TimB

Interestingly, TWC is liking the later week storm for 6-12” over a 36+ hour period.

True. It was the most recent model to predict that magnitude of cold. On that note, both models put us close to 0 after the Mon/Tues storm and the Euro puts us close to 0 after the Thurs/Fri storm. Para brings subzero cold Wed. AM.

I can’t say I know what model has been superior, they’ve all struggled to get a handle on how this pattern will play out for really the entire month of February so far. I just remember there being a 50 degree swing from one run to the next on the Euro, going from a historic cold snap to temperatures well above freezing. But that was the first run that it picked up the 2/9 system, not several days after it had been painting the exact same picture as the GFS for a number of runs. The Euro did beat the GFS significantly in recognizing that the brutal cold would not reach our area and we would instead lie in that active storm track most of the month. And the GFS did try to give us that monster storm this coming Sunday for a run or two that no other model really bit on.

The Euro did do this with our 2/9 storm 5 or 6 days before, suggesting the system would track way west and pump our temps up close to 50. That didn’t verify.

But that’s the scary part. These models are ~4 days from the onset of precip and depicting completely different scenarios. Not just a little bit different, but completely out of phase with each other.

Euro is wet on Tuesday, GFS is wet on Thursday/Friday. What are the chances we get more rain than snow?

So there is validity to the “0z and 12z are better” argument?

So it’s probably just as valid. I only ask because I liked the 12z’s model of both storms next week better than the 6z and 18z.

So honest question: why do people view the 6z and 18z GFS as less valid than the 0z and 12z?

Ah, so the NWS doesn’t like this pattern for snowfall.

GFS gives it a similar track, though slightly earlier and with slightly higher temps.

If I were a betting man, I’d say the 2m temperature will not drop below 20 during this event, but that’s an entirely different topic.

Euro seems to be on about 8” of mostly snow, with about 6” in 6 hours between 6z and 12z Tues. Though it’s also mixing p-types with temps in the teens. I’ll bet my entire bank account that not one drop of rain or sleet will fall with an air temperature below 20.

The later week storm seems to be trending west and could destroy our snowpack no matter how much snow we get from the earlier system, especially if the Euro verifies.

Wouldn’t say I’m worried about that, it just speaks to the magnitude of the cold air. Subzero in Dallas has only happened four times in recorded history.

Subzero cold seems to possibly be in the cards for Dallas...

So the setup you’re seeing continues to leave cold air entrenched over our area for most precipitation that falls to be snow?

Ouch. I suppose I’d probably be of a similar opinion in any other winter. But I physically can’t slip and fall on ice and break my neck or wreck my car on an icy road on my way down the stairs to my basement office.

I would take an ice storm over 40 and rainy ten times out of ten.

12z Euro seems to pick up both systems next week. Both a little warmer than I’d like to see, but lots of time!

Regarding what I said earlier about this year vs. 1992-93, all it takes at this point is one big event to be on the cusp of history. This run of the GFS gives us that, and if it somehow verifies verbatim (unlikely, but possible) we would be sitting at 76 inches (6 short of the record) before the end of February.

GFS then puts another system through our area late week.

Historic snowfall in places like Arkansas with that track. 18” in some areas. We need a shift!

This may be anecdotal and obscure, but does anyone remember the January 1999 snow/ice storm? My memory tells me we had sleet/FZRA with temperatures not too far from 17.

Those summertime highs are an interesting trend for sure. It’s a lot more intricate than the fact that we’re getting warmer overall. I wasn’t alive in 1977 but I don’t question it because it was taken at the same site and probably with similar methods to observations taken today. I’m not sure of the official position of the NWS or others who study meteorology for a living on the older data or its accuracy, but I do know this. People on both sides of the aisle have politicized the non-political, scientific issue of climate change. As a result, even if the NWS did a quality control study and determined that the old data to be inaccurate, and put an asterisk next to it in the records, there would be an uproar about “artificially manufacturing or overstating climate change” or even “trying to rewrite history,” even if their reasons for doing so were legitimate. Therefore, the older data is here to stay. With that being said, we’re all free to use whatever data we want to come to whatever conclusion we like. I just choose to only use data from 1948 on because they’re the only numbers that I feel can give me an accurate comparison.