Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

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

Frontogenesis/Baroclinic zone induced snows


snowstormcanuck

Recommended Posts

Big uptick from the 0.5" of QPF it had at 12z. Now all 3 major models(GFS/EC/UKM) have 20-30cm for the GTA. Still concerned about a north shift given some movement in that direction from the OPs/ENS members though synoptically it would make sense that it would trend S if anything.

 

Synoptically this setup reminds me of some of the late winter/early spring snow/ice storms we've had in the past. I'm thinking April 2003, March 2007, and April 2013. Models in the day 2-4 range generally kept the stationary front too deep into the arctic air. With GFS progging sub -30c 850 temps over QC, this is surely an arctic high that has the potential to push the boundary further south. Furthermore, we don't have a strong upper level disturbance which would induce a strong WAA response and force the front back to the north.

 

I'm cautiously optimistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 545
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Synoptically this setup reminds me of some of the late winter/early spring snow/ice storms we've had in the past. I'm thinking April 2003, March 2007, and April 2013. Models in the day 2-4 range generally kept the stationary front too deep into the arctic air. With GFS progging sub -30c temps over QC, this is surely an arctic high that has the potential to push the boundary further south. Furthermore, we don't have a strong upper level disturbance which would induce a strong WAA response and force the front back to the north.

I'm cautiously optimistic.

If you go back and look at the last 8 runs or so of the GFS, it's been very consistent with the placement of the snow band. Besides the mets on the NE forum say that the n trend has most likely ceased. Here's hoping!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Synoptically this setup reminds me of some of the late winter/early spring snow/ice storms we've had in the past. I'm thinking April 2003, March 2007, and April 2013. Models in the day 2-4 range generally kept the stationary front too deep into the arctic air. With GFS progging sub -30c 850 temps over QC, this is surely an arctic high that has the potential to push the boundary further south. Furthermore, we don't have a strong upper level disturbance which would induce a strong WAA response and force the front back to the north.

 

I'm cautiously optimistic.

 

Great points. Hopefully the synoptic pattern rules the day over volatile ensemble members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you go back and look at the last 8 runs or so of the GFS, it's been very consistent with the placement of the snow band. Besides the mets on the NE forum say that the n trend has most likely ceased. Here's hoping!

 

Cool. I don't frequent that subforum anymore. Thanks for the info.

 

Once we get the placement down pat we can start to focus on amounts. It's a long-fused event, but I believe 72 hr amounts of 12-16" are possible wherever the best f-gen banding/elevated instability sets up and overlaps over the course of the three events. Problem is that's going to be such a narrow corridor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something else to consider will be the LE potential along the W end of Lk On. The 18z GFS has flow just over 90 degrees from 0z Sun-0z Mon with good enough parameters(∆t's,saturation,strength of LL flow and inversion heights) to get a band developing from the Lk shore through the West end and perhaps towards midtown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something else to consider will be the LE potential along the W end of Lk On. The 18z GFS has flow just over 90 degrees from 0z Sun-0z Mon with good enough parameters(∆t's,saturation,strength of LL flow and inversion heights) to get a band developing from the Lk shore through the West end and perhaps towards midtown.

 

Inversion heights improved from 950mb? That's quite low although I've seen some minor stuff with that kind of cap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inversion heights improved from 950mb? That's quite low although I've seen some minor stuff with that kind of cap.

 

No improvements from this morning on either the GFS or NAM. It may not be enough to produce a single death band, but it should be enough to at least add some Lehs to the city via shallow banding. We saw how this ramped up totals significantly in and around YHM with the previous storm despite less than ideal inversion heights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Big uptick from the 0.5" of QPF it had at 12z. Now all 3 major models(GFS/EC/UKM) have 20-30cm for the GTA. Still concerned about a north shift given some movement in that direction from the OPs/ENS members though synoptically it would make sense that it would trend S if anything.

ok, how can I make the snow Gods to move the track south about 150 miles? LOL Good luck to all in the bullseye now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If other 00z models trend this way, then be worried but for now just think it's the NAM.

 

The NAM did pretty well with that last storm along with the UKMET. The ensembles for most of the models were hinting at a more northern track than the OP as well. ATM, I don't think any model is the NAM camp right? We'll see what the other 0z models say. 

 

The strong PV to the north will prevent this storm from going to far north. Its a tight gradient. YYZ riding the line again, haha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol at the nam. Rain for yyz. Temps are forecasted to be like -4 Saturday and -7 Sunday. Oh nam.

 

By 66 it's so aberrant compared to the other models it's tough not to just throw it out. It does have some support from the GEFs though. It'll be interesting to see what the RGEM does in the next half an hour.

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...