January 12-13 Thread the Needle Snow Event

[buckeye]

Nothing like a late March/ early April trash storm in the heart of winter.   

[Harry Perry]

00z, 06z and 12z GFS all look like complete trash. Nothing really to speak of for anyone in the sub except for maybe an inch or two of slop for DTW. Ontario looks good. 06z Euro holding steady with a swath across I-69, but really local with not much outside of it. Still plenty of time for this system to fall completely of the tracks, which I have a hunch it’ll do. 

[Stevo6899]

3 hours ago, Baum said:

here's the equation: +  =

Your weenie math is off.

[Stevo6899]

Can't ask for a better track for dtw than the 12z euro but as always there's something missing and this time the cold air and deformation band precip. 

[Frog Town]

Euro basically caves to more progressive GFS.  

[Baum]

Time to rename the thread: "Needle meet eye"

[mimillman]

On 1/9/2023 at 6:06 PM, mimillman said:

ORD. This is for DTW

$$$

[Hoosier]

Not sure if it will actually play out this way, but there's like a couple different zones of snow on the models.  Not really a continuous band.

[Hoosier]

27 minutes ago, mimillman said:

$$$

Always count on DTW to score if it's not MSP.

[SnOvechkin]

Perfect track for Ind-Det. Unfortunately as far as models are concerned there is not enough cold air to play with. Probably see snowflakes after rain but will have little to show for it

[Hoosier]

The lake enhanced stuff that we get on the backside may be a top 5 event locally this winter.

[Jackstraw]

23 minutes ago, Hoosier said:

The lake enhanced stuff that we get on the backside may be a top 5 event locally this winter.

That 200 mile long lake enhanced streamer off of lake Michigan is flabbergasting lol

[nwohweather]

NAM is a little more bullish with backend precip and with the southeast trend post sampling I wouldn't be shocked to see 1-2" of accumulation across NW Ohio east of I-75. The warm ground and temps hovering around freezing won't help with accumulation but I expect some decent snowfall for a short time in the overnight

[vpbob21]

I don't know, I think the weaker/SE trend might be a bad thing.  With temps as borderline as they are I would think we would want a more wrapped up system to pull more cold air down to give us a quicker changeover.  Who knows though, 18Z HRRR improved quite a bit so maybe we can luck into a couple inches of cement.

[nwohweather]

2 hours ago, vpbob21 said:

I don't know, I think the weaker/SE trend might be a bad thing.  With temps as borderline as they are I would think we would want a more wrapped up system to pull more cold air down to give us a quicker changeover.  Who knows though, 18Z HRRR improved quite a bit so maybe we can luck into a couple inches of cement.

I like your odds in Huron better than here

[Hoosier]

Kind of remarkable how often guidance has overphased/overdeveloped storms in the medium range, only to reverse as it gets closer in time.

[Hoosier]

Not sure this really fits here since it's pretty separate from the main system, but since it's already been talked about a bit, here's LOT's take on the lake enhanced precip.  A downright heavy event by this season's standards.

 

 

In the vicinity of the lake, lake effect snow showers are expected
to develop through the night as colder 850 mb temperatures arrive
and localized convergence increases. LES parameters are altogether
fairly marginal as things will be capped off by the aforementioned
building inversion. Lake-induced ELs are only forecast to peak
near 5-7 kft, and with saturation only ephemerally reaching into
the DGZ, not looking at an overly high-quality snow. Certainly the
availability of the near full fetch of the lake and limited shear
would support more of a concern, but as they stand right now,
the thermodynamic profiles are a significant limiting factor.
Multi-model consensus suggests a 1-2 inch type event through
Friday morning across NW Indiana, with spotty amounts perhaps
pushing north of 2 inches away from the 36-38 degree lake
influence. Can`t rule out the LES band flopping westward through
Friday morning which could deliver a last burst of snow to Chicago
before winds shift out of the NW and guide lingering LES
eastward.

Carlaw

[cyclone77]

Looks like there was no thread, and no needle as well.

[bowtie`]

4 hours ago, cyclone77 said:

Looks like there was no thread, and no needle as well.

Maybe, maybe not. In my tippy bucket, I Eurythmics my way to 0.40" of that liquid stuff. And that is fine with me. Even had some thunder and lightning this morning which is not a regular occurrence for January.

[cyclone77]

We're cashing in this evening with some flurries and light snow showers.  Even enough to see with the naked eye if one stares long enough.

[TheNiño]

Biggest snowfall of the season here in Kenosha. Buried!

[Chicago Storm]

threaded the needle to 0.2” of snow at ORD overnight, with the backside snow showers.

[beavis1729]

1 hour ago, Chicago Storm said:

threaded the needle to 0.2” of snow at ORD overnight, with the backside snow showers.

While I’m not suggesting that today’s snow measurements are purposely overinflated, I highly suspect that an “event” like this 50+ years ago would have gone down in the books as a T.

What I’m getting at is that the general increase in 30-year normal snow over the decades that you and Josh noted in the other thread is probably not a true increase at all. It’s driven by changes in measuring techniques. And, for Chicago in particular, the first half (at least) of our period of record was in downtown Chicago. In other words, the increase in 30-year snowfall over the decades is driven in part by the change in the official site location.

UHI trends are one thing…but it’s hard to compare apples to apples when the observing site moves over time.

 

[michsnowfreak]

7 minutes ago, beavis1729 said:

While I’m not suggesting that today’s snow measurements are purposely overinflated, I highly suspect that an “event” like this 50+ years ago would have gone down in the books as a T.

What I’m getting at is that the general increase in 30-year normal snow over the decades that you and Josh noted in the other thread is probably not a true increase at all. It’s driven by differences in measuring techniques. And, for Chicago in particular, the first half (at least) of our period of record was in downtown Chicago. In other words, the increase in 30-year snowfall over the decades is driven in part by the change in the official site location.

UHI trends are one thing…but it’s hard to compare apples to apples when the observing site moves over time.

 

I disagree on that as there are plenty of 0.1" and 0.2" snowfall measurements since the beginning of record. Now, you can argue that any given event may have only dropped a trace in the city but 0.2" where ORD is. (We see that all the time in Southeast Michigan with lake effect remnants, differences over short distances). But if the observation site has 0.1" of snow they recorded it at 0.1" of snow

[cyclone77]

Picked up 0.1" here as well.

[Cary67]

Would it be better if LOT'S official site for measuring snow was more representative of the entire metro area? (ie under less lake influence)  Keep MDW as the site for LES enhanced snows but move snow measuring out further west.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Chicago Storm]

While I’m not suggesting that today’s snow measurements are purposely overinflated, I highly suspect that an “event” like this 50+ years ago would have gone down in the books as a T.
What I’m getting at is that the general increase in 30-year normal snow over the decades that you and Josh noted in the other thread is probably not a true increase at all. It’s driven by changes in measuring techniques. And, for Chicago in particular, the first half (at least) of our period of record was in downtown Chicago. In other words, the increase in 30-year snowfall over the decades is driven in part by the change in the official site location.
UHI trends are one thing…but it’s hard to compare apples to apples when the observing site moves over time.
 

take a break, guy.


.

[Chicago Storm]

Would it be better if LOT'S official site for measuring snow was more representative of the entire metro area? (ie under less lake influence)  Keep MDW as the site for LES enhanced snows but move snow measuring out further west.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

ORD doesn’t get that all that much LES, and we all know this side of the lake doesn’t in general.


.

[Hoosier]

Regarding the small snows of 0.1" or 0.2", I took a look at Chicago's numbers.

4 years have had 10+ days with 0.1", and 3 out of those 4 occurred in the 1940s or earlier:

2008-09:  12 days

1890-91:  11 days

1905-06:  11 days

1946-47:  10 days

 

No years have had double digit days with 0.2", but 2 years have had 9 such days:

1885-86:  9 days

1961-62:  9 days

 

[beavis1729]

57 minutes ago, Chicago Storm said:

take a break, guy.


.

I clearly said that "I'm not suggesting that today's measurements are purposely overinflated".  I'm just saying it was different 50-100 years ago.  Why is that so controversial?  People use stats in misleading ways all the time, whether intentionally or not.  Measurements of average Chicago snowfall over the years have been distorted by changes in measuring techniques (probably didn't used to measure every 6 hours or be extremely precise on minor dustings) and changes in location...which suggests that the low-snowfall winters in the early-mid 20th century would have probably had higher totals if they were measured at ORD and using today's measuring techniques.  It's not a difficult concept or thought process, and it's not intended to personally insult anyone.  It's simply something for people to keep in mind when throwing numbers around.