• Member Statistics

    16,542
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    feyt
    Newest Member
    feyt
    Joined
Chicago Storm

Jan 24-26th Something Potential

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Angrysummons said:

lol, this post. You do get this isn't the same thing eh???? Maybe you need to educate yourself better.

You're gonna have to explain how Chicago got 23" of snow on 2.4" of precip in the January 1967 storm, with temps in the upper 20s/low 30s.  Or you can ask our guest poster from the Boston area if the 4/1/1997 storm had a lot of arctic air there.  Or look at any number of other storms in the Midwest, east, etc.

Since you like talking, let's see your prediction for what totals will be in the maximum band.  I'll go 12-18"

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18z RGEM...

Now this is obviously the furthest out it has run thus far, but it has been trending north each run.

2bd5f0b1df914fd29b4c907fcada707c.jpg


.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hoosier said:

You're gonna have to explain how Chicago got 23" of snow on 2.4" of precip in the January 1967 storm, with temps in the upper 20s/low 30s.  Or you can ask our guest poster from the Boston area if the 4/1/1997 storm had a lot of arctic air there.  Or look at any number of other storms in the Midwest, east, etc.

Since you like talking, let's see your prediction for what totals will be in the maximum band.  I'll go 12-18"

Dude, you don't get it. What occurred during that storm???? Got it yet???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Stevo6899 said:

Still blows its loads quickly and low weakens as it slides east. Looks good for chicago and WSW.

Must be the lack of arctic air here that lowers the totals

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MIstorm97 said:

Must be the lack of arctic air here that lowers the totals

you love blowing your load quickly though

  • Haha 2
  • Weenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Angrysummons said:

A clear what??? You don't agree, you whine. I would call that trolling.

wut? he doesn't even post much.

we've clearly disrupted your reign, and you're grasping for straws now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Angrysummons said:

Dude, you don't get it. What occurred during that storm???? Got it yet???

image.png.59a0d55733a8610fd9b4417a260dbe42.png

image.png.32076472a113f958cdaddd72c9cfc5c7.png

The January 67 blizzard was not a phaser. It was one shortwave (more amplified than this one, but it was not a Jan 1978 type scenario).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Angrysummons said:

Dude, you don't get it. What occurred during that storm???? Got it yet???

might be a better meltdown than beavis has ever had.

we love ya, beavis.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Angrysummons you really live up to your name. Cue the Taylor Swift song, You Need To Calm Down. You have seasoned mets trying to educate you but you keep trolling with nonsense posts. Go to the banter thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason for lower totals further east is because of the shearing of the parent shortwave and resultant partial loss of dynamic support with time. This has nothing to do with temperatures.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, andyhb said:

The reason for lower totals further east is because of the shearing of the parent shortwave and resultant partial loss of dynamic support with time. This has nothing to do with temperatures.

Indeed. Something that also still has a lot of spread among ENS, and will have to be worked out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, StormChaser4Life said:

Angrysummons you really live up to your name. Cue the Taylor Swift song, You Need To Calm Down. You have seasoned mets trying to educate you but you keep trolling with nonsense posts. Go to the banter thread. 

Better yet, just ban his dumb ass. Like seriously, I truly appreciate the leniency in our subforum but like 75% of the drama in all threads could be resolved if this goober is eliminated

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Malacka11 said:

Better yet, just ban his dumbass. Like seriously, I truly appreciate the leniency in our subforum but like 75% of the drama in all threads could be resolved if this goober is eliminated

where's the fun in that. This, this is enjoyable content. Not only that, its FREE.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ricky's LOT AFD is out, for those who follow.

You know where to find it...

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Chicago Storm said:

wut? he doesn't even post much.

we've clearly disrupted your reign, and you're grasping for straws now.

Clearly he does it for the attention..likes getting under people's skin  sadly we all took the bait (me included) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, andyhb said:

The reason for lower totals further east is because of the shearing of the parent shortwave and resultant partial loss of dynamic support with time. This has nothing to do with temperatures.

Is the interaction with the confluence to the north causing this shearing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this a bad time to suggest a post covid  downtown meet and greet with all our forum posters?lol I can carpool with McHenrySnow

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the closing off 700/500 waves and open Gulf, there should be a decent amt of convection w this, even in the cold sector. Lapse rates above 500mb are favorable. Also noticing some guidance showing smaller scale ridge-trough-ridge features at the surface which could be indicative of gravity wave formation. Would rather see the sfc low continue to deepen to believe that, but we’ll see. 
 

Also a reminder to all that QPF is one of the most poorly modeled entities. 

  • Like 4
  • Weenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Stevo6899 said:

Is the interaction with the confluence to the north causing this shearing?

In short, yes.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote
We`ll get a quick break Tuesday and Wednesday before the next wave
of interest zips into the area Wednesday night/Thursday. Guidance
is in pretty good agreement with this next disturbance, all things
considered, and the presence of rather cold air aloft would
support a region of fairly steep mid-level lapse rates with this
feature. Things look cold enough for all snow with this
disturbance, so this is another one we`ll be keeping an eye on.
The good news is this will be quite a bit more starved of moisture
than its predecessor and fast-moving enough to limit residence
time over our area.

I'm going to have to have a chat with Ricky. That is not good news. (next storm, I know)

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, purduewx80 said:

With the closing off 700/500 waves and open Gulf, there should be a decent amt of convection w this, even in the cold sector. Lapse rates above 500mb are favorable. Also noticing some guidance showing smaller scale ridge-trough-ridge features at the surface which could be indicative of gravity wave formation. Would rather see the sfc low continue to deepen to believe that, but we’ll see. 
 

Also a reminder to all that QPF is one of the most poorly modeled entities. 

Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mimillman said:

@McHenrySnow I guess our little kerfuffle wasn't so bad compared to what it could be..

I have no desire to participate in AngrySummons-type antics. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Stevo6899 said:

Is the interaction with the confluence to the north causing this shearing?

Yes. This is exactly it. The confluence between the TPV dipping southeastward into Ontario and the SE ridge downstream.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Angrysummons said:

Dude, you don't get it. What occurred during that storm???? Got it yet???

No, you aren't getting it.  I've been giving you hints in recent days to shape up and you haven't.  So enjoy your break from here.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 16
  • Weenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Angrysummons said:

Dude, you don't get it. What occurred during that storm???? Got it yet???

You being spectacularly wrong 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hoosier said:

No, you aren't getting it.  I've been giving you hints in recent days to shape up and you haven't.  So enjoy your break from here.  

:wub:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.