Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,509
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    joxey
    Newest Member
    joxey
    Joined

Christmas Grinch Storm Potential


Chicago Storm

Recommended Posts

I wouldn't say there is a consensus among the entire suite of models

There is not a consensus regarding the specific outcome. However, there is consensus on a less phased solution. If you wouldn't say that, you are wrong. There will not be a sub 960. There will not be a sub 970 low. Possibly not even a sub 990 judging from some solutions. Santabomb is dead. The real outcome will be much less phased, and that is being modeled now and has been for 24 hours.

The factoid about some ensemble members hanging on is moot anyway since the AFD was about how the models changed, not how some perturbations stayed the same. My comments were in response to reading the AFD only.

Anyway, let's hope this less phased solution will give someone a decent stripe of snow. Hopefully that someone will be me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 982
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I'm ok with that.

 

As awful as the NAM is, it's enough assurance that hope is still not 100% lost as far as snowstorm potential in our areas.

 

21z SREFS also have come in line with the NAM, to a much greater degree than the 15z suite.

 

Would probably still toss at this point unless some other piece of guidance this evening jumps aboard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is if it trends south and east, the deformation band is likely to be weaker, so it's not like the 'snowstorm' potential is that great anyway, would be enough for a White Christmas though if it trends to pass through Ohio.

 

Best case scenario would be what the 18z NAM showed, which had a decent cold sector deformation band.

 

But even though the probability of that solution is above 0%, I would bet on a GFS-type solution happening first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the things I've pretty much overlooked until tonight is how much more significant the northern stream low is tomorrow/tomorrow night.  Models have been slowly but surely adding more and more precip for the past several days with this first system.  Now looking like some decent snows could occur up in parts of northern IA/MN/WI with the northern stream system.  Some respectable rains of over a half inch are possible as well over eastern IA/northern IL.

 

The stronger northern stream seems to tilt the trough a little more positive, and the result is a less phased, or delayed phased southern stream system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the things I've pretty much overlooked until tonight is how much more significant the northern stream low is tomorrow/tomorrow night.  Models have been slowly but surely adding more and more precip for the past several days with this first system.  Now looking like some decent snows could occur up in parts of northern IA/MN/WI with the northern stream system.  Some respectable rains of over a half inch are possible as well over eastern IA/northern IL.

 

The stronger northern stream seems to tilt the trough a little more positive, and the result is a less phased, or delayed phased southern stream system.

 

Also looks like the NAM is somewhat quicker with the kicker s/w over the intermountain west. Forces everything downstream to stay more progressive/less phased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also looks like the NAM is somewhat quicker with the kicker s/w over the intermountain west. Forces everything downstream to stay more progressive/less phased.

 

I thought that upstream wave looked about the same or a bit slower than the 18z run.

 

Edit:  or do you mean quicker than other models have been showing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought that upstream wave looked about the same or a bit slower than the 18z run.

 

You're right. I was comparing it the 0z NAM at 84 to the 18z GFS at 90. Since the GFS is more wound-up with the main storm, and its depiction of the kicker is slower, I thought that the NAM's more progressive handling of it may be a causal factor in its weaker downstream solution. But maybe not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right. I was comparing it the 0z NAM at 84 to the 18z GFS at 90. Since the GFS is more wound-up with the main storm, and its depiction of the kicker is slower, I thought that the NAM's more progressive handling of it may be a causal factor in its weaker downstream solution. But maybe not.

 

 

Yeah I edited my original post as I realized that's what you may have meant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like it may have taken a step towards the NAM.

 

We won't know for sure until the GGEM comes out.

 

 

I was actually going to say that I think it would've led to a solution quite different than the NAM had it gone out farther.  The southern wave looks more robust and to me it looks to be on the verge of developing a nice surface low that would track west of the NAM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was actually going to say that I think it would've led to a solution quite different than the NAM had it gone out farther.  The southern wave looks more robust and to me it looks to be on the verge of developing a nice surface low that would track west of the NAM.

 

It probably would still have a stronger/NW surface low, but the features appear to have set up further SE with the more dominant northern stream shortwave compared to the 12z run.

 

I could be wrong though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was actually going to say that I think it would've led to a solution quite different than the NAM had it gone out farther.  The southern wave looks more robust and to me it looks to be on the verge of developing a nice surface low that would track west of the NAM.

 

RGEM looks amped and ready to go from what I have seen. Looks similar to 12Z GEM. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...