ValpoVike

Just now, KamuSnow said:

Good luck man I hope you get 42"!

With the way most of the models are trending this morning, I think a shot at 45-48".  Especially north of town where elevations are about 8000'.

1 minute ago, smokeybandit said:

Storm isn't due in for another few hours, but I've got some teaser rain/snow mix already.

Very thick fog up here.  I live on a steep sloping hill side, and cannot see the bottom of my property which is about 300' down.  Definitely getting moist out there.

3 minutes ago, n1vek said:

Nice to see the HRRR coming onboard. Just going to have to watch the radar fill in today. And I guess any southward trend (even 15-25 miles) will make a big difference locally. 

Even the 3km NAM is getting wetter.  About the same increase for FoCo and the Larimer foothills, but holding steady south.

12z HRRR is ticking up for Denver and points north by an additional .5", and an additional 1" in the foothills. 

Does anyone have any ideas on why the Para GFS is outputting lower QPF in the foothills than those down along the urban corridor?  Quite odd.

2 hours ago, Wentzadelphia said:

I have safely arrived at the hotel in Estes Park. Travel was fine a bit foggy in the mountains though. With a fellow chaser. Hoping we can eclipse 2 feet here and my hope deep down is 3 feet,  but we’ll see. I’ve never seen more than 30” in my life. Good luck everyone. 

6z NAM looks a bit better btw

Welcome to EP.  Yes the fog has been thick since yesterday afternoon.  Which hotel did you choose?  Hint: Claire's downtown or the Notchtop have the best breakfasts :).

1 minute ago, Wentzadelphia said:

I’m literally on the plane now. I’m worried when I get there roads will be closed to Estes and I won’t be able to get in. Then it’s bolder, but we’ll see. This is earliest I could leave

You're good

5 hours ago, smokeybandit said:

8-12:1 depending on elevation maybe? Which is actually pretty low for out here where 20:1 isn't uncommon.

It looks like the drug dealer came back to visit the GFS again... 18z Larimer county is again off the charts compared to 12z.  Back to the old look of ~9".  Fun to dream about, but I'll take half that (what is in the para) and be super happy and call it a day.

Just now, Wentzadelphia said:

Appreciate it. I could grab an uber from the airport to estes for about 100 bucks. Not bad considering I dont really need a rental to drive anywhere else. 

Be sure to get food, or stay very close to downtown. I wouldn't want to walk or drive this weekend. None of the hotels have restaurants except the Stanley, but rooms there are $$$$. But it has a big tie into The Shining, which may be a good mood setter for an epic snowstorm.  Let's avoid more in the thread, and PM if you have questions. 

I live just outside of Estes. It is about 1:30 in normal traffic.  You should be able to get back down the canyon by Tuesday morning I would estimate. Edit- you will lose cell btwn Lyons and Estes Park. Solid no signal for that stretch.

8 minutes ago, Wentzadelphia said:

Thank you. Now when it comes to elevation vs not being in the complete sticks is there any specific town near there that I should look fo? For example looking at that WRF image above I’m guessing those 40” plus amounts are up in the mountains? 

Estes Park

2km WRF pulled from a Facebook post:

It's still simply insane in southern Larimer with 9"+ around the Estes valley.  I really don't know what to think, so many times do you see fantasy numbers but they almost always resolve over time.  The GFS just seems to be going increasingly bonkers.  Chinook, what does your met insight say?

3 minutes ago, WeatherEmperor said:

Yeah this is what makes me think this situation is unsolved.  Location, temp, are still unresolved.  I don't think any of the forecasts are TOO wild for major metro areas but because of these inconsistencies I am actually concerned we end up with something weird out of climate change's book, and that that might be something very unexpected.

Seriously, what? 

1 hour ago, Winteraddict said:

What’s the best location to get hotel at from Denver for this event? Boulder or do I have to travel more west or north?

For the past couple of days it has been consistent that if you want the maxima you should plan somewhere along Peak-to-Peak highway between Nederland and Estes Park.  Allenspark looks really good, but this time of year not too many places to stay.  Estes Park has a lot of hotels, along with great views, so that might work best for you.

29 minutes ago, CO SciFan said:

I wanted to share this nifty 3d forecast map from Evan Fisher at the Carolina Weather Group, he's planning to update it as as new NDFD packages come in: https://carolinaweathergroup.com/temporary-maps/

You can really see some interesting upslope and gradient effects easily this way.  And seeing the crazy totals over the burn scars from the High Park and East Troublesome fires seems like a concern. I hope we are not looking at some nasty flood impacts, thoughts?

I live in an area that was severely impacted from Cameron Peak, and property owners have been actively working to remove debris from the streams and drainages.  But, yeah there is concern.

WPC seems to be placing their bets on a more southerly track.  72hr probs of >30" thru 12z Sunday looks a lot like the GFS QPF maps in terms of location.  The light blue is 50-60% prob, which is crazy.

00z is thru Monday on Pivotal.

Well, 00z juiced up again. Even the para.

15 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

At this rate you'll have to go to Wyoming to see the good stuff.

I haven't had a chance to really look at it, but it appears that the Euro is not as deep.  Even Wyoming is lower.

The Euro just crapped on the QPFs, and the GFS came down a bit too but not as much.

And the GFS this morning must have been offended by our incredulity and added even more QPF to Larimer.  Over 8" liquid.  

Snow ratios could really be impactful this weekend. It will be interesting to see as even some of the lower qpf's of "only" 2.5" could be crippling at 12 or 15:1.  Even 10:1 for that matter.  For what it's worth, GFS seems to be factoring at 16 or 17 in spots.  When I lived in the Midwest, ratio forecasts seemed to be a bit more accurate than in Colorado. 

22 minutes ago, WeatherEmperor said:

I don't really know how to parse when two completely different models are aligned on a major storm but diverge significantly on QPF amounts.

Actually, the 12z Euro and the 12z GFSv16 are in decent alignment.  They even are fairly remarkably close in terms of the bullseye, with about .6" delta in QPF and much lesser discrepancies further south around Denver.  The GFS on the other hand is still way out there on the maxima.   

GFS isn't blinking at all.  In fact, some areas in Larimer county are now showing over 7" QPF. 

19 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

18z GFS is even more insane than 12z.  Obviously that'll never happen but it's fun to watch. Then again those kind of totals are far into the danger zone for many people.

 

My biggest storm as an adult was in MD in 2010. We had two 20"+ storms within a week.  It was nuts. The roof was creaking and I ran out of places to put the shoveled snow. It took a week to even get the neighborhood plowed so neighbors dug a path out to the main road.

I saw 70" when I lived in Chardon, OH which is geographically the bullseye in the Lake Erie snowbelt.  The most I have seen up here is 44" on a few May's ago...but that melted almost entirely a day later with temps in the 70's.  The AFD from NWS this afternoon is rightfully trying to walk thru all of the things that can get in the way, but I would be absolutely thrilled to get half of the 65" that the GFS is showing IMBY.