Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,532
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    e46ds1x
    Newest Member
    e46ds1x
    Joined

Clipper express v 2.0 (February 1-6)


snowstormcanuck

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 754
  • Created
  • Last Reply

All I can say is WOW...after a steady light snow fell all day (1.5" fluff) we had a very heavy band move through between 6:30-7:30pm. It POURED snow. Picked up over an inch in less than an hour. In fact, while it took from 4am-6pm to accumulate 1.5", we got another 1.6" from 6:30-8:30pm (as said, over an inch of that in less than an hour). So total today was a very fluffy 3.1" on 0.12" water. The heaviest of the band missed DTW, they finished the day at 2.3".

 

This is the THIRD time since Thursday that I have picked up over an inch of snow in an hour. Both the synoptic and lake effect portions of snow here have been extremely dry and fluffy. Jan 31-Feb 2 saw a total fall of snow of 6.2" here on just 0.25" water equivalent. Current snow depth is 4".

 

3409-800.jpg

 

3410-800.jpg

 

3411-800.jpg

 

3412-800.jpg

 

3413-800.jpg

 

3414-800.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I can say is WOW...after a steady light snow fell all day (1.5" fluff) we had a very heavy band move through between 6:30-7:30pm. It POURED snow. Picked up over an inch in less than an hour. In fact, while it took from 4am-6pm to accumulate 1.5", we got another 1.6" from 6:30-8:30pm (as said, over an inch of that in less than an hour). So total today was a very fluffy 3.1" on 0.12" water. The heaviest of the band missed DTW, they finished the day at 2.3".

 

This is the THIRD time since Thursday that I have picked up over an inch of snow in an hour. Both the synoptic and lake effect portions of snow here have been extremely dry and fluffy. Jan 31-Feb 2 saw a total fall of snow of 6.2" here on just 0.25" water equivalent. Current snow depth is 4".

 

3409-800.jpg

 

3410-800.jpg

 

3411-800.jpg

 

3412-800.jpg

 

3413-800.jpg

 

3414-800.jpg

 

 

Nice pics!  Some pretty sweet looking fresh powder you got there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's nice to see most members of this forum are finally seeing a fresh coating of powder and cold enough temps to have it stick around for awhile, all at once no less.  Interesting to see all the activity with minor to moderate impulses in the next week, so let's all agree to enjoy it as much as we can, even though it is likely at least a short-term warm up is in the offing beyond that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice pics!  Some pretty sweet looking fresh powder you got there.

Thanks. Its like the snow you get in the northern lake belts, arctic nip in the air and all. It glistens so beautifully there isnt a camera in the world that could properly capture it. Only down side is it settles fast, thus why 6" of snow since Jan 31st yields a current 4" depth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

0z UK MKE/MSN/ORD through OH special for Monday. Does play up the Tuesday clipper like the 12z Euro did, ORD hit again.

 

0z GGEM pretty nice for ORD through OH for Monday. Is a lot further north for Tuesday...YYZ gets some

 

LAF...pretty much 0-fer. 

 

Has been pretty consistent with that one while the NAM/GFS want to keep it further north.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a bit of bright banding to the southwest of the city, but almost all of that is convectively enhanced snow. I wasn't kidding about 2"-3" in/hr.

 

METAR KSTL 05:51Z 02/03/13
   KSTL 030551Z 00000KT 1/2SM R30R/3000V3500FT
   SN FZFG VV008 M01/M02 A3006 RMK AO2 SLP187
   SNINCR 2/2 4/002 P0008 60012 T10061022 10022 21006
   400721011 58014

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There wasn't even much discussion about it, regardless of bust potential. It's very possible that they missed the unstable layer on the model soundings this morning and thought the guidance was overdoing it. Even the GFS was showing a deep moist neutral layer earlier today. The real giveaway (besides the unstable layer across the DGZ and the compact vort) was the way the models were handling the QPF fields. Didn't look stratiform at all to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...