Lake effect snow vs Synoptic snow

[will]

This is an issue that has bothered me for quite a while. Is lake effect snow the same as synoptic snow? Is 300 inches of snow in a year on the Keweenaw peninsula or Tug Hill the same as 300 inches in a year in, say, Vermont?
I mean, the snow is significantly fluffier and from all accounts once it hits the ground it compacts significantly...I mean, is a foot of snow really a foot if two hours later it's compacted down to 3-4 inches? Isn't this what happens with LES?
I wonder this because I'm trying to figure out what the snowiest place outside of the rockies really is. Technically it's a lake effect area..but look at the snow depths in the winter - they're not at all higher than the depths you find in northern New England or Quebec or Labrador. They're all just about even.
So how should this be dealt with in terms of climatological records?
I mean, in a rough example, it's like listing a 1 minutes wind gust to 70 mph as a sustained wind.
Or maybe I'm just missing something entirely - which I hope I am because it's kind of neat to think about that much snow falling somewhere near by...although the enjoyment I derive about that and thinking about visiting is somewhat dampened by the knowledge that once it lets up that 20 inches of snow will look no different than 7 inches of snow where I live.
So where is the snowiest place? Is it correct to truly list a snowfall of 20 inches of LES fluff as 20 inches? Or perhaps there is most to it than that?

Does anyone have any opinions on this?
Also, if anyone can tell me show me some statistics on upslope snow(I've looked myself and can't turn much up) in the higher elevations of the east coast. I find info on Garrett county MD and Bradford PA to be quite interesting in terms of their microclimates...but are there more towns than that with such amazing microclimates? I'm not asking others to do my homework, it's just a hard topic to find very much info on when you need more specifics than just "upslope snow east" or "upslope snow vermont". All I ever find is vague mentions of it but I know there has to be some info on it.
Thanks!

[Guest]

Well seeing how i seen both last year i will say that the Lake Effect does seem different...............Very light (Blows around)and very little moisture content to it unlike system snows.....................It does dissapear quicker as well imo even though it adds up the same way as synoptic snow...................So all in all i would have to say say that the two are somewhat different.....................

Ask me and i would glady take a synoptic snow over a lake effect event..............

Hope this helps!

[will]

Well seeing how i seen both last year i will say that the Lake Effect does seem different...............Very light (Blows around)and very little moisture content to it unlike system snows.....................It does dissapear quicker as well imo even though it adds up the same way as synoptic snow...................So all in all i would have to say say that the two are somewhat different.....................

Ask me and i would glady take a synoptic snow over a lake effect event..............

Hope this helps!

Yeah, that's what I'm saying.
It's why I believe that places like the Tug Hill are not, as they advertise, the snowiest places east of the rockies. That title, in my opinion, goes to the mountainous region north of Chicoutimi Quebec and into Labrador. I mean, look at the snow records for Labrador...almost every year they hit snowdepths near 70 inches! And it stays that deep for monthes. By contrast, if somehow you found yourself up to a 70 inch snowdepth in, say, Boonville NY, it would not only be a rare occasion but within 2 days it would be back down to 30-40 inches. That's just not even close to being the same. I think when it comes to that kind of snow that you can't just simply treat it like system snow and record it as such. It's not. Treating it like it like it is is entirely misleading and is just not a good thing to do if we're to have accurate records. I completely agree with the denying of the 24 hour snowfall record to the Tug Hill...

And btw, the record snows in Labrador aren't because it's colder, thus less snowmelt; in fact one of the snowier areas over there is the Labrador straits region whose temperature pattern in winter is almost identical to the UP of Michigan.

From what I've read there also seems to be another region from northern Vermont wrapping into Northern New Hampshire and the western Maine mountains near Rangeley and Eustis/Stratton/Sugarloaf that gets near 200 inches of system/synoptic snow a year.

One more point before I get redundant...perhaps I've crossed that line already, if you drive from northern Vermont to the Tug Hill, the only times you'll experience deeper snows off the mountains of the Adirondacks is immediately after a large LES event. Otherwise the deeper snow is invariably in the mountains of northern New York and Vermont.

I think there should be specific ways of measuring les that accomodate for these things, just as there are for measuring snow in a blizzard.

[dafwx]

Will, frankly I do not believe there is much difference between LES and "synoptic" snowfall. Yes : LES events do seem to produce snow that has somewhat less moisture content than the synoptic type. However, snow is snow, and it is not unreasonable to say that LES areas see wet snow at times and other places see powder. If you look at the average yearly precipitation amounts in the Tug Hill area and in, let's say, Vermont, you will notice a stark difference. Tug Hill averages anywhere from 55 to 65" of yearly precip, while in Vermont, about 35 to 50" falls each year (in the hills and mountains it's more like 50-60"). After all of this, I want to dispell the notion that LES compacts much faster than snow in the other north country regions. If you take a snowpack map in mid-winter and really look at it, you'll probably see the highest amounts consistently in the LES areas. The main reason that snow will tend to hang around the adirondacks or vermont is because in areas that are colder and more densely forrested, snow just can't melt.

If you're still not convinced, take this into account: a lot of the yearly snowfall in northern new england or n. ny is either lake effect, lake enhanced, or the similar snows that come from st. lawrence moisture.

[will]

Will, frankly I do not believe there is much difference between LES and "synoptic" snowfall. Yes : LES events do seem to produce snow that has somewhat less moisture content than the synoptic type. However, snow is snow, and it is not unreasonable to say that LES areas see wet snow at times and other places see powder. If you look at the average yearly precipitation amounts in the Tug Hill area and in, let's say, Vermont, you will notice a stark difference. Tug Hill averages anywhere from 55 to 65" of yearly precip, while in Vermont, about 35 to 50" falls each year (in the hills and mountains it's more like 50-60"). After all of this, I want to dispell the notion that LES compacts much faster than snow in the other north country regions. If you take a snowpack map in mid-winter and really look at it, you'll probably see the highest amounts consistently in the LES areas. The main reason that snow will tend to hang around the adirondacks or vermont is because in areas that are colder and more densely forrested, snow just can't melt.

If you're still not convinced, take this into account: a lot of the yearly snowfall in northern new england or n. ny is either lake effect, lake enhanced, or the similar snows that come from st. lawrence moisture.

I fully intend to check the snow depth maps all winter and I am actually taking a trip across NH, VT, NY and into Michigan for this sole purpose at the end of December as we have to drive over to Ohio anyways.
That's why I posted it here, I know I could very easily be wrong, in fact I hope I am, and so I just wanted to see whether my worries were justified or not.
One thing I can't figure out tho...why is it that precip totals are so high over the tug hill, so low comparatively over areas of Labrador and and Vermont yet the snowfall is so much deeper in these former areas? I know you mention forests...but I've been to the tug hill and it's just as forested as anywhere else. I know there are a lot of farms between Barnes Corners and Lowville...but the region to the south of that line, which is actually the epicenter, so to speak, is known as the "lesser wilderness" because of how forested and remote it is. I just don't see how snow depths aren't regularly pushing 70 or 80 inches around Boonville and Houghton Michigan(where the percent of forest cover is almost identical to Maine or New Hampshire) each winter. I mean, areas to the north of Houghton record 300 to 350 inches of snow regularly each winter...and yet the deepest the snow gets is maybe on avg 5 inches deeper than we get here in northern Maine with an avg snowfall of a mere 115 inches.

Btw, check out the climate...the average high in January for most of the Adirondacks is comparable to the avg high in Boonville, so it can't be just because the mountains are colder - they really aren't.

[nystate]

Snow is snow, and 300 inches is 300 inches. Living in the lake effect region, I can tell you that not all lake effect snow is light and powdery. We get heavy, wet LES too. And the temps are almost always very cold here in the winter, so there is usually little or no melting. It just keeps on stacking up and up...

It's why I believe that places like the Tug Hill are not, as they advertise, the snowiest places east of the rockies.

I disagree. Snowfalls of 6 inches an hour with thunder are common here and occur quite regularly. 300 inches of snow a year is stull quite a lot...

By contrast, if somehow you found yourself up to a 70 inch snowdepth in, say, Boonville NY, it would not only be a rare occasion but within 2 days it would be back down to 30-40 inches

Well, I'm not sure where Booneville is, but up here, that statement is not true. A 70 inch snowdepth is not uncommon in the Tug Hill, and it lasts that way for most of the winter. There is little compressing, and the snow maintains its depth barring any warming and melting.

[will]

Snow is snow, and 300 inches is 300 inches. Living in the lake effect region, I can tell you that not all lake effect snow is light and powdery. We get heavy, wet LES too. And the temps are almost always very cold here in the winter, so there is usually little or no melting. It just keeps on stacking up and up...

It's why I believe that places like the Tug Hill are not, as they advertise, the snowiest places east of the rockies.

I disagree. Snowfalls of 6 inches an hour with thunder are common here and occur quite regularly. 300 inches of snow a year is stull quite a lot...

By contrast, if somehow you found yourself up to a 70 inch snowdepth in, say, Boonville NY, it would not only be a rare occasion but within 2 days it would be back down to 30-40 inches

Well, I'm not sure where Booneville is, but up here, that statement is not true. A 70 inch snowdepth is not uncommon in the Tug Hill, and it lasts that way for most of the winter. There is little compressing, and the snow maintains its depth barring any warming and melting.

Do you have any records for this sort of thing, by any chance?
I'm not trying to be challenging...I'm just trying to clear this up in my mind. If that area or the area around the Keweenaw really gets as much snow as they record, meaning compared to other areas, then I would definitely consider moving there. But I don't want to unless it does...thus my questions.
We all have different things we consider important...for some reason I was born loving snow.
I want to find the best area possible where I can live and work and enjoy my life skiing and snowmobiling and just walking and taking pictures.
So far my ideal is the Keweenaw...I just hope the snow is as good as it look in the numbers.
BTW, does anyone have snow depth records for either of the places by any chance? The best I can find is day by day archives on Accuweather pro...which from personal experience aren't always very representative of the real conditions.

[Guest]

Snow is snow, and 300 inches is 300 inches. Living in the lake effect region, I can tell you that not all lake effect snow is light and powdery. We get heavy, wet LES too. And the temps are almost always very cold here in the winter, so there is usually little or no melting. It just keeps on stacking up and up...

It's why I believe that places like the Tug Hill are not, as they advertise, the snowiest places east of the rockies.

I disagree. Snowfalls of 6 inches an hour with thunder are common here and occur quite regularly. 300 inches of snow a year is stull quite a lot...

By contrast, if somehow you found yourself up to a 70 inch snowdepth in, say, Boonville NY, it would not only be a rare occasion but within 2 days it would be back down to 30-40 inches

Well, I'm not sure where Booneville is, but up here, that statement is not true. A 70 inch snowdepth is not uncommon in the Tug Hill, and it lasts that way for most of the winter. There is little compressing, and the snow maintains its depth barring any warming and melting.

Great explaination from someone who gets more of this then anyone else!!!! Thanks....................I dont even come close to getting those LES amounts!!!!!! I guess what little i got last winter was les crap !!!!!

I probably shouldnt have jumped the gun on this because last winter was my first one out this way in les country...................What can you say im a i95 originall!!!!!!LOL

Great discussion guys...................

[will]

Snow is snow, and 300 inches is 300 inches. Living in the lake effect region, I can tell you that not all lake effect snow is light and powdery. We get heavy, wet LES too. And the temps are almost always very cold here in the winter, so there is usually little or no melting. It just keeps on stacking up and up...

It's why I believe that places like the Tug Hill are not, as they advertise, the snowiest places east of the rockies.

I disagree. Snowfalls of 6 inches an hour with thunder are common here and occur quite regularly. 300 inches of snow a year is stull quite a lot...

By contrast, if somehow you found yourself up to a 70 inch snowdepth in, say, Boonville NY, it would not only be a rare occasion but within 2 days it would be back down to 30-40 inches

Well, I'm not sure where Booneville is, but up here, that statement is not true. A 70 inch snowdepth is not uncommon in the Tug Hill, and it lasts that way for most of the winter. There is little compressing, and the snow maintains its depth barring any warming and melting.

Where are you from btw?

[will]

Snow is snow, and 300 inches is 300 inches. Living in the lake effect region, I can tell you that not all lake effect snow is light and powdery. We get heavy, wet LES too. And the temps are almost always very cold here in the winter, so there is usually little or no melting. It just keeps on stacking up and up...

It's why I believe that places like the Tug Hill are not, as they advertise, the snowiest places east of the rockies.

I disagree. Snowfalls of 6 inches an hour with thunder are common here and occur quite regularly. 300 inches of snow a year is stull quite a lot...

By contrast, if somehow you found yourself up to a 70 inch snowdepth in, say, Boonville NY, it would not only be a rare occasion but within 2 days it would be back down to 30-40 inches

Well, I'm not sure where Booneville is, but up here, that statement is not true. A 70 inch snowdepth is not uncommon in the Tug Hill, and it lasts that way for most of the winter. There is little compressing, and the snow maintains its depth barring any warming and melting.

Great explaination from someone who gets more of this then anyone else!!!! Thanks....................I dont even come close to getting those LES amounts!!!!!! I guess what little i got last winter was les crap !!!!!

I probably shouldnt have jumped the gun on this because last winter was my first one out this way in les country...................What can you say im a i95 originall!!!!!!LOL

Great discussion guys...................

Most of my own experience is from having lived for about 4 monthes earlier this year in Painesville OH before I got married and moved back to Maine.

[nystate]

Well, I have been searching for a comparison, and got it at http://www.ns.ec.gc.ca/climate/lab.html

Snowfall is heavy, with Churchill Falls in the interior having 481 cm, making it one of the snowiest places in Canada. Goose Bay has a mean snowfall of 445 cm. In the south, Cartwright averages 440 cm, and in the north Nain is typical with 424 cm.

Note that 481 cm is only 186 inches, somewhat less that what is common on the tug hill. For comparison in inches, here is this past years snowfall total from eastern lake ontario from the NWS- (if you scroll down into lewis county you will see the highest totals)

http://www.erh.noaa.gov/buf/spotter4.htm

[will]

Well, I have been searching for a comparison, and got it at http://www.ns.ec.gc.ca/climate/lab.html

Snowfall is heavy, with Churchill Falls in the interior having 481 cm, making it one of the snowiest places in Canada. Goose Bay has a mean snowfall of 445 cm. In the south, Cartwright averages 440 cm, and in the north Nain is typical with 424 cm.

Note that 481 cm is only 186 inches, somewhat less that what is common on the tug hill. For comparison in inches, here is this past years snowfall total from eastern lake ontario from the NWS- (if you scroll down into lewis county you will see the highest totals)

http://www.erh.noaa.gov/buf/spotter4.htm

MY point about Goose Bay and the Red Bay/Marys Harbour region of Labrador is not the exact totals but the fact that those totals end up translating into regular snow depthes approaching 70 inches. That's primarily what I based all this on and is really the base of my questions.
Why has the area of the Keweenaw where johndee of johndee.com lives not ended up with more than 45 inches of snow on the ground at any one time yet each year they're pushing 200 inches of snowfall with quite a few pushing 300?

[nystate]

Where are you from btw?

I am from Watertown, NY.

[nystate]

Why has the area of the Keweenaw where johndee of johndee.com lives not ended up with more than 45 inches of snow on the ground at any one time yet each year they're pushing 200 inches of snowfall with quite a few pushing 300?

Hmmm...I'm not sure...from what he says on his site, it sounds like he is in the UP of Michigan, an area I'm not familiar with. I can only speak of my experience being east of Lake Ontario...

[HuffWx]

Will,

Anyplace the snow is more powdery it will compact..ect. The 10-1 rule is not very common inland northeast. I have read in the AFD's from BGM that the usual ratio up there for snow is 13-1. LES is powdery and will often be in a 15-1-20-1 ration, but for instance when I was up in that area last fall on Nov 1 there was a 18 inch LES event with a heavy wet snow. It does compact but its not like 30 inches down to twelve in 2 hours.

I was in Gowanda NY during the Christmas Blitz of 2001. Records show when all was said and done that 52 inches fell in Gowanda. When a I arrived the ground had open spots showing, then it started to snow and basically never quit. The first nite about 2 feet fell. The next day and a half had another 20 inches fall but at a much slower rate. They were plowing the parking lot of the motel every 4-6 hours and plowing 4-6 inches. The snow was mid thight deep after the first snow and never really got any deeper. There were two factors, one being the wind and two the pure rate of snow. That was about a 20-1 which is common everywhere for temps in the mid teens. There is a method to measure the weight a snow crystal can hold per the temps when it was formed and eventually it will collapse regardless of LES, Synoptic..ect.


If you used the snowboard technique...The snowfall will be measured accuratly regardless of compaction.

Huff

[ColdFront77]

It does make sense if 24 inches of snow falls along the shores of Lake Erie during a Lake Effect Snow event, there would be the same accumulation of 24 inches of snow in Des Moines, Iowa.

Compressed snow occurs, but shouldn't have anything to do with total snow amount per year.

The totals are taken and added to the daily, monthly and yearly totals.

[Squall52]

Living about 20 miles from the south shore of Lake Ontario all my life(23 years), I have dealt with my share of synoptic/lake effect/lake enhanced snows.

IMO, snow is snow. However, there are obviously different types of snow and different effects that types of snow have on the environment. Lake effect snow is often DIFFERENT from synoptic snow for obvious reasons, due to the processes and environment which dictates its formation. However, as mentioned above, this is not to say you cannot have WET lake effect snow which 'acts' very much like snow from say, a noreaster. Generally though, LES forms in a drier and colder environment than synoptic snows. It often falls fast and furiously, due to the convective nature of the snowbands. This results in a FLUFF factor. This snow is light and does not have the opportunity to compact, until other factors come into play ie melting, more snow on top, gravity etc. This is not to say that this is the case ALWAYS.
Sure there are 50-70" snowpacks on the tug in the dead of winter. 100" in some months will do that. But I imagine 150" a year in the colder environment of canada/st. lawrence valley will also result in that later in the winter.

IMO, LES can be as hard or harder to deal with that synoptic snow. The fact that it is often lighter, and in a windy and cold environment can result in blowing and drifting...and it can fall so heavy that it is literally hard to see your hand in front of you. On the other hand, trying to plow/shovel synoptic snow is USUALLY much more difficult than lake effect. After the snow stops falling, synoptic snow is much more of a pain.

So depending upon your point of view, and the situation at hand...there are many ways to look at Synoptic vs Lake Effect snow.

[ColdFront77]

There is no way to change six inches of heavy wet snow compared to six inches of fluffy snow.

[Squall52]

Not quite sure what you're sayin there...but to say 6" = 6" isn't really the end of it. Sure, if you measure correctly according to the standards, there should be no argument. However, that 6" may have fallen at a 50:1 ratio or a 10:1 ratio. The ice crystals/flakes are generally farther apart(not as compacted) in the 50:1 ratio snow, and there is less Liquid equivalent. Therefore, although it may be the same thing on the snowboard after 4 hours, and make no difference in measurements...there is really less snow and less precipitation.

[ColdFront77]

That is all I am going by, 6" of heavy wet snow and 6" of light fluffy snow are still six inches, no matter what the liquid equivalent is. There is really nothing that can be changed with the same snowfall amount aside from the fact that if it were melted the "rainfall equivalent."

Not sure how else to say what I mean. There is no reason for us not to agree with each other.