• Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!

Wintry Feb 17-19 Smastsmasher Snow/Ice

Webberweather53 said:
RGEM did well the day of the event but it's cold biased at this range 2-3 days out, almost always is & this case doesn't look any different.
Click to expand...
Also, the blend almost always shoots way up the day before or day of event when the GFS and Euro gets slapped around and wakes up to the CAD and then no one uses the blend because it’s no longer showing the least. I think it’s a good tool to use to determine a footprint. Instead of cutting totals in half like we use to with the DGEX back in the day, usually a good idea to double the NWS blend at this lead time.
 
Blue_Ridge_Escarpment said:
Also, the blend almost always shoots way up the day before or day of event when the GFS and Euro gets slapped around and wakes up to the CAD and then no one uses the blend because it’s no longer showing the least. I think it’s a good tool to use to determine a footprint. Instead of cutting totals in half like we use to with the DGEX back in the day, usually a good idea to double the NWS blend at this lead time.
Click to expand...

Doubling the NWS blend for the last storm would have resulted in forecasts for over 0.75" of ice in the northern piedmont when you consider that most locations already had 0.15-0.2" of glaze from the night before. The additional 0.2-0.25" or so the blend predicted in the northern piedmont on top of the ice that had already accrued basically dropped it on the money.

Next question

1613392724445.png
 
Webberweather53 said:
Doubling the NWS blend for the last storm would have resulted in forecasts for over 0.75" of ice in the northern piedmont when you consider that most locations already had 0.15-0.2" of glaze from the night before. The additional 0.2-0.25" or so the blend predicted in the northern piedmont on top of the ice that had already accrued basically dropped it on the money.

Next question

View attachment 75154
Click to expand...
At the 24 hour lead time shown in the image I would agree with you it’s fairly accurate as stated above. At this lead time, 72-84 hours when the GFS and euro don’t have a clue yet, not so much.
 
Blue_Ridge_Escarpment said:
At the 24 hour lead time shown in the image I would agree with you it’s fairly accurate as stated above. At this lead time, 72-84 hours when the GFS and euro don’t have a clue yet, not so much.
Click to expand...

It's a lot more accurate than those crazy QPF only clown maps you're gawking over. Also the RGEM probably doesn't have a clue this far out either and balances out the GFS & Euro.
 
Webberweather53 said:
It's a lot more accurate than those crazy QPF only clown maps you're gawking over. Also the RGEM probably doesn't have a clue this far out either and balances out the GFS & Euro.
Click to expand...
Yeah the RGEM is overdone, I believe everyone knows that. However with its partner the CMC showing it as well, there’s credence to that I believe. I think the CMC is probably the best global model at sniffing out a CAD event. I also just noticed that NWS blend showed around 0.05 here, that was slightly underdone ;)
 
Webberweather53 said:
It's a lot more accurate than those crazy QPF only clown maps you're gawking over. Also the RGEM probably doesn't have a clue this far out either and balances out the GFS & Euro.
Click to expand...
i think you can use these maps or the temperature maps to look for trends for the area that could be affected. I think of if as a footprint. Most here definitely don’t think the freezing rain maps verbatim are going to verify as ice accrual. Put these together with all of the pretty snow maps and we would be a frozen for the entire winter.
 
Blue_Ridge_Escarpment said:
Yeah the RGEM is overdone, I believe everyone knows that. However with its partner the CMC showing it as well, there’s credence to that I believe. I think the CMC is probably the best global model at sniffing out a CAD event. I also just noticed that NWS blend showed around 0.05 here, that was slightly underdone ;)
Click to expand...

You're cherry-picking verification in your backyard when the overall evolution was still really close to what it showed & better than those ZR QPF maps you've been liking on here.
 
packfan98 said:
i think you can use these maps or the temperature maps to look for trends for the area that could be affected. I think of if as a footprint. Most here definitely don’t think the freezing rain maps verbatim are going to verify as ice accrual. Put these together with all of the pretty snow maps and we would be a frozen for the entire winter.
Click to expand...

The RGEM is just too cold imo and it almost always is this far out. The heavy precip rates that will accompany this setup will severely limit ZR accrual. Ice storms like the last one that are very long duration w/ light precip are the worst because cold advection can offset or overwhelm latent heating processes.


Blue_Ridge_Escarpment said:
I’m not upset busting that way, just pointing out how awful it was here. Those maps im liking on here sure verified a whole lot better.
Click to expand...

Again in your backyard they did, but I don't see anyone else here getting the inch of ice they've been promising all winter long.
 
12z NAM looking a bit stronger and further south with the HP out to our west. Hopefully this will result in everything being a bit further south on Wednesday night/Thursday.

TW
 
GaWx said:
This isn’t the right thread for DFW storm #2, but I’ll address it here since it was mentioned. The mediocre at best NAM tends to overdo qpf significantly. The GFS, Euro, and CMC have under 0.50” of qpf. So, even if pure snow, that likely would produce less than 5”. The GFS remains a very close call with the 0C 850 line crossing over parts of DFW metro. After snow to start, it has mainly sleet the rest of the storm. If that plays out, it would be closer to 2” at most. But, 2” of mainly sleet on top of what’s already there along with frigid air/ground temps would be very hazardous!
Click to expand...

12z NAM looks to be another wet run for DFW. But again, still very borderline thermal-wise.

Wednesday's system is different from the current one, in that I can actually see those higher QPF amounts verifying with the lift/instability shown and much better moisture advection from the gulf. At least with westward extent, it will be more of a question of coverage/duration (see 12z HRRR for example) as all of the dynamics come together.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top