Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

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

January 30-February 1 Winter Storm


Hoosier
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, cyclone77 said:

DVN going with 7:1-10:1 LSR for the cwa which sound pretty solid.  I will say that LSRs could be briefly much higher in the first enhanced band.  Wouldn't be surprised to see large flakes with that add up very quickly.  Gonna ride the 6-8" call but wouldn't be surprised if totals are more than that, especially a bit northeast of here.

its your magnet this winter. what's your current snowpack and what's the highest you can remember?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

06z EPS expanded the areal coverage of 6"+ probs versus its previous 3 runs. Higher than normal confidence continues at this lead. Barring any last minute surprises, which seems unlikely, we'll be going with a warning this afternoon. While our far southern CWA could have ptype issue and less snow, think chances are decreasing that they don't get several hours of heavy snow with the intense warm advection burst.

Regarding our snow forecast, felt pretty comfortable with it, even limited WPC QPF slightly 00z-06z in our grids and kept ratio mostly 7-9:1 range, with spots near 10:1. Unlike the last system, it does look like unimpeded Gulf trajectories and very strong moisture transport this time with extreme PWATs for a snow system. 20afb168890a4d302fcaf7a35b1ab345.jpg

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be using the snow depth change depiction of snow totals on the south end just north of the rain/snow line.  For example the HRRR has Bloomington getting 6.2" but only a snow depth change of 2.3".  Showing that most of that snowfall is either going to be melting on contact or having a tough time accumulating due to existing rainfall.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, McHenrySnow said:

Certainly drier in NE IL/NW IN. 

Do you think the drying trend on the 12Z NAM makes sense? Or would you side with the more agreesive 3K version? When you say drier can you post totals say as compared to last nights 00Z run compared to the current 12Z run. Thanks, I'm interested to see how steep the drop off is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Baum said:

Do you think the drying trend on the 12Z NAM makes sense? Or would you side with the more agreesive 3K version? When you say drier can you post totals say as compared to last nights 00Z run compared to the current 12Z run. Thanks, I'm interested to see how steep the drop off is.

I don't think the gap in QPF makes a lot of sense. Would like to see the other models 12z runs to see if this is clearly an outlier or if there is a trend among all of the models. 

Screen Shot 2021-01-29 at 8.40.46 AM.png

Screen Shot 2021-01-29 at 8.41.23 AM.png

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the convective allowing nested model seems to be handling things well in a pretty convective setup given such steep lapse rates, if anything can give it more weight than the parent model. Liquid equivalent QPF amounts on the NAM aren't too far off what the consensus has been, I guess we'll have to watch for an earlier weakening of the warm advection burst for far northern areas, but like@McHenrySnow said, that seems to be an outlier depiction in there.

 

Not overly concerned with a slightly off looking run of the NAM. If both NAMs came in drier, would have been a bit more concerned. Another thing is with QPF so fickle, a look under the hood at the soundings and other aspects to support the heavy snow rates would help.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RCNYILWX said:

When the convective allowing nested model seems to be handling things well in a pretty convective setup given such steep lapse rates, if anything can give it more weight than the parent model. Liquid equivalent QPF amounts on the NAM aren't too far off what the consensus has been, I guess we'll have to watch for an earlier weakening of the warm advection burst for far northern areas. If both NAMs came in drier, would have been more concerned.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 

Agreed. Though there does appear to be legitimate concerns across Indiana from both. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...