Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

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

March 23-24 System


RyanDe680

Recommended Posts

Basically right over me on Wednesday afternoon. Could see it try to wobble north as the sfc low approaches.

 

Yeah it does once it approaches the MS River.

 

Even tighter gradient across northern IL now.

 

namconus_T2m_ncus_20.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 785
  • Created
  • Last Reply

This could(and probably will) end up being pretty embarrassing for GRR calling for 8+ of snow 2 days before and 0" and rain less than a day before the storm. That will throw people for a loop should the GFS and NAM win out vs the EURO.

 

Edit: looks like GRR adjusted the watch to 6+.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This could(and probably will) end up being pretty embarrassing for GRR calling for 8+ of snow 2 days before and 0" and rain less than a day before the storm. That will throw people for a loop should the GFS and NAM win out vs the EURO.

Edit: looks like GRR adjusted the watch to 6+.

But in the end most of the watch would be justified and upgraded based on the freezing rain amounts the nam is putting out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4km NAM stalls the front in northern Cook County.

FWIW it didn't handle the 2.29 front very well.

sfctmw.png

I've been following that all along. Seems to give clues as to how much snow and where. You can see clear cut where snow isn't even a possibility.

Following the dews too could spell some imbedded storms. If cape values get up there could be a fun event

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been following that all along. Seems to give clues as to how much snow and where. You can see clear cut where snow isn't even a possibility.

 

Same here.

I've been watching where the front has to get to get some snow here and of course that is at least Kankakee, preferably Bloomington. Of course that is the EURO and not far behind the GEM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. You guys are way too quick to judge holy crap. Why all the hate with GRR? The point of a watch isto get the word out on possible inclement weather.

They had good reasoning for putting it out and last nights AFD by DTX said they were going to put one out for their Monday Afternoon Package.

 

Point is there is a real chance at some bad weather, people need to know about it. Especially since tomorrow is going to be 60. Might it not happen well duh, thats why it's a watch and not a warning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing to note about the NAM/4km NAM is that they only get mid 50s surface dews up to I-80 at best, so the 500-1000 J/kg CAPE being advertised is occurring in a relatively low dewpoint environment...and it shouldn't be that difficult for mid 50s dews to reach up somewhere into northern IL/IN given the dynamics/low level jet with this system. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. You guys are way too quick to judge holy crap. Why all the hate with GRR? The point of a watch isto get the word out on possible inclement weather.

They had good reasoning for putting it out and last nights AFD by DTX said they were going to put one out for their Monday Afternoon Package.

Point is there is a real chance at some bad weather, people need to know about it. Especially since tomorrow is going to be 60. Might it not happen well duh, thats why it's a watch and not a warning.

No matter on how you try to spin it. It was and will likely be the worst forecast in the history of forecasting. There was NO reason to issue a watch 72 hours before the storm in Michigan. This is not Arkansas. Lol. We can handle snow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No matter on how you try to spin it. It was and will likely be the worst forecast in the history of forecasting. There was NO reason to issue a watch 72 hours before the storm in Michigan. This is not Arkansas. Lol. We can handle snow.

It seems to me that 72 hours is beyond their time-window criteria for winter storm watches. Isn't it usually 48 hours? Honestly, the exact rules on timing of watches/warnings/advisories is confusing to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that 72 hours is beyond their time-window criteria for winter storm watches. Isn't it usually 48 hours? Honestly, the exact rules on timing of watches/warnings/advisories is confusing to me.

Not sure on that, but they issued the watch ~60 hrs before the event so it's not too bad, earlier than normal but this could be a sneaky event for people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GFS is a little bit south so far. 

 

Just north of MCI to GYY now. Ice for Madison and SW WI. 

 

prateptypemw.png

 

acckucherasnowmw.png

Seriously...27 inches...  

The check out lady at Menards was wondering why i was buying a shovel maybe 2 weeks ago and i said winter isn't done yet.  She laughed...  she'll be laughing now when her car is buried in 20 inches of concrete mixer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure on that, but they issued the watch ~60 hrs before the event so it's not too bad, earlier than normal but this could be a sneaky event for people.

Issuing a watch far out is not a terrible thing in and of itself, I think the problem is issuing one beyond even 60 hours in a situation where only one set of guidance supports the scenario the watch was issued for. As I had responded to a question about typical watch issuance protocol, extended lead time watches beyond 48 hours are reserved commonly for very high confidence scenarios. This would mean very good agreement across the guidance and other supporting factors in observations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously...27 inches...  

The check out lady at Menards was wondering why i was buying a shovel maybe 2 weeks ago and i said winter isn't done yet.  She laughed...  she'll be laughing now when her car is buried in 20 inches of concrete mixer.

 

Yeah she's going to regret laughing about that shovel! 

 

The models aren't backing off these 2' amounts.

 

1000mb GEM low over BUF at 72 hours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Issuing a watch far out is not a terrible thing in and of itself, I think the problem is issuing one beyond even 60 hours in a situation where only one set of guidance supports the scenario the watch was issued for. As I had responded to a question about typical watch issuance protocol, extended lead time watches beyond 48 hours are reserved commonly for very high confidence scenarios. This would mean very good agreement across the guidance and other supporting factors in observations.

 

 

RC, any quick thoughts on convective prospects Thursday morning?  Just checked the GFS and it has less CAPE than the NAM/4 km NAM as is often the case.   

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...