Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,598
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    PublicWorks143
    Newest Member
    PublicWorks143
    Joined

February 11-12 ULL Winter Storm


Upstate Tiger
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, wncsnow said:

March 2009 was a disaster here with downsloping. Less than an inch of snow while Morganton had 4-6 and Shelby had 6-8 or more...

Yeah I remember getting 6 inches and thundersnow out of that one. Places around Gaffney in northern Cherokee and Cleveland county got hammered with near a foot in some parts of the county.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like the GFS may be becoming a bit of an outlier on timing. Looks like it's about 6-12+ hours ahead of most other guidance. Not sure if there's any significance to that or not, just something I noticed. Curious whether the slower timing could allow time for some weak CAD to build in from that 1025-1030 high?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SnowDawg said:

Looks like the GFS may be becoming a bit of an outlier on timing. Looks like it's about 6-12+ hours ahead of most other guidance. Not sure if there's any significance to that or not, just something I noticed. Curious whether the slower timing could allow time for some weak CAD to build in from that 1025-1030 high?

I think it’s actually the opposite. I think faster timing gives less time for the upper level cool pool temps to moderate allowing for rates to capitalize on top down dynamic cooling. Slower solutions are showing moderation of temps in the upper levels and thus no cold air available and mostly rain solutions. The HP is kind of a non factor here besides for storm track bc the air associated with it and dew points are just too high to make a difference for freezing/frozen 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, NorthHillsWx said:

I think it’s actually the opposite. I think faster timing gives less time for the upper level cool pool temps to moderate allowing for rates to capitalize on top down dynamic cooling. Slower solutions are showing moderation of temps in the upper levels and thus no cold air available and mostly rain solutions. The HP is kind of a non factor here besides for storm track bc the air associated with it and dew points are just too high to make a difference for freezing/frozen 

This makes sense. I think we kinda want to start rooting for a more progressive system at this point. In general, modeling has slowed down over the past 48 hours of runs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, NorthHillsWx said:

I think it’s actually the opposite. I think faster timing gives less time for the upper level cool pool temps to moderate allowing for rates to capitalize on top down dynamic cooling. Slower solutions are showing moderation of temps in the upper levels and thus no cold air available and mostly rain solutions. The HP is kind of a non factor here besides for storm track bc the air associated with it and dew points are just too high to make a difference for freezing/frozen 

That makes perfect sense, thanks. Even when I know better given the setup it's hard to ignore paths to a better boundary layer lol

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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