By FALLS CHURCH TIMES STAFF
February 6, 2010
Falls Church was hit with its second severe storm of the season this weekend, with snow starting at 10 a.m. Friday and ending around 5 p. m. Saturday. Here are some images from around town, courtesy of Alison Kutchma.
By Falls Church Times Staff
February 6, 2010
9 Responses to “Blizzard No. 2 Hits Falls Church”
Feel free to leave a comment. Please increase the credibility of your post by including your FULL NAME and CITY. All comments are subject to editing for courtesy and content.
Falls Church in the News
Falls Church Times, Falls Church, VA is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License. Revolution News theme by Brian Gardner
Go Alison! Thanks for posting these pictures, especially for those of us who didn’t venture out cross-country style. Beautiful shot of the west end bridge.
Nice pictures, indeed. And let me add my kudos to those of others for the good job the City snow crews are doing. It really is a challenge to effectively move this much snow.
I do, however, have to comment on FCT’s headline for this article, which perpetuates a common media error, or hype, concerning “blizzards.” Not only did Falls Church not have Blizzard No. 2, it did not have Blizzard No. 1 in December, and probably has never had a true blizzard. Technically, a blizzard requires snow and SUSTAINED gale force winds, that is, 45 mph or more. Two feet of snow in 36 hours is bad enough (or good enough, if you’re a schoolchild or, apparently, Alison Kutchma) but, believe me, if we had just experienced a blizzard, you would know it!
At one point when I was out there cross country skiing down Broad street there were two men beside me, one young man on a unicycle and another man running. It was an interesting image – the three of us going down the empty street — we were all having fun in the snow in our own way.
Thanks for the nice pix, Alison!
Please add our names to the list of grateful FCCity-zens as we honor our Falls Church City workers for their patience in clearing the streets- most workers have had only four hours of sleep since the storm began–many live in places like Warrenton and have not been able to get home with their families this Super Bowl weekend!
THANK YOU HARD WORKING FALLS CHURCH CITY WORKERS !
You are the BEST! June and Mike Beyer
Lou, it looks like they might be able to report today’s storm as the first blizzard. According to Wikipedia (which is never wrong), “the National Weather Service defines a blizzard as sustained winds or frequent gusts reaching or exceeding 35 mph (56 km/h) which lead to blowing snow and cause visibilities of ¼ mile (or 400 m) or less, lasting for at least 3 hours.”
I haven’t been up for 3 hours yet but visibility is below 1/4 mile at my house and we have definitely seem some gusts exceeding 35 mph.
Doggone it, Andy, will you please stop checking up on me? Now you’ve made me have to do some research of my own. And it appears that the weather gurus have indeed dumbed down the criteria for blizzards— to make it easier to hype snowstorms I suppose. When I was an amateur meteorologist as a kid— you know, ante bellum— there were 4 criteria: sustained winds of 45 mph, 1/4 mile or less visibility, and temperatures below 20 degrees, lasting for at least 3 hours. So you’re right, they have dropped the temperature requirement and require only sustained winds or frequent gusts of 35 mph, with 1/4 mile or less visibility lasting for at least 3 hours. According to the local TV weather folks, only the Eastern Shore met all three conditions. We probably had occasional gusts over 35 mph and 1/4 mile or less visibility at times, but likely not frequently for more than 3 hours. Tell you what though, if we didn’t, we were close, and whatever we had I don’t want again any time soon!
Yeah, while we had some gusts I didn’t think they were all that frequent (or even all that close to 35 mph). Blizzard certainly sounds cooler than “really windy snowstorm” – so I guess that’s what the news people run with.
I proprose branding it as the Little Blizzard – not quite a blizzard, but not just a snowstorm. The Little Blizzard will always be compared to the larger snowstorms before it which were not blizzards but considered as such by the media. With time, most people will group The Little Blizzard together with the 30 inch snowfall immediately before it and only the meteorologists will note that there were indeed two storms. Wikipedia citation will be needed.
Let’s keep the thinking as one event. I heard Senator Barbara Mikulski from Maryland on TV yesterday. She said she was able to make a case to Homeland Security to consider the two storms one event for Fed Disaster funds. Usually it’s “no dough for snow” but Mikulski was feeling her proposal was well received. This could help offset some of the extraordinary costs of the snow removal.