Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,797
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    manaja
    Newest Member
    manaja
    Joined

Discussion-OBS snow event sometime between 06z Thu 2/20-12z Fri 2/21?


wdrag
 Share

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, MJO812 said:

I have a weird feeling that the models will bring the storm back. Not sure to what extent. We aren't getting out of MJO 8 without a snowstorm. 

I have the same feeling too but to what extent? With that damn kicker out west and the confluence up north it would take some big time positive trends to get back to the KU that we want. Time is still on our side so who knows. Just give me a general 3-6 storm and I’ll count my losses. A total miss would be a knee kick to the groin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Yanksfan said:

I have the same feeling too but to what extent? With that damn kicker out west and the confluence up north it would take some big time positive trends to get back to the KU that we want. Time is still on our side so who knows. Just give me a general 3-6 storm and I’ll count my loses. A total miss would be a knee kick to the groin.

I will be happy with 2-4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that 98-99 was an analog for this winter and I was in Chicago that winter for the great news year snowstorm. I guess out here it's a colder version of that winter but nothing like it in the upper midwest
We've definitely been on the cusp of something better but had too much predominantly dry NW flow in January after missing the big early January event not too far to our south. And then this past week looked good synoptically but again didn't come together for a widespread significant to major event (places in IA, NW IL, WI did do very well on Wednesday with mid-level frontogenensis and high ratios).

Regarding the 98-99 winter, it's a good example of how getting a major storm or multiple to significant events (solid advisory to warning type amounts) makes a winter. This winter will end up much colder than that one, but getting almost 22" in one storm, an occurrence that's actually much more rare in our area than the northeast coast, went a huge way to ORD getting about 50" in 98-99.

Even though this has been a weak La Niña winter, it reminds me somewhat of 2014-15, in that we had plenty of cold, dry NW flow (tied for coldest Feb on record that winter), but we cashed in with the Superbowl snowstorm in early Feb, with 19.3" at ORD the 5th largest snowstorm for Chicago.

We're literally pennying up our snow totals out here this winter, haha. Makes it less fun to deal with the ~20 below wind chills we're getting tonight and tomorrow night. At least we do have about 5" otg in my neighborhood though, better than brutal cold with bare ground.


  • Like 2
  • 100% 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i know people unrightfully bash models, but I'm going to. absolutely appalling performance from D5. should not happen
Heh, revisit my 2nd post about a 4-7"/5-8" type event for the Chicago metro going to 1-5" in 2 days.

Sent from my Pixel 9 Pro using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, brooklynwx99 said:

i know people unrightfully bash models, but I'm going to. absolutely appalling performance from D5. should not happen

I was trying to remember the last time all models had a blizzard 5 days out only to completely lose the storm. It doesn't happen often. Granted we didn't have consensus for long and not every model showed the same thing but yeah its pretty bad to lose it in half a day and miss by 100s of miles

  • Like 2
  • 100% 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Stormlover74 said:

I was trying to remember the last time all models had a blizzard 5 days out only to completely lose the storm. It doesn't happen often. Granted we didn't have consensus for long and not every model showed the same thing but yeah its pretty bad to lose it in half a day and miss by 100s of miles

pattern is about as good as it gets. every model had a MECS with the GFS joining the party 120 hours out and the EPS locked in. gone in 12 hours. it's just cruel at this point

  • Like 6
  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

pattern is about as good as it gets. every model had a MECS with the GFS joining the party 120 hours out and the EPS locked in. gone in 12 hours. it's just cruel at this point
Maybe someone more intricately involved in NWP can chime in, but my perception from my NWS career (started in Feb 09 at OKX) and my hobbyist phase going back years before that, is that modeling has grown less stable at closer in lead times on the most important details for system evolution. I think that global modeling systems are better than they've ever been at nailing the large scale pattern at long leads, but these large swings inside D5 feel more common to me than back in the 2000s and 2010s.

My theory is that it's partially related to faster flow due to CC and partially related to ever increasing resolution (high resolution garbage in still = high resolution garbage out; ie. errors in those high res details, such as convective parameterizations, reach many of the members which all have the same physics and then amplify). I have no idea if I'm right on this, but I'm def interested in hearing from others better versed than me.

Sent from my Pixel 9 Pro using Tapatalk

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is one bright side and this may be a stretch, most models started losing this yesterday, roughly four days before the storm so at least it wasn’t giving the allusion for days. As someone else commented, it was a couple of suites with big storms and I believe one 00z suites where almost every model jumped on board before they started losing the storm at different points. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MorristownWx said:

If there is one bright side and this may be a stretch, most models started losing this yesterday, roughly four days before the storm so at least it wasn’t giving the allusion for days. As someone else commented, it was a couple of suites with big storms and I believe one 00z suites where almost every model jumped on board before they started losing the storm at different points. 

We had the better models on board and the crappy icon and gfs jumped on board 24 hours ago so it seemed like our confidence levels increased only to have the euro take a major step back. I guess we should have know when the AI didn't want any part of it 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TJW014 said:

How many times does this have to be reiterated: if it looks good 5 days out, be prepared to have the football pulled. 

Yes Yes and Yes and how many times!!!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, RCNYILWX said:

Maybe someone more intricately involved in NWP can chime in, but my perception from my NWS career (started in Feb 09 at OKX) and my hobbyist phase going back years before that, is that modeling has grown less stable at closer in lead times on the most important details for system evolution. I think that global modeling systems are better than they've ever been at nailing the large scale pattern at long leads, but these large swings inside D5 feel more common to me than back in the 2000s and 2010s.

My theory is that it's partially related to faster flow due to CC and partially related to ever increasing resolution (high resolution garbage in still = high resolution garbage out; ie. errors in those high res details, such as convective parameterizations, reach many of the members which all have the same physics and then amplify). I have no idea if I'm right on this, but I'm def interested in hearing from others better versed than me.

Sent from my Pixel 9 Pro using Tapatalk
 

yeah, my guess is it has something to do with climate change. maybe higher velocities are messing with modeling or something like that. combine that with higher res, as you said, and it's a recipe for large swings

though Feb 2021 was modeled very well and i can't imagine CC has accelerated that much in the last 4 years to mess with modeling that much. I don't want to overattribute either

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, RCNYILWX said:

Maybe someone more intricately involved in NWP can chime in, but my perception from my NWS career (started in Feb 09 at OKX) and my hobbyist phase going back years before that, is that modeling has grown less stable at closer in lead times on the most important details for system evolution. I think that global modeling systems are better than they've ever been at nailing the large scale pattern at long leads, but these large swings inside D5 feel more common to me than back in the 2000s and 2010s.

My theory is that it's partially related to faster flow due to CC and partially related to ever increasing resolution (high resolution garbage in still = high resolution garbage out; ie. errors in those high res details, such as convective parameterizations, reach many of the members which all have the same physics and then amplify). I have no idea if I'm right on this, but I'm def interested in hearing from others better versed than me.

Sent from my Pixel 9 Pro using Tapatalk
 

high resolution garbage in still = high resolution garbage out; ie. errors in those high res details, such as convective parameterizations, reach many of the members which all have the same physics and then amplify)

 

this definitely explains that one 00z model suite when all the models got on board all at the same time... there must have been some bad high resolution data that was in that entire suite.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, brooklynwx99 said:

yeah, my guess is it has something to do with climate change. maybe higher velocities are messing with modeling or something like that. combine that with higher res, as you said, and it's a recipe for large swings

though Feb 2021 was modeled very well and i can't imagine CC has accelerated that much in the last 4 years to mess with modeling that much. I don't want to overattribute either

This is what happens when we do modelology instead of meteorology. we can post all these pretty maps of good pattern depictions and of storms that deep down we know won’t come to fruition because the base state of the winter and the upper level patterns and do not support it, but we all want clicks and we all want to look at something that looks nice while abandoning all reasoning about while this winter has performed poorly at least in the snow department for our sub forum. and why it will continue to do so because the background state has not changed and we are looking at quick pattern regression in late month and early March after the storm threat passes. Pretty model depictions and depictions of storms aren’t gonna cut it. That is modelology not meteorology and that’s all we’ve been doing since 2022

  • Disagree 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...