vortex95

Thick smoke was no inhibitor for the nasty training storms in cntrl NJ today. And look at that CG density even zoomed up! CoastalWx: "WHY CAN'T WE GET THAT HERE!?" visloop5.mp4

See how even a small temp bias can make all the difference when it comes to historical rankings? Looking at the past few months, BOS temp is running around 1 F too warm. So remove that bias, and BOS so far this summer is #5 warmest or higher. Non-trivial difference.

We have plenty of redundancy up there for GOES satellites. Heck, there are even satellites up there launched over 15 years ago that are still operational and in use GOES-15, launched in 2010, was the GOES-W satellite until 2018. Then this satellite ownership was transferred to the DoD, and redesignated EWS-G2, and now sites at 62E. So worse case if GOES-19 failed, we could move other satellites to take it place.

Reminds me of anvil shading. Thick, large, sharp anvils from intense storms can induced a thermal gradient on their edges well downwind. Another mesoscale wildcard the models will not handle well or at all!

The training on this storm was incredible. And it was smack dab in the middle of the thick smoke plume, so that did not seem to inhibit things, and maybe enhanced things (cloud condensation nuclei different?). Smoke as to impacting convection has some studies, and results vary. One was smoke plumes seem to increase the frequency of +CGs. I attached the CG plot zoomed up color coded every 20 min going back 2 hr ending 724pm EDT. The density is wild! Radar rainfall estimates show up to 6" in some locations. visloop5.mp4

The NAM is woefully outdated as a model. I do not think it has been updated to tweaked in 10 years or so. It is mainly for a "quick, early look" and I think that's why I has stuck around for so long! Generally, I do not use the NAM after 36 hr, as it does odd things. And the model was never designed for TCs, so never use it for them. The NAM and all its derivative models are going away in Oct (was going to be Aug but pushed back), The RRFS will replace it. The RRFS has its issues, but from what I have seen, it does much better than the NAM.

Yes, I figured that is what happened, and you confirmed it. I work w/ fire and smoke detection and mapping where I work. Here is our main product. https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/products/land/hms.html#maps Gets reset every day around 6am, and fire points and smoke areas are added in real time both automatically and manually during the day through late evening. Wind by *far* is the biggest factor in wildfire spread and intensity. And w/ the passage of a cold front you are going to get drier air advected in as well, so smoldering or low-level fires suddenly can get a massive boost. This also happened in central Quebec last summer or the summer before. Smoldering fires ignited by lightning and held at bay by rain occurred, and then the cold front passed, and all at once, you saw multiple fires erupt in sync across the region w/ big smoke plumes. This is was due to strong winds behind the cold front. Some think, "but it just raining a lot, how could things burn so much?" Well, that's a disconnect that exists. Things are a lot more complex than led on. There is a reason why fire wx has it own branch in meteorology, and the nuances and idiosyncrasies are rife and not what you'd expect! It is pretty amazing stuff. The sheer amount of training modules on MetEd/COMET is impressive, so that shows how big and complex this field is. And despite what MSM constantly pushes, drought or hot temps have little or nothing to do w/ wildfires. High winds are low RH are *everything*. You can have the wettest month on record, and then get fire wx warnings not days later. Recall March 2010 how wet it was in SNE, esp. RI? Well, a few days after a big flood event events, fire wx warnings were put up for the region This b/c windy conditions and low RH will dry out grass and shrubs in short order (called 1-hour fuels). Also, being spring, it's all still dead vegetation that burns easily. Open grasslands in the Plains are the same. Massive wildfires occur when no drought is present, again b/c it is largely 1-hour fuels. And in places like CA? Well, you have the wet season, and then the dry season by default, so most everything that sprouts/grows during the wet season, dies and decays in the dry season for a prime fuel load, and the wetter the wet season, often the worse that wildfire season later in the dry season. Couple that w/ Santa Ana winds, and drought conditions are irrelevant. You are going to get dried out and desiccated vegetation for lots of wildfire fuel no matter what every year.

Quite the tree damage I am told Springfield VT to Claremont NH. I-91 was closed for a time. Saw this report: "You can see the path just south of mile 48. I-91 is a debris field for a quarter mile. Twisted trees snapped off that were more than a foot in diameter."

Yes, good point referencing history. Something that gets ignored all too often these days b/c if interferes w/ hype or a narrative. Large wildfires in Canada have a cycle of 50-80 years. The dark days here in the 18th century have been traced to large wildfires in Ontario from paleoclimatology IIRC. This is the problem w/ these days, the media and politicians prey on recency bias and short memories and act like what is happening now is unprecedented or not supposed to happen. We are wired to think in human lifetime frames of reference, but that is nothing compared to climate and geological frames. Wildfires are so endemic, some species of plants have evolved to only to germinate w/ fire present The seeds of many plants in fire-prone environments need fire, directly or indirectly, to germinate. These plants produce seeds w/ a tough coating that can lay dormant, awaiting a fire, for several years. So summarily demonizing wildfires is misguided and narrow-minded. Yes, their impacts can be devastating, but that is no different that say hurricanes and tornadoes as to the natural order of things. Fire has a natural role in the environment/ecosystem and it was established long before humans existed.

8pm-8am CG plot.

See, you are already thinking ahead and abstract. How can I use this experience to be a better uber weenie svr wx forecaster going forward?

Exactly what the HRRR fcst Tue eve.

Yes, so I do not want to hear this is a complete bust! The daylight hours were and the smoke is the likely cause of the bust here, but again, there is far too much focus on what did *not* go right rather than what did! I can count on one hand how many times in the last 30 years that anywhere in New England has had golf ball sized hail between midnight and noon. Bona fide supercells between midnight-noon in New England are rare. And even thought the models overdid the overnight convection, it all quickly dissipated once near the MA border by 10z, which is exactly what the HRRR showed Tue eve. So is the above just to be discounted? Sometimes events do not work out at fcst, and I can't tell you how many times in the Midwest/Plains/Southeast on paper everything looks awesome for svr wx parameters and a HIGH risk is issued, and under-performs. Things do not change meteorologically just b/c this is the NEUS. Sure, volatile atmospheres like this are uncommon here, esp. a strong EML, but that is irrelevant as to if it works out all as fcst or not. This is an excellent opportunity to learn from our mistakes, model shortcomings, and conditional factors that can crop up at the last minute (e.g. thick smoke). I for one will be investigating/researching the role of wildfire smoke on convection now. It was already mentioned earlier about how it impacts +CG frequency. And just b/c the smoke was a determinant to convection this time, does not necessarily mean it always is. You need to ask, does it matter if it is thin or thick smoke? Does the height and vertical depth of the smoke layer matter? Not all smoke particulates are the same, so that does matter as to things like CCN (CoastalWx should appreciate this b/c he is big on sea salt CCN for OES! ). Turn an experience that was not good or did not work out into something positive. Experience is what you get when you don't get what you want/expect, and thus you are that much better off going forward!

Playing catch-up and just checking things now after a busy first part of the day. Working from the posts last evening first. Scott's just mad there was svr winds and tree downed on Rt 16 and in West Ossipee and he wasn't up at the lake!