Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

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

Feb 1-3rd GHD III Part 2


Chicago Storm
 Share

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, RCNYILWX said:

It's basically nowcast time, in terms of position of key features, with the short range/high resolution guidance used as a tool. You can check obs and radar vs the hourly RAP/HRRR runs. Can also check the short range forecasts of the globals vs obs and radar to have an idea which one has a more correct trend for tonight.

SPC mesoanalysis will be a good place to check the position of maximum low and mid level f-gen. For the gradient area in Northern Illinois, frontal timing and position, how quickly the dry HP is building, and positioning of the surface frontal trough post fro-pa are all very important to whether we over or underperform. This is in addition to radar trends for mesoscale banding position and orientation.


 

Do you have any thoughts on the lake enhancement potential in the area?  I don't want to say the parameters are God awful the whole time, but... lol

Inversion height get pretty shallow at times, like 4k feet with considerable drying just above.  Sufficient delta T up to that level though.  Seems like the most aggressive guidance may be overdone.  Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, michsnowfreak said:

 Thanks. I will say this about DTX warning, they still talk about Thursday. Which is really looking more like a graze job of light snow.  This is all gonna be about tomorrow and it's gonna come down to the ratios. Pretty solid model agreement, give or take some noise, on about 1.20" qpf with about an inch falling as snow.  Temperatures will be steadily dropping as the storm progresses.

My warning ends at 7AM Thursday so they at least are including it in my warning (now we need a north trend :weenie:).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like the rest of the day will be spent comparing the zero-hour observed SLP charts with the zero-hour 'forecast' charts from the RAP on the SPC mesoanalysis pages, latching on to every pixel looking for a northward trend...

Horrendous (and yet somewhat fond) memories of doing this same thing years ago, only to find out (surprise surprise) the most-realistic weather models were right all along

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Chicago Storm said:

A lot of that has to do with less overlapping with both main rounds as well.

Yes indeed.  Mentioned that last night.  This isn't really a case of the models simply being too wet just because.  The evolution of key features changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Stevo6899 said:

So you're saying you werent buying to 30+ kuchera amounts the gfs was spittin out like 48 hrs ago?

Well anything is possible, but how likely was it really for a 125-year storm to occur, especially with a synoptic mess of a system? Plus, since we've all been tracking weather, how often have we seen storms unravel (slowly or rapidly) before their onset?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Powerball said:

I'm just waiting for the "nowcasting time!" posts.

 

5 minutes ago, michsnowfreak said:

You can still easily get 11-15 on 1" qpf. It's basically now cast time.

 

I had 1.08" on 16.5" Feb 1/2, 2015

@Baum

There it is! Just like old times. :lol:

(just messing with you michsnowfreak)

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Powerball said:

Well anything is possible, but how likely was it really for a 125-year storm to occur, especially with a synoptic mess of a system? Plus, since we've all been tracking weather, how often have we seen storms unravel (slowly or rapidly) before their onset?

Hoosier did bring up a good point though.  It's not so much that the unanimous drying of the models was to be expected. I mean yes 30+ totals were unrealistic. But the fact that each wave is going to primarily hit different areas with just a little bit of overlap is why this is turning into more of a widespread big snowstorm instead of a more narrow corridor of historic snowstorm.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Powerball said:

Well anything is possible, but how likely was it really for a 125-year storm to occur, especially with a synoptic mess of a system? Plus, since we've all been tracking weather, how often have we seen storms unravel (slowly or rapidly) before their onset?

Well the two part of it made up the the messy low pressure main show. Either way its a bummer for us and areas to our sw that looked prime for 20+. Thats been the trend recently, weaker/se.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, michsnowfreak said:

Hoosier did bring up a good point though.  It's not so much that the unanimous drying of the models was to be expected. I mean yes 30+ totals were unrealistic. But the fact that each wave is going to primarily hit different areas with just a little bit of overlap is why this is turning into more of a widespread big snowstorm instead of a more narrow corridor of historic snowstorm.

Bingo!!

While historic would be wonderful there is a reason they are historic.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Stevo6899 said:

Well the two part of it made up the the messy low pressure main show. Either way its a bummer for us and areas to our sw that looked prime for 20+. Thats been the trend recently, weaker/se.

Exactly.  Wave 1 looks great!!  Wave 2 without a NW trend is almost out of the picture for SE MI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, michsnowfreak said:

Hoosier did bring up a good point though.  It's not so much that the unanimous drying of the models was to be expected. I mean yes 30+ totals were unrealistic. But the fact that each wave is going to primarily hit different areas with just a little bit of overlap is why this is turning into more of a widespread big snowstorm instead of a more narrow corridor of historic snowstorm.

I saw that post

But even if all of the upper level ingredients did come together, there was in all likelihood going to be issues on a mesoscale level that the global models wouldn't pick up on until we were near the onset that would prevent such an extreme outcome (such as moisture transport being disrupted, wake subsidence from each of the subtle shortwaves, and the best area of forcing being a lot more narrow/transitory, etc.).

I mean, the idea (according to the late last week / weekend model runs) was there would be a 1000-mile long conveyor belt of moderate/heavy snow over 100 miles in width that lasted 36 hours in any one location. It seems too good to be true when I put it that way.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18Z HRRR has really increased total precip amounts from UIN to PIA with the first event when compared with 12z but for some reason it doesn't continue NE from PIA

1.06 to 1.59 at PIA due to a slightly  more NW placement of an intense band and has 20 inches right over the city

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, fluoronium said:

It's beautiful outside now. Most of my best storms in recent years have started with anomalously warm temps the day before the main event.

HRRR is suggesting some heavy banding further west in central IL. Peoria area posters would like this scenario. :weenie:

Also showing impressive banding just to my west with 20 inch totals in northern Porter and LaPorte. 20 inches may not be realistic...but a good indication someone will get buried under good banding.

Edit: Might be some lake enhancement there, too?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Powerball said:

Well anything is possible, but how likely was it really for a 125-year storm to occur, especially with a synoptic mess of a system? Plus, since we've all been tracking weather, how often have we seen storms unravel (slowly or rapidly) before their onset?

We've been getting 100-year floods more frequently and winter storms have also gone up in precipitable values. Statistically speaking, probably no longer once-a-125-year event. 

  • 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...