WhirlingWx

Over 470k people in the extended warning now...

Could be recycling at a bad time because by the time it ingests all that other convection it'll be far closer to the B'ham metro

Yup, first of the day now... wonder how long it'll go...

4 minutes ago, Bob's Burgers said:

zooming in on GR, that's a mobile home area. very sensitive place for a tornado 

went full BWER

EDIT: ninja'd and by radar image ^

11 minutes ago, jpeters3 said:

The mass of convection that is currently forming in southern MS is a fly in the ointment.  This looks similar to what the toned-down 00 UTC HRRR showed, and might pose a junkvection-like mechanism for preventing more widespread stabilization.

Could be why the TOR risk was kept at 30%, just from a confidence standpoint. Again, *the SPC risk has no impact on the event itself*

24 minutes ago, TexMexWx said:

Gensini is just going ALL in, and I mean ALL in... I don't really know but he's definitely respected so I think it's pretty noteworthy. Though I don't seriously think SPC issues a 60% sig unless we're in the midst of Super Outbreak v3 in about 3 hours (which again, is unlikely *to be clear*).

I would probably just shift the high risk a little S/SE honestly and keep the TOR risk at 30%... but I'm an amateur at best, so again, I really don't know. Anyone else can chime in on their thoughts on it (some have already).

okay welp I imagine we're going 45% in a couple minutes

EDIT: or not

Gensini is just going ALL in, and I mean ALL in... I don't really know but he's definitely respected so I think it's pretty noteworthy. Though I don't seriously think SPC issues a 60% sig unless we're in the midst of Super Outbreak v3 in about 3 hours (which again, is unlikely *to be clear*).

I would probably just shift the high risk a little S/SE honestly and keep the TOR risk at 30%... but I'm an amateur at best, so again, I really don't know. Anyone else can chime in on their thoughts on it (some have already).

6 minutes ago, ALweather said:

Still seems like a lot of cloud cover to burn through in Central Alabama right now. Can't help but wonder if we'll see a repeat of last week where the threat starts to really scale back the closer we get to it. 

I think something to keep in mind, is that the volatile environment that's expected to occur was forecasted to materialize with *full* cloud cover from pretty much every model I saw. The fact that there are still clouds at this time doesn't mean the threat is any lower than it was before. Of course, maybe at this time tomorrow we'll be talking about something that ended up limiting the threat (which I honestly hope happens). Also, as pointed out just above, the highest threat appears to be slightly north/west of Central Alabama anyways (which, again, doesn't mean the area is out of the woods right now). Even while mentioning that, there is always the possibility that the threat gets shifted a little south than what's currently forecasted. 

Just now, Bob's Burgers said:

The FV3 is out to lunch

what's it doing?

2 minutes ago, jojo762 said:

This might be of interest to some, but Broyles will be doing the 06z D1 update.

inb4 60% sig /s

4 minutes ago, Powerball said:

I suspect not only will they extend the watch (set to expire in 15 minutes), but likely upgrade it to a Tornado Watch

 

Yep, you called it. Surprised it doesn't include Denton county, where there is literally a tornadic supercell-? Goes until 4 AM... not a fan.

just gonna drop in this cropped radar images I got off of twitter cause they're better quality than anything I could have 

12 minutes ago, Powerball said:

Well, the Dallas side of the Metroplex has had activity in virtually every which direction surrounding it, but not overhead.

Definitely luck of the draw, lol.

Yeah lol. I just checked back in to twitter and immediately was greeted by radar images of the TOR-warned supercell in Denton county, holy moly at that structure though.

Just now, Bob's Burgers said:

You have to pay for those soundings/pivotal weather plus

Yeah, I figured cause nothing here seemed right.  Will delete that post because that sounding is absolutely useless lol

7 minutes ago, cheese007 said:

Not crazy about that tor warned cell to the southwest heading into the metro

Hopefully should pass to the southeast, but Kaufman county might need to watch it closely down the line4

EDIT: Hmmmm.. not fully sure that it misses Dallas county entirely now... but we'll see.

Max Olson got the tornado earlier (my links are embedding and I don't know how to fix this setting if someone could pls help lmk lol)

Max Olson on Twitter: "#Tornado east of Hamilton, TX about 5 minutes ago, has since lifted. @NWSFortWorth https://t.co/EQnTEvqhXV" / Twitter

Tornado warning for Van Zandt county... north of Canton

3 minutes ago, cheese007 said:

Any possibility it gets extended northward? 

I doubt it would get extended unless we have some ongoing tornadic storms that actually look like they'll travel north of the outlined area.

Haven't been able to pull up the watch info but probably has relatively low TOR probs given that the wording was "a couple tornadoes possible"

Tornado watch just issued up to the line of counties south of Dallas/Tarrant, but the watch does include Kaufman county as well

18z HRRR is a bloodbath 

EDIT: this is not to say that I expect it to verify. The failure mode of crowded warm sector has been greatly discussed, and is still a very valid concern, and something that we won't know for sure until tomorrow. That isn't to say that the HRRR should totally be tossed.. but yeah

Just now, ATDoel said:

what I'm more interested in is how often the word "violent" is used in the 1730z d2 outlook that didn't precede an outbreak with at least one ef3+. 

Well, just looking at those 4 dates mentioned, all of them DID have an EF3 or higher. 4/14/12 had 5 EF3s and 1 EF4 (yes, I know "violent" was being used in a different context for that D2 outlook, but I'm including it anyways). 4/24/10 had 3 EF3s and 2 EF4s, as did 3/01/07. 4/07/06 had 2 EF3s. My source is Wikipedia lol but it's not bad for information on tornado outbreaks.

3 minutes ago, ATDoel said:

and intense refers to EF+3?  Very confusing, especially since last week their hatched area indicated a 10% chance of an EF2-EF5 tornado.

Also, about this, I believe you are correct about "intense" referring to EF3+ tornadoes. As for the hatched area thing, you are also correct, in that the hatched area represents a 10% or greater chance of an EF2-EF5 tornado. Anything EF2+ would verify their outlook from a probability standpoint. Usually, what differentiates their use of "strong" vs. "intense" vs. "violent" when it comes to their actual technical discussion is based on what the forecaster views the potential severity/ceiling of the event as. A setup that could conditionally produce sigtors will look different from a setup that screams more specifically higher-end tornado potential, but the probabilistic graphics don't communicate that, so you might see a different choice of words in the discussion to indicate that thinking from a human forecaster's perspective. Mesoscale accidents can happen that could produce an EF4+ on a "lower-end" (kind of an oxymoron) significant tornado day, but in general, you could probably tell a setup that could produce a couple EF2s from one that could produce several EF3-EF4+ tornadoes.

All of this has little to do with tomorrow from an actual meteorological analysis, but I hope this answers your questions

4 minutes ago, cheese007 said:

Just outside the ENH area but def more concerened relative to last few risks. The mornings with clear blue skies are always the most worriesome for me!

I just realized I haven't looked outside all day so I didn't realize it was actually clear out  kind of thought it was another wimpy WAA source of instability lol

Looking at models, I feel like the highest threat could be *just* south/southeast of you and I, but with where the warm front sets up I will also be watching regardless. Also seems like DFW's largest recent hailstorms have been in March, so... there's that.

So, about the 3km NAM...

On 3/18/2021 at 5:00 PM, MattPetrulli said:

March 27 

Yearly count: 1185

 

Do you wanna change this to the 25th? I'm assuming that when you made that prediction, you were looking at the event from the (then) long-range models at that time...