vortex95

IL had 20+ tornado reports yesterday, and the state is now over 190 for the year (*reports*, not actual tornadoes, there are duplicate reports in this total). Attached is a map for the bigger state totals through 6/19. The disparity is amazing. Why IL only so much more? It's not like when an area is soaked or buried repeatedly w/ rain/snow. That is more on the synoptic level and areal coverage is larger. When you get down to a local level, such as an area that is about avg size for a U.S. state, that's not the same for scale. And to get tornadoes, it is a lot more conditional (harder) than say a lot of heavy rain or snow over an extended period. But given the vagaries of the atmosphere/patterns and given enough time, you are going to see things due to the law of large numbers and averages. Just pointing this out b/c some try to assign a specific meaning or cause, where sometimes there is none. Yes, I know of the hypothesis that tornado alley is shifting E, but we really do not have enough solid data IMHO. Tornadoes, esp. weak and short-lived ones, were severely under-counted prior to the 1990s since storm chasing was not yet mainstream, WSR-88Ds did not exist for operational use, nor did the Internet (at least in widespread use). ~35 years of data is not enough time to establish a trend either way. I would argue that it wasn't until 2010 or so when we started to get close to actual number of tornadoes that occur every year in the U.S. w/ the advent of the smartphone and dual-polarization radar.

IL had 20+ tornado reports yesterday, and the state is now over 190 for the year (*reports*, not actual tornadoes, there are duplicate reports in this total). Attached is a map for the bigger state totals through 6/19. The disparity is amazing. Why IL only so much more? It's not like when an area is soaked or buried repeatedly w/ rain/snow. That is more on the synoptic level and areal coverage is larger. When you get down to a local level, such as an area that is about avg size for a U.S. state, that's not the same for scale. And to get tornadoes, it is a lot more conditional (harder) than say a lot of heavy rain or snow over an extended period (CoastalWx would disagree about the heavy snow!). But given the vagaries of the atmosphere/patterns and given enough time, you are going to see things due to the law of large numbers and averages. Just pointing this out b/c some try to assign a specific meaning or cause, where sometimes there is none. Yes, I know of the hypothesis that tornado alley is shifting E, but we really do not have enough solid data IMHO. Tornadoes, esp. weak and short-lived ones, were severely under-counted prior to the 1990s since storm chasing was not yet mainstream, WSR-88Ds did not exist for operational use, nor did the Internet (at least in widespread use). ~35 years of data is not enough time to establish a trend either way. I would argue that it wasn't until 2010 or so when we started to get close to actual number of tornadoes that occur every year in the U.S. w/ the advent of the smartphone and dual-polarization radar.

I wanted to follow up on a post I did a few weeks ago and comments I got from that post. There is always lots of wx going on, domestically and globally. Talking about it is fine. Talking about high-end/impactful events is fine as well, But when it is all lopsided on basically one thing w/ obvious hype and pushing agenda, that becomes an issue, not only from a scientific POV, but also a public POV. Take these recent posts from a individual (I blocked out the name but it is not hard to figure out based on the graphics and the state mentioned most often) What is posted by this individual is almost always on heat, nothing else (look this individual's sites yourself). It's not just anomalous heat, it's typical heat, turning the ordinary into the extraordinary or making mountains out of molehills. Look at the first attachment. Head indices in FL this time of year 105-110 are normal almost every day in the summer. And 110+ in TX is common this time of year. Yet you get the headline "relentless heat" as if it is unusual or noteworthy? That's like saying, "relentless sunshine" and hyping up UV risk. Also, this obsession w/ the term "heat dome." First, that is made-up term for hype, nothing more. Second, not every ridge of high pressure is hot. Just b/c you have high 500 mb heights, does not necessarily translate to hot temps are the surface. We don't live at 18,000 ft! This is basic meteorology And of course ridges of high pressure will exist by default in the subtropics and tropics this time of year. That's normal. What would be noteworthy is if they didn't for any length of time! This would like saying that having 1200 tornadoes annually in the U.S. is atypical when that is the avg or stating the polar vortex forms and impacts wx in the cool season is a "problem," when it does this every year. The second image attached. I find this analysis on changes in 100+ heat index days in FL highly suspect. First, all value are multiples of ten. A true scientific analysis would not have nice even numbers all like this. Second, this ignores the heat island effect that is very pronounced in urban areas over the decades. And since most climate sites are close or in cities, this is the cherry-picking logical fallacy here. Only 2% of the global land area is urbanized, so see the problem here? This is distinct bias to promote a specific narrative more than anything. That's bad science, and misleads the public. Omission of facts is really no different than lying. And I see praise at times for individuals like this such as, "makes great graphics" or "is a good communicator." or "is popular/well-known." Yes, that is or can be true, but just b/c one does things great or is well-known, says nothing about one's credibility, skill, objectivity, or biases!

HRRR and RRFS have meaty storms and in two distinct waves. However, CAPE is rather low for this time of year for a svr event. Hodographs look better on the NAM/HRRR but not so much on the RRFS. 0-3 km CAPE is lacking on the HRRR and RRFS, so I have to wonder about tor potential. It is fairly strong s/w for June passing just to our N and overall wind fields are good, so perhaps the dynamical part will make up for the rather low CAPE and that's why the HRRR and RRFS show meaty storms. PWATs ramp up nicely during the day. K-indices fcst get to upper 30s so likely big rain producers.

I've noticed that if a 5% tor risk is present, that almost always means a tor watch is issued.

That's new this year. See screenshot attached. A good change IMHO b/c it quantifies things better. Too often, the MSM gets "yellow X happy," as I like to call it, when NHC has multiple potential areas outlined, and the MSM and the hyper-masters act like, "the tropics are coming ALIVE!"

Best I can tell, the 3 spinners in VT this year so far is the most the state has had in a year on record, at least since 1975. Due to over-reporting after the 1953 ORH spinner through 1974 and the concept of a microburst not realized until the early 70s, I would not consider records before 1975 reliable. Of course, it wasn't until the mid 90s when we really started to detect and document much better what actually occurred for tors given the installation of WSR-88Ds and the NWS MAR. WxWiz be like be"MEH!" LOL.

Speaking to a observer in Madison NH, he has had 14.79" since 5/1. CoastalWx: "Why can't we get than here?!"

See here for the snowfall measuring issues pre-1990. https://news.ucar.edu/14009/snowfall-measurement-flaky-history

Noted Albany NH 8.90" and Debry Line VT 7.41" CoCoRaHS MTD.

But if Weymouth does not get the absolute max pcpn for the event in SNE, it will be "MEH!"

You know, this is a New England forum, so all wx in the region is relevant. Maybe we should start a forum called: "5 SM Radius Weymouth - ACATT"

Maybe some decent tstms SNE if the low passes far enough N.

What about the supercells and TOR warnings in MA? Not a complete fail.