hlcater

I wont be disappointed because I'll be in a coma by the time this starts! (real talk, the 00z suite isnt totally awful for our area, so we'll see...........)

Held serve for the places that matter!

Looking at the trends and 18z guidance, gonna have to lower my call for IC from 8" to 6". Might need to readjust again tomorrow morning in either direction if necessary. I question how good of banding/rates/dynamics we're really gonna see out of a low that is rapidly weakening and am making an assumption (perhaps ill informed) that these features will underperform.

GFS continues to be one of the wettest models by far.

DVN thinks the trend to crap out the system is overdone on models, or at least their AFD reads that way. They’re going 8-11” along I-80 in Iowa. That seems optimistic given recent guidance but theyre the experts.

If the 00z runs continue the trend that has been evident since 00z last night, CR/IC might consider themselves lucky to see 6-7”. The drying has been particularly bad in E IA.

In most other cases I wouldn’t be lol but I was hoping that CR could end their 40 year 12” storm drought with this storm, as it looked like a possibility yesterday. Certainly not going to complain with 7-8”, just was hoping that those runs with 12” to the river would be realized. Been awhile since Iowa has had such luck with storms and will likely be awhile until it happens again, which is why I am relatively disappointed with the outcome here.

I’m sure we will, but as I said last night, I was hoping for a shot at some truly impressive snows, so the trend towards something more garden variety (7-8”) is pretty crummy. Especially when considering the potential that was on the table.

Euro is nasty. Forecasting half the totals that were originally forecast yesterday, even when including the first system. That’s a pretty remarkable drying on that model. I’d love for the GFS to be right, but it stands alone in bringing solid snows to the Mississippi. The trends have really screwed E IA in the big snow department.

Damn if only the low didn’t fill so quickly. I mean it is possible that models are overdoing the speed of decay, but I don’t really want to count on that. Gonna hold with my call of 8” for IC for now. Looking like the winners are SE NE and SW IA. I picked up 2.4” overnight.

Talk in the storm thread reminded me that I should update that the damage total is now up to 11 billion in NOAA's final 2020 analysis. https://cbs2iowa.com/news/local/derecho-damage-adjusted-to-11-billion

the derecho transcends any and all big dogs. That event sits in a league of its own and may never be surpassed.

Yea I was thinking that this storm was our best shot out of the past several years to make a run at that stat but to even be in contention, the wave needs to not shear out so quickly. Too bad that the trend tonight has been the opposite of that.

It came from a local news station, we've seen unofficial totals since that have flirted with 12" however. This storm would likely be a slam dunk in this regard if the confluence out ahead of the wave werent so damn strong.

Things are more or less the same here tonight as well. What changes though are that he odds of a truly historic snowfall(12+) for CR/IC itself are rapidly dwindling. Shame really, this storm had a shot to challenge CR's 40 year 12"er drought, but trends tonight are definitely in the wrong direction for doing so. My thoughts that someone sees 15" from this havent changed, just looking incredibly unlikely to be CR and decently unlikely to be IC.

It’s rather significantly drier in eastern Iowa. IC, for example fell from 14” to 9.5”. CR flirts with the northern edge. Crummy run for this area relative to everything else.

RAP is still a huge crush job for those west of the MS river. Will finish with a widespread 12+.

00z consensus has tended to be slightly drier and a tick south so far. Especially with eastward extent.

Think I'm gonna make a first call of 8-10" for IC. Though the QPF outputs are tantalizing and open the door for some really impressive totals if only ratios and banding cooperate. Still think someone somewhere in S IA exceeds 15".

Euro looks like it upped QPF in general from the 12z.

If we start trending towards 20" somewhere, I might just have to go find it.

With storms like this, I really do think that's a risk worth taking. I'd rather overwarn because that way you're afforded some wiggle room if that band shifts 40-50 miles north. It's one thing to warn something and bust completely, but I'd argue it's another to be liberal with watches in a high ceiling scenario to avoid conflicting messaging by issuing separate watches at separate times. I'd agree most of the time, but when real threats are on the table, it's best to be liberal.

It's just an interesting choice thats all. I'm sure its a confidence thing, as the watches as posted are really only for the areas that are consistently modeled to receive 10-12" or more. I can see some benefits for doing that, such as getting the word out earlier for those most likely to receive high end impacts, but the issue I see with that is conflicting messaging by issuing watches on the fringes later on. It would seem logical to just issue two watches with different criteria, especially when the ceiling is so high. I mean this isn't a 5-7" storm with no wind. Some areas could feasibly see north of 14" especially if convective elements and banding play out, in addition to wind concerns that flirt with blizzard criteria. Their reasoning is probably confidence based as stated, but imo, with this storm that may not be the best approach. Best to just get the word out, you can always modify the watches later on.

and the para. Essentially in lock step with the operational.