vortex95

The issue on Friday is that the ridging aloft is still almost right over us w/ very warm 700 mb temps. This is not conducive for convective development as things are capped. Any storms that manage to develop will just collapse on themselves due to very light winds aloft. Sat and after is better for tstms here. You can't treat a single convective parameter in a vacuum and run w/ that. Other things have to be present for tstms to develop and sustain. Using the K-index like this is like saying b/c there is a lot of CAPE, that means there will storms. Many days there is lots of CAPE, and nothing happens for various reasons. For the K-index itself, it is probably best for forecasting heavy rainfall potential as it indicates a solid moist vertical profile 700 mb and below. Also, an axis of higher indices often indicates a boundary present that may not show up on other analyses. K-index though in a solid svr wx environment often is low owning to dry air at mid-levels. Dry air at mid-levels actually tends to be better for svr wx overall as it can mean an EML is present.

This is apparent temp, not actual air temp. Apparent temp is a biological factor only. A world exists beyond the biological. And we assume everyone has the same tolerance to heat, which is false. It varies widely. There are been a noticeable shift focusing way more on apparent temp than the actual air temp, which is what matters most in the end. We do not have a solid climo history of apparent temp either for historical perspective. And ever notice apparent temp is only talked about when it is higher than the air temp? I wonder why. I'll tell you why, for a dew point of about 58 or less, the apparent temp is actually *lower* than the air temp, so it feels better/less bad. Can't hype that. The door swings both ways here.

Supercell pix Danvers MA from 6/26 https://www.facebook.com/share/1JPtm7q9nt/?mibextid=wwXIfr

Good. That just makes it "nearly unprecedented!" Seriously, I have seen that in media headlines. Any excuse to sneak the word "unprecedented." They love their buzzwords.

It hit 100 at DCA on 6/12. DCA ended its 5th longest streak of no 100 F on 6/22/24 (2867 days).

I can guess what you are implying here. Pointing out caveats or what could go wrong for events/forecasts is a reasonable position to take. It prevents one from getting carried away and biased from the "could be's" and "what if's" as one example. The "could be" and "what if" issues are *rife* these days on social media. People hide behind the fact that just b/c something has a non-zero chance of occurring, they should mention it and hedge like it *will* happen. This is almost entirely for click/engagement bait to monetize their sites and drive the algorithms. Or to be a "hero" to claim "I called it first!", despite going big every time, and use the broken clock is right twice a day fallacy. The vast majority of the time, the worst case or high-end record event will *not* happen, and one should start always from the baseline, not the other way around.

Where exactly? Which day(s)? Generic statements like this do not cut it these days. The details count and the models can parse these out much better these days. From a MSM media standpoint, it likely is going this way, "NYC is going to be very hot, so that mean *all* the East Coast is going to be a super torch." Never underestimate the power of thinking a location is the center of the universe!

It's all dangerous in the end. The prefixes and adjectives used these days are out of control. My biggest pet peeve is "catastrophic." It's always that now. You never see, "severe," "heavy," or "disastrous," referring to impact or damage. Impact and damage are scalable, but we choose to throttle to the max all the time. That's counterproductive in the end. More is not always better.

The thing in this case, it's not a uniform slam dunk. This is not a classic Bermuda High set up, nor it is a dry solid sfc NW flow (a la Aug 2, 1975). Eastern and western sections need to be treated differently. You can't just gloss over it all. The difference between 90 and 100 deg readings is non-trivial. You can't just say "hot" and leave it at that. There are important details to be worked out here. The above factors preclude going high-end record heat across the board at this range still. Of course, the MSM doesn't treat it this way. HOT HOT HOT and the world is ending....

I knew you were showing praise. I just wanted to make sure I have not stirred the pot somehow w/ a previous post and it resulted in a tangent issue.

Where is the DGEX when you need it! 168 hr NAM...right!

Yes, PDS - particularly dangerous situation. I am just talking about how blizzard and ice storm warnings will have this label soon as an option.

GFS MOS has been trending down since yesterday for BOS. 7/1 12z Sat it had 98, now it is 82 12z run today. and gets it no higher than 92 7/2-3. PWM has been going down as well, now no 90 fcst on the MOS. Dirty ridge clouds are a problem along w/ waves of RW/TRW. Also onshore flow from weak FROPAs. You are not going to max out sfc temps what 850 temps suggest in such a pattern. It is unwise hedging so high early on given the uncertainties that have existed all along, esp. for eastern New England. It is better to start more modest far out, and then adjust, if necessary, as the event gets closer.

Here something a little different for general FYI. I got this table of highest storm surges and storm tides for Portland ME (PWM). I learned a few things here. Storm surge and storm tide are 2 different things, but we often use them interchangeably. Storm surge is the water height deviation from atmospheric phenomena in itself, nothing else. Storm tide takes into account everything, the atmospheric contribution, monthly astro tides, the 19 year tidal epoch, coast rise/drop, and anything else that may influence a tide height. In the NEUS/Mid-Atlantic we use storm tide the most b/c we have 2 high tides a day and our tidal ranges are high. Along the Gulf Coast, storm surge used most often b/c there is only 1 high tide a day and the tidal range is low. For PWM, 3 of the 5 highest storm surges are not even in the top 20 highest storm tides, so that shows how one is not necessarily related to the other. For proper historical scaling and an objective meteorological POV, storm surge is what one would use b/c that has only one factor. For storm tides, one may note that we've had 5 top ten tides in the last 8 years. But that is not a level playing field. PWM sea level has risen about 8" in 100 years, and more than half of that is due to local land subsidence.

How did I get drawn into this "kerfuffle??" A couple of things for all. 1) People can agree to disagree and still be friends/civil. 2) Debate/discussion overall is a *good* thing! That's how science advances and everyone learns more. Not just objective facts, but improve ways to present and communicate, which, IMHO, is the biggest hurdle we face, esp. in this social media age. Tone, inflection, and countenance, among other things, are lost via social media and it is all too easy to assume the negative, and then ppl get upset and the conservation devolves or shuts down. That's not good.

IMHO, one better have darn good reason and solid model agreement when forecasting all-time record events. esp. several days out. You don't just pick the most extreme scenario b/c that grabs the attention more to drive the hazard home. It is better to start more modest and work your way up as the fcst details become clearer. When you start at the top, it's very hard to come back down b/c of the viral nature of things on social media. And really, we know its going to very hot, so "piling on" tends be counterproductive (the apathy factor, and ppl get wise and say, "is it really that bad/dangerous b/c we've had 100+ before, and did just fine overall). This is not being snarky, the hype pushes things like one should not even go outside at all b/c it is so "dangerous" b/c it is 100 F. How did we ever survive as a society prior to this in-your-face danger hype or before AC, for that matter! The problem is the media doesn't act on a "linear scale." It's like if the temp hits 100, somehow that is *so* much worse or extreme than 99, when it is only b/c 100 is a power of 10 and a more psychologically satisfying value. That is meaningless as to sensible wx impact. Another example? A piece of crap low pressure gets named a TS, and it is like end of days to the media, when typical winter storms are *far* more impressive and powerful than a weak sheared TS.

Another possible reason other than overzealous inexperience or pattern recognition denial? CYA - better safe than sorry. I find this a weak excuse these days. Forecast science and skill have come a *long* way in the last few decades alone, and we have models now that can show fine-details and fcst extreme events quite well now, so confidence level should be higher. There are less "surprises" now. We should be taking advantage of this better technology and skill that should result in *less* CYA - better safe than sorry. Over-warning I would argue is as bad as under-warning. Over-warning impacts tend to be more indirect, but still cost lives and lot of $$. "Damp street warning?" LOL. Sounds like something you'd see in Cali. Don't give them any ideas!

Of note, some WFO CWAs have lowered the threshold of temps for issuing heat advisories and extreme heat watches/warnings. WFO BOX did this a number of years ago. Instead of 95-100 F, it was lowered to 90-95 F. I don't know about other CWAs, but it something to be aware of as our standards and practices change over time, and the trend is lowering the bar for more watches/warnings. And the media takes full advantage of this, acting like changes in wx have demanded this, when it is social/political/economic factors, among other things. We will soon have PDS blizzard and ice storm warnings, and you can bet the media will say, "FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER the NWS has issued a PDS..."

I will not miss the 3km NAM when it goes away later this summer. It almost always overdoes QPF, esp. when orographics are involved. Its fcst sim radar leaves a lot to be desired as well.

I'm not the biggest fan of snow (used to be) - CoastalWx ready to cancel me for saying that! - but, out of season events I think are DA BOMB! The flakes in the air at the end of last month in MA was a sight to see. I've actually had dreams recently about snow falling in June in ern MA.

I have had that happen to me before. On the phone w/ a wx client, and I said "hit enter" and they *typed* the word "enter!" Another time I said, "where are you?" referencing where on the menu, the person said "Columbus OH!" LOL. My favorite is telling them to reboot the PC, and they just reboot the *monitor*!

When you switch to 5G, does it work?

"Anger is a gift" (said softly). FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!!!!

Special marine warnings? Those are a dime a dozen. Special marine warnings used to be only for convective wx, now a typical cold FROPA prompts them. Or "wind burst," whatever that is. Gradient winds will already be strong and wind advisories or high wind warnings out, which cover things well, and you get special marine warnings independent of any convection. More warnings/alerts are not always better. There comes a point of diminishing returns. Apathy, for one, b/c of too many warnings. Ppl start tuning out. It's not good to be "held hostage" by the wx. And business and commerce gets more disrupted b/c officials/authorities cancel more b/c of hearing increasing amounts of alerts/warnings. This has real economic impact.