vortex95

CoastalWx mentioning national news reminded me of something. This is probably when I came to realize what wx had become in terms of treating the ordinary as extraordinary and the lack of scaling/quantification. In late July 2014 I was visiting a friend at a TV station in NJ, and the ABC Word News Tonight at 630 came on. And the lead story? "We begin tonight w/ svr wx w/ at least one tornado touching down..." This is what happened on this day. https://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/140724_rpts.html The tornado in question was in Edgewater FL. It was an EF0 and damaged some hangers and planes at the local airport. No one was hurt. This is national news? This is *local* story only. It was a minor event, par for the course any day in July for svr wx. You have 30 min to talk about news of the world, and this is material for such a newscast? Are you telling me that this is the best the staff of a national news show can do for a story? It is lazy journalism and wx is low-hanging fruit. Don't get me wrong, wx on a national newscast is entirely relevant, but confine to something significant overall that has widespread impact or causes injuries/fatalities.

Just the topics of logical fallacies and cognitive biases *alone* is so much material. And we can all relate to them well b/c we are all susceptible and/or committed them at one time or another, and have experienced it first hand among the population and media.

Attractive headlines I have no issue w/ on a fundamental level, and they do have plenty of value, but as w/ anything, it can be abused, and that abuse line was crossed a long time ago IMHO. You wrote: "It is always best to ignore the hype in weather and sports... " I agree 100%, but it's very hard to b/c it is everywhere! Yes on social media platforms you can block words/phrases and ppl/sites, but it doesn't catch everything. Just casually watching TV or listening to radio, or ads on on sites like YouTube, it gets you. And over time, the drama, hype, and negative has worked their way into everything. You can't even have escapism watching a movie or show anymore w/o some kind of messaging or virtue signaling randomly inserted that has zero to do w/ the plot, but put in anyways.

It does not surprise me one bit! Never underestimate the drive to get more ratings, no matter how ridiculous or stupid it sounds! And it can be taken even further here, and it proves what I have said so many times in recent years. The ordinary is now turned into extraordinary! So this is a fcst for New Orleans. You know what the normal high temp is for June 27 (date of this article)? 91! And dew points are in the 70s almost all the time in summer, so afternoon heat indices are in the low 100s, and 107 like mentioned here happens a significant part of the time every summer. So how is this "dangerous?" This is normal climate for this area, and ppl are *used* to it. This idea that just b/c temps 90+ and the heat index 100+ somehow that means this summarily bad for humans is bunk. Ppl adapt well to their local climate no problem, have so for 1000s of years. "By Monday, temperatures will surge even higher as a strong heat bubble aloft moves northward over the Tennessee and Ohio River Valleys, keeping the New Orleans area well above normal. Combined with higher humidity, Tuesday is shaping up to be a hot day." 2 F higher is a "surge?" And 3 deg above avg for a high temps is not "well above normal." Oh, the drama! I get sometimes, "well, that's just the way it is." I am not contesting that. Society changes/evolves. What I am contesting is the relentless fear-mongering and making mountains out of molehills. Crying wolf all the time is a bad thing, no? Putting ppl in a constant state of alert is unhealthy both physically and psychologically.

The tactic "scare w/ large numbers" is a biggie. How about "340 million people under high UV risk today!" Sounds ridiculous, but the trend to demonize *everything* no matter what is strong, so just you wait! And one could say, "well, UV is ionizing radiation and is a real risk!" and they would not be wrong. Very sleazy way to justify hype. Since ubiquitous well-known risk exists every day routinely, there is no practical value bringing it up most of the time other than for ratings and hype. We learn about normal risk from a young age. Risk is everywhere, and constantly bringing attention to it is counterproductive. Yes, alert the population as needed, and *not* for your own profit/business!

Yet so many ppl do not think twice taking the dog out for a walk when lightning is hitting not that far away and the thunder is very loud. As long as it is not raining, who cares?

Wow, this is a good one. Thanks for passing along. It may be a doctored image, but *nothing* would surprise me these days. And something like is done here? This would fall under a classic tactic from the book "How to Lie with Statistics" (Duff, 1954 - you can find it free to read on-line). It goes like this: On a graph, play w/ the y-axis. You can make things look as significant or insignificant as much as you want visually. Ppl are drawn to a flashy graphic first, and the labeling second (if at all). And this has been shown to work or influence in any venue/setting to get a particular message across. Over time, no matter how cheesy or insignificant it may be, for a hype angle or to simply grab attention more, nothing is off the table! I get the business model and why it is done (competition is intense/shorter attention spans), but it has become ridiculous. Micromanaging/slicing and dicing to the extreme, and I am not just making deductions/suppositions from what I see presented. I know a number of of OCMs, and some have told me this is how it really is. Many OCMs do not want to do such things b/c they want to keep it real and based, but they are told to do this by the news directors or consultants, and have no choice. And the book I mentioned above, you see that the saying, "there are lies, damn lies, and STATISTICS!" is not just some casual idiom!

That 29" at CAR was its biggest 24 hr snowstorm by far up to that time. Attached is a classic weenie snowfall map from Storm Data for this storm!

What is said above I agree 100%. Rating it? It looks about "average" for a svr wx event we typically see this time of year. Just b/c it is "average," certainty does not mean it won't be good, and some areas will get crushed, esp. w/ rain as PWATs are over 2" and K-indices 34+. Storms should largely move orderly W-E 20-25 mph. Short bow segments and clusters w/ marginal/brief supercell structures are likely. Tornado threat is low since winds are rather light 850 and below. However 0-3 km CAPE is excellent so an isolated QLCS spin-up is possible. On the large-scale, the flow aloft today was weakly anticyclonic, but that switches to more solid cyclonic Thu. Just noting that b/c even in absence of a distinct s/w trof, anticyclonic vs. cyclonic flow makes a sig difference for convective initiation and maintenance. No capping issues Thu due to cyclonic flow! HRRR gives the Delmarva the most QPF. This does not surprise me. I have noticed anecdotally, storms often do very well here. Probably due to more boundaries and slightly higher DPs since you have both the Bay breezes and sea breezes interacting here. Look like general showers/tstms around Fri-Sat and maybe Sun, then a break Mon-Tue as we have a stable wedge of high pressure in the region (looks like cold air damning in the summer - see GFS valid 12z Tue below) Then more interesting after that w/ NW flow svr wx events possible.

Good info! Thanks. This kind of discussion is great b/c it puts forth different views/angles that we all can take in, and then make adjustments and see things better. It is all too easy for one to isolate themselves in their own mindset/attitude, and forget there is always more too it or another way of looking at it! Perhaps "cowering" was not the best term choice, at least not as to what actually happens when sig wx occurs, However, the message being put forth, from the individual to big media, is on the level that "cowering" does fit IMHO. This is biggest tissue I have -- how wx is handled/presented by so many in recent decades. That has devolved significantly, and has real physical and physiological impacts. I agree that more ppl than not get it and do to succumb or fall prey to excessive hype, but unfortunately the vocal minority that do get *most* of the attention, and even one person crying foul in some cases, ends up going viral or officials/authorities/politicians overreacting, and it ends up being a much bigger deal that it actually should be, and this in turn affects mindsets, zeitgeist, and policy. And also, you get those in charge using wx events for ulterior and questionable motives at times. And due to excessive hype, it promotes distrust and apathy in the public, and that can and does have consequences that are non-trivial. Social media is biased w/ hype and over the top b/c it get clicks/likes and drives the algorithms, so individuals not only benefit, but also the platforms do, and you get this feedback loop, and the platform quality goes down. I have no problem w/ hype when it is warranted, meaning when something truly big is fcst that will have impacts way above the norm and/or is quite rare, like a Sandy or the Oct 2011 snowstorm, going full throttle is a good thing. But crying wolf for virtually *every* wx event is ridiculous and counterproductive. What WxWiz said about local hype in CT for the most recent rain event is a good example. Yes, in a vacuum, 4-8" of rain fcst is a concern, but as discussed, there are other factors to consider. esp. when talking about *impact* to society. The MSM and hype-masters often conflate an event intensity and impact. The two are not always direct correlated! And we have the tech, skill, and knowledge now to quite easily quantify and scale wx events very good, but not all for various reasons are taking advantage of it! For instance, you will still here some ppl think/say (anywhere - the public to officials/authorities) -- "well, you never know w/ the wx!" That is a largely an out-of-date and weasel excuse these days.

I wanted to follow up on a post I did last night. Some details here that may not be so apparent to all, and this evolving pattern provides a good example how it's not "one-size-fits-all" for a given pattern and sensible wx. The details count and help quantify a fcst better. In this case, it will not be the same as the pattern we had last week w/ the snow in the Northern Rockies and big heat in the East, despite a strong 500 ridge fcst. I attached a GIF loop of the GFS 500H/V for the next 10 days. You can see the ridge axis/center that forms so far N, you actually get tropical-type easterlies across the srn half of the CONUS and westward moving disturbances. Not tropical waves per se, just weak 500 lows. The first shows up over KS/MO/OK at 96 hr and then moves W under the ridge to the Central Rockies where it merges w/ a vort center that is stuck within the ridge, and then it all ends up moving N and then E around the top of the ridge. And then look at about 156 hr on the SC/GA coast, a small 500 low develops moves W and eventually ends up over srn NM. In this case, despite the 600 dm ridge, this is not classic big heat pattern for the CONUS. It's tropical and unstable w/ easterlies across the srn 1/2 of the CONUS and in the Rockies, despite ridging aloft, weak disturbances are embedded w/ a lot of mid-level RH present. So this means considerable amounts of diurnal RW/TRW, which keeps temps from getting really hot, and is why the 850 temps avg slightly below normal across the srn 1/2 of the CONUS (150 hr ECM 850 anomalies attached) Also, and I failed to mention this yesterday, yes, it is large and strong ridge, but also a *broad* W to E ridge and wavelengths are not sharp, unlike what happened last week. Not all ridges of high pressure are alike, but some act like that. Seriously, one well-known TV met actually has said, "two heat domes will merge and become one large one next week." As if that means anything as to more extreme temps? That's not how it works for high pressure. This person is trying to force the notion that when two low pressure merge (like a ET low and TC), it works the same for high pressure, and thus an end product more intense. Vapid and linear thinking, preying on public ignorance. Ppl just making things up now for hype! The "two heat domes" that will "merge" mentioned above. If you look at the 500 over the CONUS now, they are typical subtropical 500 highs you would find in mid-summer, one over the Desert SW and another one near the Bahamas. So every ridge of high pressure that has climo hot wx is a heat dome now pushed as unusual? And these two subtropical highs, look at the 500 evolution, there is no sign of any "merging" here. I know I have said stuff along these lines before, but I wanted to share another example of how statements on wx just keep devolving more into slop, and at the same time, point out for the ppl on the forum here some of the finer points of a ridge pattern in this case that from a bird's eye view, it many looks the same, but upon closer look, there are important differences that make for different sensible wx.

EMLs are tricky. They are most prevalent and strongest when the atmosphere is very warm ("warm" being relative to the time of year). This mean things are often capped. So despite tons of CAPE and shear, no storms will develop. But if you storms to fire, then you have a primed environment for svr storms. Weak EMLs are often present, w/ mid-level lapse rates 6.5-7.0 C/km, in many tstm days here. However, you want to see at least 7.0 C/km solid for noticeable results or differences. And just a 0.5 C/km difference is huge b/c the range is small. The dry adiabatic lapse rate is 9.8 C/km and the moist adiabatic lapse rate varies depending on temp and moisture, but in the warm season, anything under 6.0 C/km is not good (it does not mean you can't get big storms though). Generally, look for greater than 7.0 C/km at mid-levels in a fairy thick layer on an observed or fcst model sounding. On the models for mid-level lapse rates, they use 700-500 mb. However, that can be misleading. You may have at 150 mb thick EML between those two levels, or say from 750-550 mb, and this qualifies. EMLs do a couple of things that lead to better storms. 1) EMLs promote elevated CAPE, and this CAPE exists independent of diurnal effects, so loss of daytime heating is not as much a factor. And during the day before the convective temp is reached, you already have CAPE aloft just waiting to be tapped, and links w/ building sfc-based CAPE. In the end, you get considerably stronger updrafts in CBs. 2) Where an EML exists is often the best hail growth zone in a CB, so hail at the sfc and/or larger hail is more likely (steep lapse rates and higher mid-level CAPE mean more vigorous updrafts at mid-levels). 3) And along the same lines as above, the EML can be in or close to the mixed phase layer of the CB where charge separation occurs the most, so that means more LTG, esp. in-cloud LTG. Solid EMLs on the East Coast are not common, at least those that occur in sync w/ proper low-level moisture and dynamics/forcing to result in significant svr wx events. Two of the biggest ideal EML events are June 23, 1944 Mid-Atlantic tornado outbreak and the June 8-9, 1953 Great Lakes-New England tornado outbreaks. Another one was July 10, 1989, which is the record for most tornadoes in a single day in New England. That day I experienced first-hand, and that’s when I took note of the EML factor. IAD sounding 00z on the 11th had a distinct EML present. However S of NYC, not storms occurred b/c it was capped. So for the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast's biggest tornado events, typically a solid EML is present, but everything else has to line up almost perfectly for an actual high-end event. In general, having an EML present is a good thing if you want more intense tstms and more overnight storms. I really like what I see coming up for the CONUS 500 pattern. Big hot ridge to our W and we are in persistent WNW or NW flow aloft. This is how you advect a solid EML from the Plains to the East Coast, and WNW or NW flow historically had led some of the biggest svr wx outbreaks in the summer months for the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast.

Sounds like damage control in link title --"not nearly the rainfall we need." Ok, who ever said it would be enough? The point is we got a solid widespread rain event. You have to start somewhere to come out of drought conditions. Geez, wx does not work in nice, neat, even increments and balances out 1-1 when talking short periods of time. A case of you can look at the glass half-full or empty (yes, the pun is there but not intentional!).

Sorry, I couldn't resist!

What happened to your warm front *absolutely* needed for the big R+ in a summer month? Nor'easter is still a nor'easter in July. Only difference is that they are weaker and smaller, but much higher PWATs tend to compensate to give solid QPF. The OER was neat to see today streaming in from the due E!