Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,507
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    SnowHabit
    Newest Member
    SnowHabit
    Joined

Feb 16-17th Winter Storm


Chicago Storm
 Share

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Thundersnow12 said:

That early stuff is probably a mirage so toss that but yeah still a respectable hit across the metro. Better off using 12hr totals to get rid of that weird initial fake snows. 

Those weird initial fake snows are showing up on various guidance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Thundersnow12 said:

That early stuff is probably a mirage so toss that but yeah still a respectable hit across the metro. Better off using 12hr totals to get rid of that weird initial fake snows. 

That's mostly sleet on the RAP, which it is trying to show as 3-6" of snow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Thundersnow12 said:

Yeah more so on newer runs it seems. 3z RAP with advisory level amounts across northeast IL from that alone 

Obviously how quickly it changes over remains to be seen, but even putting 1-3" in the bank would be a nice little start given the uncertainty after that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pulled this NAM forecast sounding for northwest Indiana on Thursday afternoon.  This is some pretty impressive stuff.  

The pink bars on the left are omega, and there is a lot extending through a deep portion of the atmosphere.  Also note a layer of steeper lapse rates aloft.  All this in the presence of pwats in excess of 0.7", which is excellent for a snow system.  All of this should add up to the potential for a period of 1-2" per hour snowfall rates, if not briefly/locally a tad higher in heaviest banding.

2022021600-NAM-045-41-39-87-13-severe-ml

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

Just now, Hoosier said:

Pulled this NAM forecast sounding for northwest Indiana on Thursday afternoon.  This is some pretty impressive stuff.  

The pink bars on the left are omega, and there is a lot extending through a deep portion of the atmosphere.  Also note a layer of steeper lapse rates aloft.  All this in the presence of pwats in excess of 0.7", which is excellent for a snow system.  All of this should add up to the potential for a period of 1-2" per hour snowfall rates, if not briefly/locally a tad higher in heaviest banding.

2022021600-NAM-045-41-39-87-13-severe-ml

Thanks for this post, I'm a severe wx guy so I had no clue how to use soundings to forecast winter wx.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hoosier said:

Pulled this NAM forecast sounding for northwest Indiana on Thursday afternoon.  This is some pretty impressive stuff.  

The pink bars on the left are omega, and there is a lot extending through a deep portion of the atmosphere.  Also note a layer of steeper lapse rates aloft.  All this in the presence of pwats in excess of 0.7", which is excellent for a snow system.  All of this should add up to the potential for a period of 1-2" per hour snowfall rates, if not briefly/locally a tad higher in heaviest banding.

2022021600-NAM-045-41-39-87-13-severe-ml

Look at dat hodo. 1000+ SRH. Can we say snow wedges? :p someone call SyFy. Movie incoming. All jokes aside really impressive snow sounding

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, StormChaser4Life said:

Look at dat hodo. 1000+ SRH. Can we say snow wedges? :p someone call SyFy. Movie incoming. All jokes aside really impressive snow sounding

I'm actually rooting for you with this one. Don't want to shovel snow and GHD3 proved using the plow on 4 wheeler sucks for my drive. Pulled the carb off the snowblower I bought 5 years ago and never ran right and it's a chit show at best.

I can't win over the next 60 hours no matter what I do. Last result is a big rosebud and a few 20lb propane tanks. :lol:

 

Screenshot_20220215-231457_Chrome.thumb.jpg.489fa361742c6d7c2efe4eff796967d9.jpg

 

 

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, WeatherMonger said:

I'm actually rooting for you with this one. Don't want to shovel snow and GHD3 proved using the plow on 4 wheeler sucks for my drive. Pulled the carb off the snowblower I bought 5 years ago and never ran right and it's a chit show at best.

I can't win over the next 60 hours no matter what I do. Last result is a big rosebud and a few 20lb propane tanks. :lol:

 

Screenshot_20220215-231457_Chrome.thumb.jpg.489fa361742c6d7c2efe4eff796967d9.jpg

 

 

Try a flamethrower. Lol. How much did you end up with btw? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you've been following the CAM runs since they've gotten into range, they're modeling extensive warm sector convection which they explicitly forecast (hence Convection Allowing Models).

The operational models and ensemble members parameterize convection, which is simulating the combined effects of convective clouds that might exist based off other elements being explicitly modeled. One of the pitfalls of higher resolution operational models and ensemble members is that the convective effects applied to many more grid points can result in a high resolution garbage in, high resolution garbage out phenomena.

We had an internal call with WPC last night and a forecaster from one of the offices on the call made the point that it's possible the GFS and NAM were being affected by convective feedback.

The thing about handling convection is that it's hard to be confident if the mass fields will be impacted in a negative way, if models are over deepening a key short wave due to simulated convection, or if some guidance members are overemphasizing negative effects. There's plenty of examples of the all of the above occurring with mid latitude cyclones modeled to have a large convective footprint in the warm sector.

I've been thinking about that point made last night and wondering if it helps explain the lingering high uncertainty in the guidance. Even the CAM solutions are struggling, given the large difference between the members of the 00z HREF.

My thinking is that since there's reasonable agreement in a sub 1000 mb low tracking north of the Ohio River, this has historically been a good track for sig snow into Chicago metro. So while I certainly can't ignore the possibility warning snows miss us south or that the whole system is weaker due to destructive interference from convection, holding with the thinking that the central (including western burbs) and south metro and points south do well.

This is based off pattern recognition, favorable jet dynamics (left exit and right entrance of jet to our north) to allow for more expansive precip shield than some of the stingier guidance on north end, and the antecedent strong downstream ridging (possibly enhanced by latent heat release).

I believe that some of the above factors (minus sfc low track), while unfortunately not overcoming the dry air for the far north and northwest metro and points west for GHD III, enabled the big dog type totals to get up to the I-55 corridor and solid warning snows decently north of that.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk



  • Like 3
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, StormChaser4Life said:

Try a flamethrower. Lol. How much did you end up with btw? 

No clue, have to ask Capital Airport here in Springfield. ILX says our official total was 12 inches, reported by Capital Airport. 

 

Capital Airport on Thursday reported 11.4" as an Official NWS OBS. Then for the Official storm tally Capital Airport took it back to 9.7" for some reason.

 

I've disputed some of their tallies before, but never like this one. They actually reported the 11.4" to ILX for recording.

 

Screenshot_20220204-111610_Chrome.thumb.jpg.9cb9b87a73db2d0e3c7895dcce55f467.jpg

 

Screenshot_20220204-111549_Chrome.thumb.jpg.8b9353b7b3d5ec8450d47acaa4195a48.jpg

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, RCNYILWX said:

If you've been following the CAM runs since they've gotten into range, they're modeling extensive warm sector convection which they explicitly forecast (hence Convection Allowing Models).

The operational models and ensemble members parameterize convection, which is simulating the combined effects of convective clouds that might exist based off other elements being explicitly modeled. One of the pitfalls of higher resolution operational models and ensemble members is that the convective effects applied to many more grid points can result in a high resolution garbage in, high resolution garbage out phenomena.

We had an internal call with WPC last night and a forecaster from one of the offices on the call made the point that it's possible the GFS and NAM were being affected by convective feedback.

The thing about handling convection is that it's hard to be confident if the mass fields will be impacted in a negative way, if models are over deepening a key short wave due to simulated convection, or if some guidance members are overemphasizing negative effects. There's plenty of examples of the all of the above occurring with mid latitude cyclones modeled to have a large convective footprint in the warm sector.

I've been thinking about that point made last night and wondering if it helps explain the lingering high uncertainty in the guidance. Even the CAM solutions are struggling, given the large difference between the members of the 00z HREF.

My thinking is that since there's reasonable agreement in a sub 1000 mb low tracking north of the Ohio River, this has historically been a good track for sig snow into Chicago metro. So while I certainly can't ignore the possibility warning snows miss us south or that the whole system is weaker due to destructive interference from convection, holding with the thinking that the central (including western burbs) and south metro and points south do well.

This is based off pattern recognition, favorable jet dynamics (left exit and right entrance of jet to our north) to allow for more expansive precip shield than some of the stingier guidance on north end, and the antecedent strong downstream ridging (possibly enhanced by latent heat release).

I believe that some of the above factors (minus sfc low track), while unfortunately not overcoming the dry air for the far north and northwest metro and points west for GHD III, enabled the big dog type totals to get up to the I-55 corridor and solid warning snows decently north of that.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk


 

Appreciate the post, RC.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, WeatherMonger said:

No clue, have to ask Capital Airport here in Springfield. ILX says our official total was 12 inches, reported by Capital Airport. 

 

Capital Airport on Thursday reported 11.4" as an Official NWS OBS. Then for the Official storm tally Capital Airport took it back to 9.7" for some reason.

 

I've disputed some of their tallies before, but never like this one. They actually reported the 11.4" to ILX for recording.

 

Screenshot_20220204-111610_Chrome.thumb.jpg.9cb9b87a73db2d0e3c7895dcce55f467.jpg

 

Screenshot_20220204-111549_Chrome.thumb.jpg.8b9353b7b3d5ec8450d47acaa4195a48.jpg

 

 

 

 

Looks like somewhere along the line a correction was made. Now shows it corrected, but not sure when they did it.

 

 

Screenshot_20220215-234918_Chrome.thumb.jpg.37913ed91948c31d5fde1808746f2800.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Chicago Storm changed the title to Feb 16-17th Winter Storm

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...