Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,611
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    NH8550
    Newest Member
    NH8550
    Joined

March med-long range disco thread 2


WxUSAF

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
35 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

IMG_0799.PNG

thats a nice list. I'll take the top 4 please lol. 3 HECS and a 5-10" area wide storm in 2004.  1993 sprinkled in cause why not. 

One the entire list, there is only one whiff for the DC metro area: 2/12/01. Every other date had wintry precip within a day or two. Two were dry, small events. The rest had at least decent precip. The mid-March events in 1980 and 1984 were similar to each other being snow to ZR events. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

I agree to use them with caution but that list is wow. It says to me this has room to trend more amplified. Many of the storms on that list were monsters. 1983, 1987, 2003, 1993 all in there. Plus some that were too amped and were interior storms more then here like march 1994. There are a few suppressed options though so that is a threat but that list says this has huge upside. 

Yeah,  this reminds me (so far) of 1/25/87 where down south of dca/bwi area jackpoted. I was living in Glen Burnie at the time and got 6+" but still recall stressing about missing the jackpot.  I guess I got spoiled after the big one 3 days earlier. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, eurojosh said:

Why wouldn't this be medium impact, low confidence? 

Ultra conservative play.  I would do the same on a Monday for a Saturday night storm in March.  As you know we have failed much closer to an event than this one.  It's easy to move a check mark around if warranted.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless guidance changes, I don't see how this can have much upside from what's already been advertised. I think we can almost rule out widespread 12" amounts with jackpots exceeding 18" or anything like that. 

No model has shown a phase or anything close to closing off at h5. The upper tier storms are special like that. That could change but so far I don't see much chance of a 1-2 punch or a bowling ball with rapid intensification. The blocking keeps the speed slow enough for a pretty good storm so it's not a progressive quick hitter. But a nasty upper level low like we've seen in the past seems very unlikely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Bob Chill said:

Unless guidance changes, I don't see how this can have much upside from what's already been advertised. I think we can almost rule out widespread 12" amounts with jackpots exceeding 18" or anything like that. 

No model has shown a phase or anything close to closing off at h5. The upper tier storms are special like that. That could change but so far I don't see much chance of a 1-2 punch or a bowling ball with rapid intensification. The blocking keeps the speed slow enough for a pretty good storm so it's not a progressive quick hitter. But a nasty upper level low like we've seen in the past seems very unlikely. 

I didn't feel like eating my Cheerios anyway Bob thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, EastCoast NPZ said:

I guess close, for a time, but that still was a 30+ hour storm.  Big difference in a 16-hour storm.

The vast majority of that snow fell between 5pm and about 3pm the next day from my memory though. So during that time there had to be some crazy rates to get that much. I'm not saying 83 wasn't better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, BTRWx said:

No comment.  I guess they don't have much of a choice.

Agreed.  Plenty of time for guidance to converge.  Personally not convinced the words "Ugh" and "next" won't be used at some point in this journey.  hope not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, leesburg 04 said:

I didn't feel like eating my Cheerios anyway Bob thanks

We haven't been able to eat cheerios for 100 straight days. Just keeping that streak intact...

I'm just pre-emptively striking crazy talk of past monsters unless the setup significantly changes. On a high note for you...right now the odds of you being in the jack is higher than us MD folks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bob Chill said:

We haven't been able to eat cheerios for 100 straight days. Just keeping that streak intact...

I'm just pre-emptively striking crazy talk of past monsters unless the setup significantly changes. On a high note for you...right now the odds of you being in the jack is higher than us MD folks. 

I don't think anyone is expecting 2 feet. I can see an area of 12" though if this maxes out.  Jan 30 2010 is on the list and this could be that type of storm. Hopefully about 50 miles north of that though for my sake. Of course if we get what came after that we will all be good. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

I don't think anyone is expecting 2 feet. I can see an area of 12" though if this maxes out.  Jan 30 2010 is on the list and this could be that type of storm. Hopefully about 50 miles north of that though for my sake. Of course if we get what came after that we will all be good. 

I hope you get bulls-eyed.  You have been a beacon of light for this forum.  Tireless analysis and optimism.  But an area wide paste job would be fun too.  We are at our best when snow is inbound and a lock.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

I don't think anyone is expecting 2 feet. I can see an area of 12" though if this maxes out.  Jan 30 2010 is on the list and this could be that type of storm. Hopefully about 50 miles north of that though for my sake. Of course if we get what came after that we will all be good. 

Jan 30th 2010 cutoff was nasty for sure:

MODIS visible satellite image showing snow cover - click to enlarge

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...