Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

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

GL/MW/OV Jan 2011 Discussion


TheWeatherPimp

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 991
  • Created
  • Last Reply

What are your thoughts Baro?

HR 198: Sub 996 MB LOW N. WI

HR 204: Sub 992 MB LOW U.P.

Looks pretty similar to 0z last night excpet it's a tad weaker and a tad farther north.

QPF is also quite a bit smaller this run.

GFS/ECM sounds very similar. I would take something like this any day over the arctic high drooling cold air into the region. This still has potential...and there is some phasing going on here. Could still be even better. I like that nothing major changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are your thoughts Baro?

HR 198: Sub 996 MB LOW N. WI

HR 204: Sub 992 MB LOW U.P.

Looks pretty similar to 0z last night excpet it's a tad weaker and a tad farther north.

QPF is also quite a bit smaller this run.

if that's how the cold get's ushered in, (on a low that far north moving west to east), I'm betting it doesn't penetrate too deeply into the conus....unless another storm can form on the baroclinic zone further south and really wind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just for kicks...192hr 12Z JMA

maybe that trailer on the front in the south will become something. BTW, the jma is identical to the euro wrt the tues event, (precip and low placements)

Do you guys have a link? I have never even looked at it before, the EC folk like to reference every now and then though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Late week next week looks interesting

GFS at 180 hrs has a 999mb low in N MN, with some light to mod precip across the region.

at 192 hours, the low is just N of Lake Superior, and has mod to heavy? precip breaking out across MI, IN, OH and KY. Temps drop as the low passes east, with highs looking to be in the single digits for a couple of days. At hour 228 there is a 1006mb? low WY and MT and at hour 240, well, it's hard to tell what happens next, although it looks quite cold for the MW, GL, and Plains....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the city's weather station 2010 summary,

---------

"The final total was 879.3 mm which is close enough the average of 904.0 mm to say that for the second year in the row we had an average year of precipitation."

"The 77.5 cm of snow we saw during the calendar year of 2010 was about half of the average of 159.5 cm. We didn’t get any measureable snow during March at the UW weather station and you have to back to 1946 to find another March like that."

-----------

With 880mm of precipitation measured and 77.5cm of that being snow...

Does that work out to be 34 inches of precipitation for the entire year, with 30 inches of that being snow, leaving only 4 inches of rain?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the city's weather station 2010 summary,

---------

"The final total was 879.3 mm which is close enough the average of 904.0 mm to say that for the second year in the row we had an average year of precipitation."

"The 77.5 cm of snow we saw during the calendar year of 2010 was about half of the average of 159.5 cm. We didn’t get any measureable snow during March at the UW weather station and you have to back to 1946 to find another March like that."

-----------

With 880mm of precipitation measured and 77.5cm of that being snow...

Does that work out to be 34 inches of precipitation for the entire year, with 30 inches of that being snow, leaving only 4 inches of rain?

:arrowhead:

Snow does not have a 1:1 ratio with its liquid content. 10:1 is a rule of thumb, but it can be lower, and often is higher. Roughly speaking, 77.5cm of snow = 77.5mm of liquid.

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...