Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,916
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    simbasad2
    Newest Member
    simbasad2
    Joined

March 11-12th Winter Storm Part 2


Chicago Storm

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 918
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  On 3/11/2014 at 3:43 AM, Hoosier said:

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.

 

Yep. A blend is probably a solid call right now. Certainly looks like 6"+ amounts into Chicago are looking more likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 3/11/2014 at 3:42 AM, RJSnowLover said:

Where's RC, our resident LOT member? I'd say he's literally flipping coins for this forecast.

Honestly while it's fun to look at all this stuff don't envy the tough decisions that will have to be made. At least with the system being onshore observational trends will be a bigger part of the forecast process. I continue to think that the globals have been a bit too far south and meager with cold sector qpf. Being farther northwest fits the conceptual model of these types of systems. We'll see if the bump north on the GFS this run continues at 6z. On the other hand, the NAM is probably still overdoing it a bit. I said 3-6" earlier for the Chicago metro, think I'll bump that to 4-7" locally 8" and if the NAM continues to show the huge snows at 6z and 12z tomorrow it really could be onto something. We'll see.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 3/11/2014 at 4:00 AM, Thundersnow12 said:

Victor Gensini's thoughts, "GFS is having issues with the convection to the southeast of the surface low. This is revealed in the low-level PV fields. I am betting that later GFS runs will strengthen and slide further northwest."

 

That's kind of what I was thinking with the Euro.  Looked odd to have a compact blob of high qpf so close to the low, with very little up in the main cold sector precip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 3/11/2014 at 4:00 AM, Thundersnow12 said:

Victor Gensini's thoughts, "GFS is having issues with the convection to the southeast of the surface low. This is revealed in the low-level PV fields. I am betting that later GFS runs will strengthen and slide further northwest."

 

Yeah, it's pretty obvious something fishy's going on with that spurious blob of QPF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Went back to the 21z SREF mean. Removed all ARW members (showing 20-30"), removed all NMM members (showing DAB-2") and we're left with a mean of 9.8". Think that's entirely reasonable at this point and I'll bump my call for YYZ to 7-11".

 

Even if the stingier RGEM verified probably would still get into the low end of my range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 3/11/2014 at 4:10 AM, Chicago WX said:

Changeover timing remains the wild card, but I think I like 3-5" for LAF. Small potatoes, relative to what others may get, but still pretty decent for here. If nothing else, I like my chances of getting past 70" for the season.

 

 

Ya think?  lol

 

I think I'll wait til tomorrow to update my call but would anticipate a bump upward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 3/11/2014 at 4:00 AM, Thundersnow12 said:

Victor Gensini's thoughts, "GFS is having issues with the convection to the southeast of the surface low. This is revealed in the low-level PV fields. I am betting that later GFS runs will strengthen and slide further northwest."

Good to read his thoughts on this. Does he think the NAM is still overdoing it some?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking over things one of the differences between the NAM and the GFS is how they handle the northern stream. The GFS is farther east with the northern stream, thus a later phase.

 

For example, at 36hrs the NAM is already negative tilt with the wave within the trough, while the GFS is still neutral tilt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The RGEM coming in less amped (compared to the NAM) is a bit surprising, and maybe a bit concerning when it comes to rooting for a more amped up system.  It usually gets pretty amped up similar to the NAM with a dynamic system like this.  The fact that it's pretty meager relative to the NAM is of some concern..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 3/11/2014 at 4:14 AM, Hoosier said:

Ya think?  lol

 

I think I'll wait til tomorrow to update my call but would anticipate a bump upward.

 

Hey, you never know...but yeah. :D

 

Really need kind of an overachiever to get to my predicted 75". Let's hope...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 3/11/2014 at 4:15 AM, cyclone77 said:

The RGEM coming in less amped (compared to the NAM) is a bit surprising, and maybe a bit concerning when it comes to rooting for a more amped up system.  It usually gets pretty amped up similar to the NAM with a dynamic system like this.  The fact that it's pretty meager relative to the NAM is of some concern..

 

 

Yeah I believe SSC mentioned this earlier.  They are often holding hands in that regard.

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...