Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

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

Superbowl Snowstorm Thread Part 3


TugHillMatt

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 987
  • Created
  • Last Reply
AREA FORECAST DISCUSSION  NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE CHICAGO/ROMEOVILLE IL  347 AM CST SUN FEB 1 2015     SHORT TERM    347 AM CST    THROUGH MONDAY...  ...POSSIBLY TRANSITIONING OVER TO JUST DRIZZLE/SNIZZLE AS MID   LEVEL DRY SLOT OVERSPREADS THAT AREA REMOVING ICE NUCLEI FROM THE   CLOUDS LATE THIS AFTERNOON INTO THIS EVENING....  IZZI  

Izzi just used the us weenie made up word 'SNIZZLE'  :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

snow is really dry, temps around 20...ratios seem to be fairly high. I would not be surprised to see a 20 inch amount across the area especially toward Detroit.

At least the dry air didn't win out like normal.  This first wave is usually all destroyed and mostly Virga.  It was nice to wake with it actually snowing and at least some accumulation on the ground.

 

Still hard to believe this trend but now I am beginning to believe it going to be a big one!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least the dry air didn't win out like normal. This first wave is usually all destroyed and mostly Virga. It was nice to wake with it actually snowing and at least some accumulation on the ground.

Still hard to believe this trend but now I am beginning to believe it going to be a big one!

I agree. I was expecting a period of Virgo but no it's happening!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't fone outside but doesn't actually look like much has happened since I went to sleep. Dry air over the south side perhaps?

 

 

I measured ~3" a few minutes back. IIRC, overnight point was 2-4 so we are right on track, especially this far east in the CWA. We struggled with some persistent subsidence north of the enhanced band near IKK but better broad lift is starting to push in now as we enter the meat of the system and we'll see rates jump as temps drop and the deformation band takes shape. I'd look for an additional 8"-10" on top of what has already fallen. Good luck down there. Hope Baum makes bank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I measured ~3" a few minutes back. IIRC, overnight point was 2-4 so we are right on track, especially this far east in the CWA. We struggled with some persistent subsidence north of the enhanced band near IKK but better broad lift is starting to push in now as we enter the meat of the system and we'll see rates jump as temps drop and the deformation band takes shape. I'd look for an additional 8"-10" on top of what has already fallen. Good luck down there. Hope Baum makes bank.

Doin well. Everything still looks on track.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

FROM DTX:

 

A FEW MORE IMPORTANT ITEMS TO DISCUSS. 1. VERY COLD SURFACE

TEMPERATURES IN THE TEENS DURING THE HEIGHT OF THE EVENT THIS

EVENING. AS A RESULT...SALT PREPERATION WILL LIKELY HAVE LITTLE

IMPACT ON TREATING SURFACES. 2. LOW CONFIDENCE IN SNOWFALL RATIOS.

GENERALLY DO NOT LIKE TO FORECAST VERY HIGH RATIOS NORTH OF 15:1 IN

WINTER STORM SCENARIOS. THE REASON IS WIND WILL LIKELY LEAD TO

CRYSTAL FRACTURE AND SETTLING. COULD ALSO SEE A 10:1 BIAS IN

ACCUMULATION REPORTING BECAUSE OF THE BLOWING OF SNOW/REQUIRED

ESTIMATION. 3. WILL REITERATE ONE MORE TIME THE HEIGHT OF THE EVENT

IS EXPECTED THIS EVENING AND MAY TEST SOME PATIENCE DUE TO POSSIBLE

HEADLINE FATIGUE.

 

Got to love #3 as it was written right to us weenies ... :lol:

 

Little OT on the part I bolded.  This must be the reason several storms when I lived just a few miles from the DTX office that my snow measurements were typically higher than the DTX office with the bigger storms.  I NEVER used a 10:1 ratio just because it was windy.  WTF is up with that.  If this is truly a 'Required estimation' rule then Boston & eastern MA didn't just get a 2'-3' Blizzard because their liquid equivalent was not even close to 2.4"-3.6" QPF.  Bostons liquid equivalent was just over 1"  (1.06" I believe)  Based on this DTX 'Required estimation' rule with it seriously windy in Boston during the Blizzard they should have used 10:1 ratios.  Ahhhhh NO... I don't think so!  They had around 25:1 ratios.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got to love #3 as it was written right to us weenies ... :lol:

 

Little OT on the part I bolded.  This must be the reason several storms when I lived just a few miles from the DTX office that my snow measurements were typically higher than the DTX office with the bigger storms.  I NEVER used a 10:1 ratio just because it was windy.  WTF is up with that.  If this is truly a 'Required estimation' rule then Boston & eastern MA didn't just get a 2'-3' Blizzard because their liquid equivalent was not even close to 2.4"-3.6" QPF.  Bostons liquid equivalent was just over 1"  (1.06" I believe)  Based on this DTX 'Required estimation' rule with it seriously windy in Boston during the Blizzard they should have used 10:1 ratios.  Ahhhhh NO... I don't think so!  They had around 25:1 ratios.

I think they were referring to spotters may estimate, not they themselves at DTX lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they were referring to spotters may estimate, not they themselves at DTX lol

I will send you a quick PM so not to fill this thread about this so called" BLOWING OF SNOW/REQUIRED ESTIMATION" rule.  No need to make a pointless discussion about something we can't go back a prove one way or another.

 

EDIT: Never mind your PM is full.

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...