaningless when there's severe
drifting, and the best you can hope for is a representative figure.

Drifting across a warm songline over to where in the heat of winter we are also enjoying precipitate activities of one sort or another. Just how much carbon dioxide can the average climatologist be capable of imagining to have caused all this, bearing in mind the rain that has already fallen from California to the Mississippi.

What is the conductive ability in the molecules that imparts an ability to transfer heat at such inordinate rates through atmosphere.
The last I heard it was 300 parts per million. Is it more or is 300 a lot?

The last argument I read on the subject that wasn't my own is that the net effect increase ratio is that of the carbon content of a match released to a living room.

This in a world where trees have enough light to keep growing but reach a limit due to the lack of nutriment. All the while the oceans (sumps that can naturally absorb volume for volume co2 gas to water) are flooded with inert, long carbon chains.