Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,506
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    SnowHabit
    Newest Member
    SnowHabit
    Joined

Feb 3rd - 5th Potential strong stm threat


Brian D
 Share

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, beavis1729 said:

Right...but it's still annoying.  Is UHI/albedo causing this?

I can assure you there is no urban heat island significantly affecting temps in McHenry or Lake Zurich. The snow on the ground is keeping us this cool, if the ground were bare, we would likely be into the 40s. 

Different story in the heart of the city, certainly. And that will likely be a big player into the accums in the city with such marginal temps as is. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Baum said:

LOT with warning for Watch areas. WWA for 2"-5" north of I-80.  Beats the modeled snow eater from 4 days ago.

Interesting.  Seems like it's more of an impact based decision with the wind component since there doesn't look to be very many 6"+ amounts.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somewhat of an odd storm evolution - if you simply looked at the SLP track, it looks like a classic mid-west snowstorm but surface features don't really play out that way (looks more like a glorified frontal passage). Much like the last storm, models have been fairly consistent with roughly .5 qpf for mby. I think 3-5" looks like a good call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, McHenrySnow said:

Quite interesting. Definitely wouldn't have thought they'd do that. Haven't really seen anything that would meet the requirements.

RC said they are shifting more impact based, so with the wind/blowing snow/rapid temp drop factors, that may be why they went with a warning despite amounts generally staying under criteria.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hoosier said:

RC said they are shifting more impact based, so with the wind/blowing snow/rapid temp drop factors, that may be why they went with a warning despite amounts generally staying under criteria.

At the end of the day, I agree more with an impact-based system, just not sure those counties will experience anything drastically different from the rest of N IL. The general public doesn't know and doesn't care about "criteria" anyhow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, McHenrySnow said:

At the end of the day, I agree more with an impact-based system, just not sure those counties will experience anything drastically different from the rest of N IL. The general public doesn't know and doesn't care about "criteria" anyhow. 

Better chance for higher accumulation and somewhat less-wet snow, which would increase the impact out that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...