User talk:IJThomas/sandbox

Very well written covering a nice breadth for a wikipedia contribution with many informative insights.

The hyperlinking is excellent. References too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nephologue (talk • contribs) 18:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

This is a really well-written contribution so far!

One idea that may be interesting to incorporate, is if there is any research that sheds light on SWE values of snowflake types (i.e. plate vs. dendrites). Considering Quantitative Precipitation Forecast (QPF) models are utilized in forecasting, any knowledge of SWE values being i.e. much less in plate vs. dendrites for example, could allow a forecaster to take that in consideration when forecasting snow depth given only QPF liquid totals - steering them from using a 10:1 ratio.

Let me know if you have any questions and keep up the great work as you continue to finalize. As mentioned above it is really well written so far! UMightyMet (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just did a quick search on wikipedia if there is any article on SWE and found this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_science#Measurement There is a model section in there and I think you should edit/add your contribution to this one. Joayer (talk) 01:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job so far, there is a lot of really good info in the article. I also appreciate how you use hyperlinks. Here are a few pieces of feedback to consider:

In the first sentence, you mention how snow science leads to predictive models. I am curious how? It may be useful to expand on this sentence.
In the first sentence of the first large paragraph do all the factors listed (aspect, albedo, aspect, ect) change the rate of snowmelt? If so, change "which change" to "which all change" at the end of the sentence.
For a wiki article, I don't think Q_m needs to be explicitly mentioned.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Noah.hirshorn (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,

The predictive model part is not an edit I made. That came with the original article, I could look into it though.
Good call that is much more clear.
That might be true I will see what from the actual article we change.

IJThomas (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, your section is very detailed, I give you a thumbs-up. Here are a few grammar suggestions:

"Global climate change models (GCMs)", you could remove the word change
"Climate and weather models can incorporate ice phase precipitate, including snow.", add a comma after precipitate
"Some of the important variables of ice phase precipitate in models includes the form of the precipitate, fall speed, and particle size.", make include singular and add the in front of form
"between the air and the snowpack to compute snow water equivalent, SWE." you define SWE in a previous paragraph, so you could probably just stick with SWE here

Baudette (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,

I think you are right.
Done.
Done.
That is true. I was switching some of the ordering, good catch.

IJThomas (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really nice job incorporating hyperlinks in your article. Here's a few suggestions:

Don't think you need a comma after "and those" in the sentence "and those, who design equipment for sporting activities on snow."
Could change "and processes affecting how snowpacks change over time" to "and the processes that affect how snowpacks change over time."
Add a hyperlink for LiDAR
What factors do you mean in "account the following factors to compute" in the last paragraph?

Mpletch1 (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is really good writing and information! Something relevant that you may choose to include in the "models" section are the shortcomings of snow modeling that currently exist. This would tie in well with your "science" section where you talk about areas of study within the field. Much of the error in snow modeling is due to topography, the SWE of the snow, the location of snow/rain line in mid-latitude cyclones, and the type of winter precipitation (e.g. sleet, freezing rain, or snow). You already have a lot though so don't feel like you need to add anything. Boomersooner16 (talk) 03:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think your blank slate of not having a weather background allowed you to write this overview better than the rest of us could. Pray continue. KYsnowmaker (talk) 08:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is great and a necessary addition to the current snow science page. Currently I think the page is a mess. PaulMcGlynn (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]