Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

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

February 4-5th Winter Storm Part 2


Chicago Storm

Recommended Posts

Oy vey...how do these guys stay on air?

Phil is pretty good chi town broadcast met. He'll go out on a limb and incorporate some real meteorology in his forecasts for Chicago folks. No brant miller, Taft.....et al for a TV met. ...must be swallowing the NAM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 962
  • Created
  • Last Reply

In my experience once the nam comes into the picture, so 72h to 84h out, it is a pretty good rule to take a track halfway between the NAM and EURO and you are probably gonna be pretty close to the actual result. NAM is usually NW, while the others are too far SE. In this case that would take the low between Cincinnati and Dayton. We will see how it pans out, but that is my early call.

 

 

IIRC the NAM was too far south with the current storm in the beginning before going way north, only to settle back south again. 

 

Normally I look at the NAM as garbage beyond 24hrs, but it seems like at least once a winter it nails something from the beginning.  Hopefully this is that storm lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time to write this one off as nothing more than a nuisance snow.

 

 

If there was a model consensus of like 1-3", maybe, but it's right on the cusp of being something pretty big.  Maybe it won't feel like it though with how snowy this year has been in a lot of areas. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the 0z GFS is southeast and a bit weaker. 

 

I am having a very hard time buying the track of the surface low with the track of the vort energy. The confluence is a bit north of the border ( not cutting across Maine as we typically see when systems eject out of the sw and take the track the GFS shows ) as the current system should be well out of the way. Regardless either the vort energy track is off or the surface low track is.

 

Probably wont know for certain till this thing reaches the S.CA coast and gets sampled. Thus i would not get too comfortable yet with any model no matter if you live in KY/OH or IA/WI and everywhere in between. JMHO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am having a very hard time buying the track of the surface low with the track of the vort energy. The confluence is a bit north of the border ( not cutting across Maine as we typically see when systems eject out of the sw and take the track the GFS shows ) as the current system should be well out of the way. Regardless either the vort energy track is off or the surface low track is.

 

Probably wont know for certain till this thing reaches the S.CA coast and gets sampled. Thus i would not get too comfortable yet with any model no matter if you live in KY/OH or IA/WI and everywhere in between. JMHO

 

I don't think anyone is comfortable with any one solution right now. But, it's the NAM against the world right now. Maybe a compromise, to an extent, is the best call at this point.  

 

Personally, I'd rather avoid the ones that show me mixing. You know? ;)  :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...