It is rare that anyone setup is classic for everyone. I would consider these classic easterly setups. Ok not perfect for all but evidence great synoptics can still occur
While I don't deny the two you've linked have an easterly element, they fail to meet the requirements of a proper easterly.
http://old.wetterzentrale.de/pics/archive/ra/2009/Rrea00120090202.gif
This generated highs of above freezing, so the snow (and there was some) was slushy and soon melted away. Even though 850s looked good there were milder layers of air lower down - due to milder air being dragged in from the Med. The air wasn't sourced from a cold enough area and arrived "pre-mixed".
My weather diary shows max snow depths reached 5 inches, which is certainly impressive by modern standards, but there were no ice days, no icicles and the snow was slushy rather than powdery. (The last two columns are "snow falling?" and "snow depth, in cm, at 6AM"
http://old.wetterzentrale.de/pics/archive/ra/2010/Rrea00120101130.gif
Classic easterly setup. Storm of the century for parts of NE Midlands . Appreciate the uppers are not cold enough for the SE coast but perhaps it was too early in the season.
It wasn't too early - and it was the last time we had 6 inches of snow here. It also delivered ice days, which are vanishingly rare here. However (yes, there's a "however") those temperatures still weren't low enough for icicle formation. Somewhat oddly, ground minima (the last numerical column on the chart below) remained close to or above freezing for much of the time, leading to considerable melt despite the copious amounts of snowfall. It chucked it down with rain on the 4th Dec (the lows of the 3rd were in the early evening, before cloud moved in) and that was the death knell.
Compared to say 1996, the last proper midwinter easterly, surface temperatures were a couple of degrees higher - and it seems just over the threshold for powder snow, icicles and so on.
Of course, given the dross of recent years 2010 looks impressive. I'd certainly take it now, even if I'd rather have another 1996 (or 95, 93, 91, 87, 86, 85, 84, 81, 79, 70... the list goes on!)
Edited by user
04 December 2016 18:04:16
|
Reason: Not specified