Geos Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 GFS weak, south so far. 2.5" here or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago Storm Posted March 11, 2014 Author Share Posted March 11, 2014 Nice jump north on the 0z GFS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radioman Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 HR 27 it's a bit W of STL and it pretty much moves it due east. Seems a bit odd how a strengthening low would move that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago WX Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 On 3/11/2014 at 3:38 AM, Hoosier said: I'd really hate to be forecasting for Chicagoland right now if the NAM remains an outlier. Well, we'll put you in the hot seat. It's already 2 against 1...which side are you taking? Though probably not a fair call, because the NAM went full nuke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huronicane Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 On 3/11/2014 at 3:39 AM, Geos said: GFS weak, south so far. 2.5" here or so. On 3/11/2014 at 3:39 AM, Chicago Storm said: Nice jump north on the 0z GFS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoosier Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 On 3/11/2014 at 3:39 AM, Geos said: GFS weak, south. On 3/11/2014 at 3:39 AM, Chicago Storm said: Nice jump north on the 0z GFS. Gotta love the ol simultaneous contradictory posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerball Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 On 3/11/2014 at 3:39 AM, Geos said: GFS weak, south so far. 2.5" here or so. On 3/11/2014 at 3:40 AM, Radioman said: HR 27 it's a bit W of STL and it pretty much moves it due east. Seems a bit odd how a strengthening low would move that way. On 3/11/2014 at 3:39 AM, Chicago Storm said: Nice jump north on the 0z GFS. So which is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowstormcanuck Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 By 42 the difference in track becomes less noticeable. However, it's a few mb deeper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geos Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 3", 3.5" tops on the GFS for anyone in Cook County. http://www.instantweathermaps.com/GFS-php/showmap-conussfc.php?run=2014031100&time=PER&var=ASNOWI&hour=039 It would fit the WSW nicely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radioman Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 It's south of the NAM but north of the 18z GFS. Out towards IL that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJSnowLover Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Where's RC, our resident LOT member? I'd say he's literally flipping coins for this forecast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzardof96 Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 On 3/11/2014 at 3:42 AM, snowstormcanuck said: By 42 the difference in track becomes less noticeable. However, it's a few mb deeper. Definitely ups QPF in the GTA. Its a 10-12" run as opposed to 7-9" on the 18z run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoosier Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 On 3/11/2014 at 3:40 AM, Chicago WX said: Well, we'll put you in the hot seat. It's already 2 against 1...which side are you taking? Tough call. Probably neither as I think the globals could be a bit south and not strong enough with the frontogenesis band but it's hard to go all in with the NAM. Heck even toning down the NAM would still be a nice warning criteria event for Chicago proper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago Storm Posted March 11, 2014 Author Share Posted March 11, 2014 0z 4KM NAM... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebo Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 On 3/11/2014 at 3:39 AM, Geos said: GFS weak, south so far. 2.5" here or so. On 3/11/2014 at 3:39 AM, Chicago Storm said: Nice jump north on the 0z GFS. Lol yep model watching at its finest. GFS definitely is a bit north of the 18z. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago WX Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 0z crazy Uncle at 36 and 48 hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloWeather Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 NAM: RGEM: GFS: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerball Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 On 3/11/2014 at 3:45 AM, Chicago WX said: 0z crazy Uncle at 36 and 48 hours. 3:11 0z UK 36.gif 3:11 0z UK 48.gif lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowstormcanuck Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Definitely an increase in QPF at YYZ. In the 0.7-0.8" but a far cry from the NAM. Still suspicious of that blob of convection over IN that shows up around 30h but even still, I think I'd shy away from the NAM solution attm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundersnow12 Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Skilling liking 14:1 ratios Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ottawa Blizzard Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 On 3/11/2014 at 3:47 AM, snowstormcanuck said: Definitely an increase in QPF at YYZ. In the 0.7-0.8" but a far cry from the NAM. Still suspicious of that blob of convection over IN that shows up around 30h but even still, I think I'd shy away from the NAM solution attm. Think we could possibly get 8-10"? Right now I'm sticking with 4-6". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radioman Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 ukie is def. n of 12z, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago WX Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 0z GFS still pretty good for DTW and YYZ. I'd hit it if I were you guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geos Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 On 3/11/2014 at 3:45 AM, Stebo said: Lol yep model watching at its finest. GFS definitely is a bit north of the 18z. Should have said the heaviest snow axis remains south. --- 4km NAM has concrete snow for Chicago until like 1am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerball Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Based on the trends, I'm adjusting my final call to 6-10" for Detroit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowstormcanuck Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 On 3/11/2014 at 3:50 AM, Chicago WX said: 0z GFS still pretty good for DTW and YYZ. I'd hit it if I were you guys. 3:11 0z GFS snow.gif Like a pinata. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmc76 Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 On 3/11/2014 at 3:51 AM, Powerball said: Based on the trends, I'm adjusting my final call to 6-10" for Detroit. 5-10" call I made earlier is going up to 6-12" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indystorm Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Liking a call at present for 8 inches here in Michiana by blending overzealous NAM and more reasonable GFS and adding a dash of Stebo's comments that it is March and we could get good rates with t snow and banding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJSnowLover Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 I don't know how to feel. GFS hasn't budged all too much, while the NAM is running Super Mario Bros. right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowstormcanuck Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 On 3/11/2014 at 3:49 AM, Ottawa Blizzard said: Think we could possibly get 8-10"? Right now I'm sticking with 4-6". Blending the RGEM and GFS that yields about 0.6-0.7" QPF. I think 8" or so is doable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.