Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,720
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Tanner Levasseur
    Newest Member
    Tanner Levasseur
    Joined

February 11-12; 12-13: Are they real??


stormtracker
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, SnowenOutThere said:

I know everyone is excited over the NAM (and we should be!) as it provides a good high range output, but the 12z HRRR I think provides a decent example of what a low end "bust" output would be for the region (and even then its not that bad).

Hrrr gets temps up to upper 30s/near 40 tomorrow. Hope that’s wrong.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SnowenOutThere said:

I know everyone is excited over the NAM (and we should be!) as it provides a good high range output, but the 12z HRRR I think provides a decent example of what a low end "bust" output would be for the region (and even then its not that bad).

This is setting up for a classic letdown when folks expect 6-8 sub-wide.

3-5 for most is the bar, I think, and we should be very happy with that if it verifies.

  • Weenie 2
  • Disagree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, WxUSAF said:

If it was different from the globals in track, precip totals, etc. I’d probably still be a little skeptical at this point? But it’s not. I think it’s been steady and in line with the globals so I think it’s very much worth factoring into forecasts.

Good point for sure! So that said, what are your thoughts for the HoCo crew? I’ve been thinking 4-6 for a while now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, MDScienceTeacher said:

Thank you! I was getting annoyed with the all the over cautiousness/ conservatism wrt to the total potential for this storm.  Everyone seems to be stuck on 3-6/ 2-4 amounts.  I think that It won’t take much to push this over 8 inches.  So why not go all in?

The temp profiles have me worried, even if a big thump is overnight... going to be very different than the 1/6 event unfortunately. The p-type maps are kinda a mess. I think it'll be one of those things where you might get that total SNOWFALL amount, but it's not going to be accumulated. 26 for a low tonight might help prime surfaces decently for tomorrow though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, WxUSAF said:

Yeah 3-6/4-6 seems right. Less than 1/6.

Yeah 1/6 we had good cold air in place and it started in the dark.  Even if we do get similar QPF tomorrow we will be warmer to start and will be starting with maximum sun angle.  We will not accumulate as efficiently as 1/6 until after dark.  

  • 100% 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, MDScienceTeacher said:

Thank you! I was getting annoyed with the all the over cautiousness/ conservatism wrt to the total potential for this storm.  Everyone seems to be stuck on 3-6/ 2-4 amounts.  I think that It won’t take much to push this over 8 inches.  So why not go all in?

Going "all-in" in forecasting is generally not a great idea no matter what type of weather. Antecedent temps won't be like the January storm for one thing. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Warm Nose said:

This has high bust potential written on it ... I suspect we'll see a lot of disappointed people in the Obs thread come Wed morning. 

I agree it has bust potential with marginal temps and being on the northern edge of the best precip.

The best thing going for it is the majority of precip is progged to occur after dark. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SomeguyfromTakomaPark said:

Yeah 1/6 we had good cold air in place and it started in the dark.  Even if we do get similar QPF tomorrow we will be warmer to start and will be starting with maximum sun angle.  We will not accumulate as efficiently as 1/6 until after dark.  

Well to be fair with all of the 1/6 comparisons something that may be in this storms favor is better lift in the DGZ which really held 1/6 back from achieving much beyond its low end forecasts 

  • Like 1
  • 100% 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SnowenOutThere said:

Well to be fair with all of the 1/6 comparisons something that may be in this storms favor is better lift in the DGZ which really held 1/6 back from achieving much beyond its low end forecasts 

1/6 was a generally good storm for me but flipping to sleet around dawn was a real turd in the punchbowl. Still ended up with ~8” but would probably take an 5” all snow event without a big lull over it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, SomeguyfromTakomaPark said:

Yeah 1/6 we had good cold air in place and it started in the dark.  Even if we do get similar QPF tomorrow we will be warmer to start and will be starting with maximum sun angle.  We will not accumulate as efficiently as 1/6 until after dark.  

Meh. If it's light to start, we'll be alright. Sun angle doesn't matter much after 4pm. I'll still be impressed if we get 6" here inside the beltway though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, aldie 22 said:

As far as I am concerned there is only one person allowed to throw the HRRR turd into the punchbowl and that's MN Transplant. He's our new Ender for those who have been around for awhile

The HRRR is great - when it confirms what every other model is saying.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.meteor.iastate.edu/~ckarsten/cobb/cobb.php?model=nam&site=kdca

Here is a site that a few of you may not be aware of.  It is useful for determining the timing of precipitation onset, examining rates, and looking at model temperatures from the NAM and GFS.  For example, the unrealistic snow amounts from 12-km NAM are not just due to its convective algorithm but are partly due to the low temperatures it is forecasting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • WxUSAF locked and unpinned this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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