Hoosier

Pretty much. I think WWBB closed up in 04 or 05 at the latest.

Still couldn't pay me to be on I-65 for it.

Was thinking back on stuff lately. Remember that period of time when we were in charge at WWBB? God that was so long ago.

18z NAM not really doing any favors.

It has been 5 years since ORD got below 0 in December. But in terms of how it's going to feel during the day on Friday, it's going to be the most brutal day in December in many years.

I'd probably rather have the GFS decommissioned.

It was an incremental positive move overall.

Subtle change, but the 18z RAP is a tad west with everything compared to the 15z run.

I get the downing to an extent, but it has become a bit excessive in some instances.

Not the greatest confidence but I'd go about 4-5" imby at this point. I feel like that is sort of a middle ground between scenarios that are worse and scenarios that are better.

Palmguy gone wild lately.

Just some counterbalance to the negative nellying.

Thread teetering toward trainwreck

I'm not sure I buy it either lol. Highly dynamic setup though and I would not be surprised to see quicker deepening than the non-GFS models are showing.

Considering this is only at 42 hours, it's a decent spread in surface low position/strength

GFS goes absolute nuke mode starting around 00z Fri. Hi-res guidance delays that. Don't expect the world around Chicago, but it may be a nowcasty type of event. Still a way to get 6" or even more in the city (esp downtown) IF things break right.

Was actually snowier in some areas, especially in WI. Kind of cancels out.

Early look at 6z NAM... I don't think it will come in worse. So there's that.

The 00z Euro snow map is pretty similar to the 03z RAP snow map, valid 6z Friday. That right there lets you know that it's wrong.

Was talking about the Euro qpf specifically. I'll take the over on 1.7" at ORD, btw.

It's funny, because often times a surface low track from southern IN up through Ohio and toward Detroit will produce just fine in Chicago. Then you take that January 1978 storm. The surface low got so far east (like eastern TN) before turning almost due north and passing around Cleveland, and that thing produces a foot of snow in Chicago. And it was system snow, not really attributable to lake enhancement. I think a big issue in this case is the delayed development. The 1978 storm started bombing much further south. I would say if we can get the surface low to start deepening rapidly in the Ohio Valley about 6 hours sooner (and maybe just a few hours for LOT's Indiana counties) that it would lead to a substantially snowier outcome in the area.

But I mean that we're closer to the storm now.

At least he has the excuse that the storm is within 2-3 days now. A global model shouldn't be that bad at 2-3 days in theory. In theory.

Initial thought was that it almost has to be an overcorrection. Right? Lol

Although the synoptic setup for this storm is different than the January 26, 1978 blizzard, the end product sort of looks quite similar in a number of respects. I wouldn't bank on 100+ winds on Lake Erie, but the overall wind footprint should be similar to that 1978 storm. Don't be fooled by the weaker surface low in this case. There's a stronger surface high than in 1978, and so the pressure gradient is actually very comparable.