==========================================================
Subject:
Re: Mountain Snowfall
Date:
Sun, 28 Dec 1997 01:31:45 -0500 (EST)
From:
ENCWW <stormchaser{at}coastalnet.com>
To:
stormchaser{at}coastalnet.com
>From: pietrych{at}rap.ucar.EDU (Albert Pietrycha)
>Subject: Re: Mountain Snowfall
>To: stormchaser{at}coastalnet.com (ENCWW)
>Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 21:35:09 -0700 (MST)
>
>
>PLEASE CROSS POST THIS TO THE GROUP
>
>
>
>
>I agree that this will be a strong storm but I disagree that it will
equal
>or surpass the '93 event for several reasons. Here is my quick and
dirty
>synopsis.
>
>Today's system that moved through the Gulf region has removed much of
>the tropical moisture. Thus, the amount of available latent heat will
be
>limited. This was not the case in '93 which aided in the explosive
deepening
>of that system
>
>The 500mb support is a little too far west initially. This will become
better
>coupled with the sfc Low but not until the system is further up the
coast-
>say NCish. The '93 storm was well stacked as it started up the ERN
Seaboard.
>This will happen but too late to be a major factor for the SE.
>
>The main sfc Low is not progged to rapidly deepen as far west. This
looks
>to really start to take shape north of FL instead of south of BHM.
This ties
>in nicely with the reasons mentioned above. Also the sfc temp gradient
is
>not as strong as in '93. This too will influence the sfc Low's
deepening.
>
>Yes it will be a SN maker for parts of the deep south but it will not
be
>the storm of the century.
>
>Thoughts anyone?
>
>--Al
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Albert Pietrycha
>pietrych{at}ncar.ucar.edu
>http://www.rap.ucar.edu/staff/pietrych/pietrych.html
>My opinions only I am not a storm chaser..I'm a storm connoisseur
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~