Jump to content

McHenrySnow

Meteorologist
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    576

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by McHenrySnow

  1. McHenrySnow
    This shows the actual storm total best as the "total" accums add an inch to inch and a half across much of northern LOT from tonights snow.
  2. McHenrySnow
    Midnight or so.
  3. McHenrySnow
    They'll issue one in the morning, little doubt about that.
  4. McHenrySnow
    Oh, certainly not. Well, I hope the 6-8" across N IL verifies and, even though it's been an Iowa winter, there's no chance 30" falls.
  5. McHenrySnow
    GEM drops 30" in S Central Iowa and then peters out to 6-8" across N IL.
  6. McHenrySnow
    Well, I certainly can't argue that the new GFS is better.
  7. McHenrySnow
    Has the Para ever been correct? I mean, I think it has gotten better, but it's still been pretty awful.
  8. McHenrySnow
    The one we need, certainly, but not the one we'll get.
  9. McHenrySnow
    We've only had 50% of the snow we should have had to date. I understand your agony and I know you'd be thrilled to have what little I've seen, but considering the climate differences, not a big difference. We've both had a bad winter. This may change things our way here and there is still time for you guys further south. Biggest snowstorm I've been in was March 4-5, 2015 in Kentucky.
  10. McHenrySnow
    I never expected a watch before tomorrow morning. LOT is usually more conservative than both DVN and MKX and I think tomorrow morning is plenty of time.
  11. McHenrySnow
    Yep, seems models are being a little more generous tonight/early tomorrow in N IL.
  12. McHenrySnow
    As I said, I like the trend. Said it so many times.
  13. McHenrySnow
    Couldn’t agree more.
  14. McHenrySnow
    Their harassment started long before my tag, but thanks for the input.
  15. McHenrySnow
    Be prepared to be piled on, but you’re used to it, I know.
  16. McHenrySnow
    He said no models substantiated what I had said and that was not true. ive acknowledged a good trend, I’m just being cautious. I’m sorry I can’t lend myself to weenie forecasting that suits you.
  17. McHenrySnow
    There is a concern with shear and unlike lake and cook, inland counties won’t benefit much if at all from the lake. There is absolutely nothing wrong about this statement.
  18. McHenrySnow
    Am I writing in a foreign language? Or do you guys not bother to read. Where did I say I’m choosing one model over the other. I’ve repeatedly said my expectations have increased and I’m not worried about getting completely shafted like I once was.
  19. McHenrySnow
    You must be unaware of the NAM or RGEM. You must also have poor reading comprehension as I have repeated acknowledged trends are looking better. I’m not responding to you from here on out, you’re a troll.
  20. McHenrySnow
    Rockford almost always manages to do well no matter. Several models show a lower area of totals over Boone and McHenry due to the low shearing out and then the lake compensating for Lake and Cook. I’d be very happy with 6”, and, as I said, I’m becoming cautiously optimistic.
  21. McHenrySnow
    Nothing I said was unsubstantiated.
  22. McHenrySnow
    I’m really over your constant harassment.
  23. McHenrySnow
    Cautiously optimistic. Believe me, I would love to be proven wrong and northern LOT counties get at least 6", but I'm not sold. Lake County has the best shot, of course, thanks to lake enhancement/effect. I'd feel more comfortable if I lived 30 miles south.
  24. McHenrySnow
    Oh, that was a nightmare. Please don't ever speak of it again! ha
  25. McHenrySnow
    I graduated with Kluber. We lived on the same hall in our freshmen dorm and were pretty good friends.
×
×
  • Create New...