Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,606
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    ArlyDude
    Newest Member
    ArlyDude
    Joined

February 21st - 23rd Winter Storm Part 2


Powerball

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 840
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Still thinking 2.0" here in Battle Creek... despite what models are showing, I'm going with history of this winter on this one.

Seems like this winter has brought out the downer in a lot of folks. At some point it should be more about this particular setup and not what has happened so far this winter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Higher end amounts aren't completely off the table but at this point I don't think there's enough evidence to go with them. 1) it's very unclear that we will be able to hold off mixing and 2) even if it's predominantly snow during the heavier precip, ratios would probably be terrible (maybe even less than 10:1?). So I think these factors preclude going with 4" or more that some runs have been advertising.

Well my post was in reference to Mottster's 2-3 for LAF. That's top end/best case IMO. Going to be a lot of mixing so close to the edge. Good to see the GFS bump QPF for us though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like this winter has brought out the downer in a lot of folks. At some point it should be more about this particular setup and not what has happened so far this winter.

I agree 100%... I am not being a "downer" by any means. When I said "History" of this winter, I meant the overall pattern of this winter thus far.

I certainly do hope this system over-preforms for south central lower Michigan, but I really don't think it will for several reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Noticed the NAm showing some lake enhancement along the WI shoreline but with low inversion heights and ESE flow cant really see it amounting to much.

 

As the low moves closer those inversion heights will rise. Only need a delta T of 10°C to get enhancement. There's been lake flurries here on an off this morning. Atmosphere must be moist to around the 850mb level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well my post was in reference to Mottster's 2-3 for LAF. That's top end/best case IMO. Going to be a lot of mixing so close to the edge. Good to see the GFS bump QPF for us though.

I know, I'm just throwing my thoughts out there. I like the 1.5-2.5" range for us. If it's predominantly snow then that could be about an inch too low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No way that's a blend. He should know better that's not going to happen and not show it.

 

He said a blend for sure. The next map was the RPM and that was even higher.  I was around 8" on that, so this was his more "conservative" map, lol.

 

3-7", Hoosier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the low moves closer those inversion heights will rise. Only need a delta T of 10°C to get enhancement. There's been lake flurries here on an off this morning. Atmosphere must be moist to around the 850mb level.

The setup is pretty mediocre as the inversion stays below 850mb until 0z Sat when the inversion begins to lift but by that time winds are out of the SW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was kind of being serious...i wonder if it's some kind of in-house short-range hi-res blend which tend to run wet.  The RAP has been going full weenie over Chicago for a few runs now.

 

I guess we won't know until it gets here. The blend is wet, imo. That RAP radar... been burned on that before.

 

Differences between the GGEM maps Hawkeye posted is significantly different around here. Looks like messy early AM rush hour.

 

Edit: That WGN map above is the NWS in house model. Probably what the HPC is using.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...