Jump to content

high risk

Meteorologist
  • Posts

    2,576
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About high risk

Profile Information

  • Four Letter Airport Code For Weather Obs (Such as KDCA)
    KBWI
  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    North Laurel, MD

Recent Profile Visitors

4,403 profile views
  1. This is what I was saying, based on the forecasted soundings. If you start a parcel around 700 mb (710, to be precise, per the diagnostics), you do have some actual CAPE. It's just rare here to get convection based that high. The April 2011 comparison you made is likely a really good one.
  2. I remember that event. The lightning was incredible.
  3. For sure. There is a stout low-level inversion which is perfect for getting those loud rolling rumbles.
  4. Very bizarre. The model soundings certainly don't suggest thunder, unless you lift a parcel from up around 700 mb, and that's rarely a path to thunder here.
  5. There are many times when the accumulated snow depth product should be examined, but it hates events with marginal temps and big rates like this one.
  6. The details weren't perfect, and it wasn't consistent run-to-run, but some of the NAM Nest runs yesterday did have some handle on the dry slot:
  7. I was mostly speaking in jest, but 1) 10:1 maps are not good for interpreting model snowfall in events like these 2) I'm still troubled by the NAM Nest not showing much here. Maybe it will cave at 00Z, but it has a good track record in events like these at shorter ranges.
  8. Goddamnit, y'all. I have literally worked as a RAP/HRRR developer, and I would still use the JMA or NAVGEM before I used the RAP/HRRR system for snow amounts.
  9. minor addendum: it's still very much experimental and is not scheduled for implementation now until 2025
  10. It's not the kiss of death, but major red flags should always be raised with regards to accepting a 12 km NAM solution when its 3 km nest shows something different.
  11. It always warms my heart to see the snow depth maps posted here, but this is not the type of event for which they do well. They limit accumulation when surface temps and soil are warm, and they'll never capture the ability of heavy rates to overcome marginal thermodynamics. I'd probably either average the 10:1 and snow depth products or mentally adjust the 10:1 maps downward. Kuchera maps might be good too - I hate how generous they are with colder temps, but they seem to properly limit accumulations when the temperature is marginal.
  12. I'll take a few of those convective bursts of snow at the end of the event, please.
  13. I don't think that this is a storm for which the super generous Kuchera ratios will work well. It's not super cold, and lift does not appear to be maximized in the DGZ. With cold ground and temps a few degrees below freezing, this might be one of those cases in which the 10:1 maps actually work pretty well.
×
×
  • Create New...