FFC mentioned the models are still showing moisture redeveloping.It really only affects GA and it's potential for backend snow on the main band coming through our area right now. Doesn't really affect the snow flurry/shower potential afterwards.
FFC mentioned the models are still showing moisture redeveloping.It really only affects GA and it's potential for backend snow on the main band coming through our area right now. Doesn't really affect the snow flurry/shower potential afterwards.
I still Managed a light rain snow mix with that November 29th trough to ?This event on Nov 30th in the St Louis metro area probably isn't a bad, conservative analog to what we'll see tomorrow in the Carolinas (& most NWP models never forecasted even so much as a flurry in their forecast fields, most places saw at least flurries.), although this trough and associated cyclonic vorticity advection is much, much stronger this time around than it was for STL on Nov 30. Both of these generally argue for better coverage of precipitation and higher rates where precipitation occurs tomorrow in the Carolinas vs in STL on Nov 30 imo.
Nov 30 event
View attachment 59867
Tomorrow
View attachment 59869
The lower levels aren’t dry though in that sounding, if you looked at the corresponding sounding from pivotal weather, the lower level relative humidity is still greater than 80%, with a sub saturated layer that’s only 3000-4000 feet deep verbatim on the HRRR, that’s a pretty negligible dry layer if you ask me. Yes saturation with respect to ice is an additional percent or two lower than water which gives additional one or two RH percentage points in a sub freezing environment. If the HRRR came to fruition there wouldn’t be any concerns with dry air imo based on that sounding you showed. Oth, other models like the NSSL, ARW, & NAM are drier with a shallower mixed layer and they do look more concerning in that regard and I think the HRRR may be over mixing the BL which is causing it to produce more precip than the other cams. For ex: Simply mixing two relatively moist but unsaturated parcels leads to supersaturation because the mixing occurs linearly while saturation vapor pressure is exponential. Excess boundary layer mixing begets saturation and forcing for ascent
Looks like that may be happening with the line developing on the east side of BHM.It looks like as the trough goes neutral, another small piece of energy gets injected into main energy of the upper level trough which allows some moisture to redevelop on the backside of the band. That being said, NWS just put out a tweet saying the line is moving 1-2 hours faster than their modeling so that may not bold well for any chance of snow on the backside of the band.
Many years back, we had some convective snow bands come through the day after a storm. It was very impressive. It would darken up, snow (big flakes) for 20 minutes, stop, and then the sun would come out. It did this three or four times.
Im def interested in there next update especially the implications of the precip stalling/slowing down this evening. The wienie in me wants the precip to hang around longer to get the cold air to catch up....GSP hinted in their latest discussion that small pops might be needed east of the mountains for tomorrow.
Sure is..nothing fell in NW Ala this morning when radar showed a good area of snowIf there’s any virga whatsoever than my concern about a dry layer isn’t “unfounded”
Looks similar to this storm
All virga apparentlyAlso, this band is most likely virga but it is visible to some degree on all three of the closest radar sites (however it is also pretty far from those three sites). I’d still be interested to see if anything is making it to the ground.
View attachment 59871