I’m noticing that the snowiest solution over the past few days seems to have the low further south over Oklahoma, instead of further south/west over the Texas Panhandle.
18z AIFS is a step up for precip amounts, with ≈0.8” for the richmond area, but the resolution is bad so can’t comment on temperatures, ptype, or much really. Especially without soundings.
They’re only as good as the data we put in. We’re launching the same 2 weather balloons per day, and it’s the vertical data that’s tricky. I can absolutely see why the uncertainty is as high as it is at times even today.
Again, the data out in the ocean isn’t really there to be fed into the models at this point. Once the energy gets over land and the models have that information down, then I’ll throw in the towel.
Wasn’t the NAM really good for that one? It was consistently on an island of its own showing 10”+. Makes me want the NAM now.
Definitely a good feel right now, but a little doubt too.
This just seems like the typical evolution of cold events. I tend to think models sometimes overdo cold at long range and it gets more reasonable the closer we get to the arrival of the cold air.
What does under-dispersion mean? Is it just what you describe where it’s too similar to the OP? I guess it isn’t making enough tweaks for each different outcome?
I can’t be too down if we’re seeing fantasy storms. I can’t remember seeing too many of those in recent years. If it means I need to drive up a hill to see some snow, I’ll do it. As long as it’s cold.