First, we had strong winds, taking out the power to a quarter-million local residents. And then snow.
The vigorous system that moved through on Sunday and a second disturbance behind spread substantial snow over the regional mountains above approximately 4000 ft., with 1-2 feet on the ground in many locations.
The image at 8 PM at the Paradise Visitor Center on Mount Rainier (about 5000 ft) was a snowy dream, with the moon illuminating a winter wonderland.
Want to see how much difference a year makes?
Below are maps of the regional snow water equivalent (the amount of water in the snowpack) for last year (left) and this year (right) for 11 PM on October 26.
Can you tell the difference? 😊
Virtually nothing last year. Bountiful snowpack this year.
And by tomorrow at 5 PM, there will be even more (see additional totals below).
Not enough to think about downhill skiing, but a good start, and a welcome beginning to the winter snowpack after a low previous year.
A very strong atmospheric river will approach the region on Friday-Sunday, but I will leave that to my blog.
Seattle Times Errors Again
As long as I am talking about atmospheric rivers, I can't help but note the major errors in recent Seattle Times stories on this topic. Consider the atmospheric river graphics they provided a few days ago (below).
Not very good.
It starts by stating that atmospheric rivers are "flowing columns of condensed water vapor".
Water vapor is not "condensed". It is vapor... .a GAS. Most of the water associated with atmospheric rivers is not condensed water (that is, clouds or precipitation), but water vapor.
Water vapor that is forced to condense into clouds and precipitation as it is forced to rise by local terrain.
They claim that the water vapor is found one mile above the ocean. This is simply false.
The claim that atmospheric rivers "generate a series of storms" is wrong. Atmospheric rivers are the result of larger-scale circulations and storms. The Seattle Times confused the chicken and the egg.
This error-filled Seattle Times graphic is not an isolated example of poor research and writing. I could show you a dozen more. Ok, how about one?
Below is their graphic about the convergence zone and rainshadow. They have the air approaching the Olympics from the southwest (which is fine), but then they show cold air from the Fraser River Valley. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
And then they make the same mistake about "condensed water vapor" coming off the Pacific and repeat the error of the water being about one mile off the ocean.
The quality of the scientific "journalism" in the Seattle Times is now so poor that you really can't trust what you read in it. Just a shame.
I worked at a newspaper in the early 90s in the composing room. I would see glaring errors all the time on subjects I knew well. If I pointed them out, I always heard the same response, "It sounds/reads better like this," even in the case of an event that was lied about when the photo they used showed me standing in the center of it all! Same response. They never let facts get in the way.
ReplyDeleteKnowing this, I'm hardly surprised to read your take on local media response to weather.
Yes it's obvious - they keep using the word "condensed" because they like the way it sounds. They have no idea what it means.
DeleteHmm.. I wonder how many other subjects they write about and get things very wrong? Just a few here are there maybe?
Your newspaper should have been publishing accurate information. Lying to its readers was a very bad thing to do. For a business that relies heavilly on trust and the delivery of accurate information, they didn't seem to have much regard for either one, preferring to let inaccurate spin win the day for the sake of appearences. I'm glad you were there to call out their errors. If only they had listened.
DeleteRecently the Times published a chart that showed reservoir levels in several watersheds feeding the Yakima River (if my memory is correct) at alarmingly low levels. I know they have been feeding the drought narrative and you say it isn't so. Data is data, do you disagree with the reservoir data they presented?
ReplyDeleteThe raw numbers were fine, but their implications were problematic. Talking about percent full is deceptive. They should have been been talking about % of normal. Percent full is much, much lower than percent of normal...which they should have been stressing. The Yakima Reservior are rapidly gaining water right now.....
DeleteAnyone putting faith in traditional media like the Seattle Times has their head buried deeply in the sand.
ReplyDeleteWhat's sadder still is that a respected, internationally renowned expert on PNW weather is a phone call away.
ReplyDeleteHave you heard anyone expressing concern about the large amounts of water the data centers are now using in Eastern Washington? I've only just heard about it recently and know nothing about it.
ReplyDeleteI suspect many slept through 9th grade science and thus are confused by the condensed versus vapor terms. I'm not surprised except that a person writing about weather, for a "reputable" news organization, ought to have progressed.
ReplyDeleteAbout the "one mile above" – In roughly 65 years of reading about weather, I have never encountered this phrase.
The 15 Mississippi Rivers comes from a NOAA site. There is says "... an amount of water vapor roughly equivalent to the average flow of water at the mouth of the Mississippi River." Raise your hand if you have ever been to the mouth of that River. Not helpful in any case.