Jump to content

vortex95

Meteorologist
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,882

  • Joined

 Content Type 

Everything posted by vortex95

  1. vortex95
    SPC DY6 has SVR outlooked OH Valley-DCA-NYC? Time for WxWiz to starting getting ready. He been waiting for something like this for so long! And CoastalWx can stop saying "SNE SUCKS for convection!" LOL. From pattern recognition, I am very impressed, and it takes a *lot* to impress me for svr these days. An unusually strong sfc low for mid June is fcst (below 990 mb) to track across southern Ontario and Quebec. 00z GFS and ECMWF same idea on 6/18 for wind fields -- GFS a bit stronger than the ECMWF, but does not matter, they are still through the roof for this time of year. GFS 120 kt 250, 95 kt 500, 75 kt 700, 65 kt 850 and 925 in New England this time of year w/ available CAPE this time of year? Ho-ly ( )!!! Actually, w/ these kind of wind fields, you don't need more than say 2000-2500 CAPE for sigtor. Anywhere from the OH Valley-Mid Atlantic-Northeast may be in for a sig tor event! I don't have to quote the big tor outbreak for our region, but just mention July 10, 1989, and WxWiz will faint! FYI, winds of 65 kt at 850 existed for the ORH 1953 event. For the July 10. 1989 event, the sfc low that tracked across NNE was "only" 998 mb. Not overstating things here for potential at all. But of course, it's all in the details. *But* again, SPC outlooking SVR this part of the country on DY6 this time of year? That says something! You don't get that w/o a synoptically-evident set up.
  2. vortex95
    The DY6 SPC outlook? It is definitely warranted. An unusually strong sfc low for mid June is fcst (below 990 mb) to track across southern Ontario and Quebec. Wind fields are clearly high end for this time of year. GFS and ECMWF same idea on 6/18 -- 70 kt 500, 60 kt 700, 50 kt 850, 40 kt 925 over Mid-Atlantic. That means business and this time of year w/ higher CAPE? Anywhere from the OH Valley-Mid Atlantic-Northeast may be in for a sig tor event June 23, 1944 comes to mind so does June 8-9. 1953. Also July 10, 1989 (New England's largest single day tornado outbreak for number of tornadoes). Derecho not out of the question. Svr mode is up in the air at this range. Not overstating things here for potential at all. But of course, it's all in the details. *But* SPC outlooking SVR this part of the country on DY6 this time of year? That says something! You don't get that w/o a synoptically-evident set up!
  3. vortex95
    And moist adiabatic lapse rates to 550 mb...EEECH!!
  4. vortex95
    So I did a little easy "experiment." Using CoCoRaHS sites, I got Y-T-D totals for the 3 sites closest to Logan. Chelsea, Somerville, and Nahant. Chelsea - 15.26" Somerville - 12.72" Nahant - 12.55" And BOS? 10.79" Again, taking climate information at face value has its issues. The excuse here? "Oh, we have to use it b/c it is official!" So? Just b/c it is official does not mean it is correct/right. That's the appeal to authority logical fallacy. Equipment/standards/practices are not perfect, so calling such out is not wrong.
  5. vortex95
    A couple things to note. The readings were taken in the city before Logan was built, so that's one factor. Prior to 1980, the temps were taken tucked back a bit near the WSFO, and since, the sensors have been located in the middle of the runways solidly surrounded 3 sides by water. This is going to result in upward trend in dews long-term. Another factor, going to from glass to digital thermometers. Digital can record instantaneous quick temp/dew changes. ASOS is supposed to do 5-min avg to mitigate this. It is known that digital temps run a bit warm compared to glass thermometers overall. Not sure about dews, but it is something to consider. ASOS is considered accurate as long as the temp sensor is within +- 2 F. Not sure about its dew sensors, but yet another thing to consider. A margin of error here would suggest that the approx 1 F dew rise since 1995 when the ASOS was installed at BOS can not be considered statistically significant. How does the increasing heat island effect over time impact BOS dews? As you can see, there are a number of non-meteorological factors that have zero to do w/ climate or its changes that can and do give false trends either way. You can't just simply take climate records over long period of time at face value due to factors mentioned above. So I would use caution w/ small trends over many decades and longer.
  6. vortex95
    The price he pays for having nearly 177k posts! I didn't make ACATT.
  7. vortex95
    The surging satellite appearance of the storms Thu reminded me of a tropical squall line. Mesoscale factors, such as the cool pool, are the driving force due to lack of winds aloft/deep layer wind shear.
  8. vortex95
    Wxwiiz mad he missed this??? CoastalWx proby just MEH! LOL. Look what happened Thu just over the border in Pauling NY. Hail up to 2" in diameter. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1E8jBs32e1/ Video of hailfall: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=999500782484311 Serious wind damage right over the CT border in Quaker Hill NY. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1TsM5ejxkj/ NW flow delivers! The LTG plot reminded me of July 10, 1989 a little. Also, June 20, 1995. See here: https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/remembering-the-1995-hail-storm/16546/
  9. vortex95
    And here we have yet another factor that misleads. Bad data and using a single point!
  10. vortex95
    There are 4 types of drought: - meteorological - agricultural - hydrological - socioeconomic All go into the drought status monitor we see, but it can me misleading. For instance, two of the factors have nothing to w/ actual precip. Agricultural and socioeconomic deal primarily w/ land/water management (or the lack of) and demand over time from increase population/infrastructure (data centers anyone?). And it goes one step further within the categories. You can have plenty of rainfall, but a lack of snowfall, so the reservoirs and lakes are full and water table high, but snowpack is below avg. And keep in mind, the current U.S. Drought Monitor we look at weekly w/ its current standards and guidelines did not exist prior to 2000. So that is not long enough to determine trends either way. What we call drought and how we measure/categorize it has changed over time as well. From my observations long-term, the U.S Drought Monitor has a tendency to overdo it, and it is misreading b/c most ppl just think lack of precip for drought, when it is much more complex than that.
  11. vortex95
    MSM cherry-picking again. Sure you have svr drought SE NH and ern MA, but that is just one local area. Take a look at the drought status 3 months ago compare to this week for the NEUS and Mid-Atlantic (attached). Overall improvement for the NEUS and Mid-Atlantic. A large area of svr drought is gone in NNE. Yet you get ppl just focused on one small area, not telling you the larger picture. SE NH and ern MA do not exist isolated. Watersheds flow into this region, and if adjacent watersheds in decent shape for precip, then that mitigates things downstream. The term "drought" is treated as singular and simple term. It's not like that at all. But some never let the details (or key facts) get in the way of a particular narrative (all gloom and doom and the end is nigh). The MSM narrative is to push drought all the time, as if it never should occur, any that occurs is unusual, and we can't handle it as society, never mind it is just one more thing to hype to scarce the public for ratings. Drought exits in the U.S 10-15% of time on avg, and it waxes and wanes in irregular cycles. This is not cause for alarm in itself. The NEUS and Mid-Atlantic have not had a multi-year drought since the 1960s. How is that possible if droughts are getting worse w/ time everywhere? Short-term droughts are common and par for the course. If you want to see a deep dive and analysis about how drought conditions and declarations are misused and abused, take a look here about conditions in WA currently. The morale here is that there is more to the story. https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2026/05/the-is-no-drought-emergency-in.html https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2026/05/why-washington-drought-emergency-should.html
  12. vortex95
    You do realize that cooler can mean a lot of tstms and SVR!
  13. vortex95
    Good that you noted the satellite presentation. One thing that *really* stands out to me and is atypical for a svr wx day here -- the storms had zero anvil-level flow. No glaciated anvils spread out anywhere upwind or downwind of the updrafts! It's just a series of "updraft puffs," so to speak! So upper-level winds were lacking as well. No "venting" of the updrafts, not good for sustained storms. This perhaps explains a lot why w/ such high CAPE the storms failed to realize their full potential! I attached a VIS GIF loop from 2130z to 2330z. Also, you can clearly see how outflow dominated the storms were almost from the start. And look at the high clouds over the Delmarva. Moving S? The ridge axis at 250 mb at 00z extended from about BGM to CAE. You don't want ridging aloft directly over the area of interest for svr wx! This also explained why the storms had no spreading anvils. So yet another item to throw in that messed things up! Yet many wind reports, so it wasn't a bust in terms of the slight risk, just some details were off, like lacking a lot LTG and more outflow dominant that you would expect. Actually, a pretty fascinating case looking at the details, and why things did what they did. It's important to look at why things fail in expectations, not just why things exceed expectations in fcsts!
  14. vortex95
    Yes, the little details count when it comes to svr wx events. *One* thing off, and it can be the difference between several tors or none, or several intense, long-tracked tors or a bunch of weak, short-lived ones. For instance, sfc dew points are a few degrees lower than fcst. This raises the LFC, and lessens 0-3 km CAPE, which are key for tors. How many times does it look good "on paper" for big svr wx, and it fails. SCP and SIGTOR are high, and it's a major disappointment and under-performs. SCP and SIGTOR can't account for everything going on, they account for just some. They can't be treated in a vacuum! Of course, the door can swing the other way. How about June 5, 2024? That was a surprise! Yes, SPC had 2% tor risk, but it did not stand out as "big" for tor event in this area. It was not synopitcally-evident. And we got what, 13 tors? And they were not all just brief spin ups!
  15. vortex95
    Thanks. 0-6 km shear was only 15 kt at IAD, well below the threshold for marginal supercells (30-35 kt), so storm lacked mid-level mesos. All you need is a half-decent meso at mid-levels, and that makes storms *so* much "better." Even if no severe wx, the LTG and rainfall ramps up! 0-8 km shear was even weaker at 14 kt. And look at hodograph, it is a chaotic mess! Tons of CAPE only takes you so far. If the shear is lousy, it's hard to sustain discrete, long-lived cells. I'd take 1500 CAPE and 0-6 kt shear 40-45 kt anytime over 3500 CAPE and 0-6 shear 15-20 kt! The presence of good wind shear also prevents storms from gusting out too easily. The updraft and downdraft couplets in the storms are separated better in a higher-sheared environment. I realize some already know this, but this is a very important point when it comes to mesocyclones. The presence of mesocyclone just at mid-levels (low-levels can be nothing) greatly enhances the potential updraft strength of a tstm. It can double the updraft strength from buoyancy (CAPE) alone though dynamic pressure perturbations, so that's why supercells have such intense updrafts. 1500-2000 CAPE may not sound like much, but if the shear is ideal, holy cow. For instance, the April 1965 Palm Sunday Outbreak in the OH Valley, CAPE was 1500-2000, and the 0-6 kt shear was about as high as I have ever seen it for an outbreak. It was 100-110 kt! That's crazy, and you had a lot of intense, long-tracked tors.
  16. vortex95
    As noted in previous posts, odd for temps in the 90s and DPs 70 It acted more like a cool season line of gusty heavy showers. 00z analyzed NAM 1000-500 thk for DCA was 577, so that usually means 50k CB tops easy and lots of LTG. Peak mid-level lapse rates on the 00z IAD sounding were 7.0 C/km between 700-500 and CAPE at mid-levels was "fat." That should have lead to solid charge separation in the supercooled water level for lots of LTG. K-index 36, so not dry aloft. Sfc T-Td spreads around 25 so not too dry at low levels. Yet things were very outflow-ish. Storm cores should have been "meatier" for the lack of a better term! The thing that stands out in the sounding is the lack of solid deep layer shear, so that likely precluded stronger coherent cells or a more solid/thicker SQLN.
  17. vortex95
    Indeedsnow SEZ otherwise! Just ignore the NW flow supercell in CT today. How about that 5.47" in Albany NH ydy?
  18. vortex95
    I get the big metro area part, but look at this warning in NY/PA. Larger than the MD one, and much more rural. Not saying one should treat a more populated area differently than a less populated area, or an area w/ more outdoor events than another. Ethically, that is wrong as all people and infrastructure are important, but it does not seem always consistent w/ watches/warnings. It's no secret, as one example, that there is a bulls-eye of svr tstm watches centered over the DCA-BWI area and less in surrounding areas. It's not simply due to climo of the area. That suggests it is not done from an objective forecast science standpoint. It's no different looking at tornado warnings in various CWAs, and some have *way* more warnings than the adjacent ones, and again, that's not b/c of sudden difference in supercell/tornado climo. And this all leads back to public apathy caused by too many or excessive warnings. More is not always better. There comes a point of diminishing returns.
  19. vortex95
    97 mi long? This kind of defeats the entire purpose of polygon *storm-based* warnings. We can do better than one giant "carpet bomb" SVR. There should be a limit to a size of a short-fused polygon warning. A large squall line is not necessarily "one-size fits all." And all that has to happen is one wind damage report anywhere in the polygon and it verifies. We should be fine-tuning and getting more detailed w/ warnings, not the other way around. There is real impact (economic and social) from over-warning.
  20. vortex95
    Doing quite well in NNE for a "general tstm" outlook days. Stormin' since 3pm NH/VT! CoastalWx proby miffed the Lakes Region got hit again.
  21. vortex95
    Scott HATES Dec 11-12, 1992. Just 5 mi away over a foot while Brockton got shafted. Even Logan got more (9") than Brockton. I got 18" in Woburn -- that officially ended the snow drought and it was my first foot plus over 8 years. Then the "good years" followed. What about March 2001? 22" In Woburn and Logan was MEH, so Scott really got stiffed in GHG!
  22. vortex95
    March 1960 was epic, and so was Feb 1969 for different reasons.
  23. vortex95
    Pot calling kettle! This is coming from the same person who just said to me in an email "SNE SUCKS!" when I sent him pix and video of the possible spinner in Thornton NH on 6/6. He got a spinner in his city a few years ago -- but not gouud enough -- "I WANT IT EVERY YEAR!" Nothing short of 2014-15 winter will ever make him content at this rate!
  24. vortex95
    See attachment for PDS bliz and ice storms. Goes into effect 10/1/26. I thought the NWS was trying to *reduce* the number of types of watch/warning products b/c there were too many. For instance, Blizzard Watch was removed several years ago. I am not a fan of PDS b/c it diminishes those events not labeled such that can be just as impactful. It's like Tornado Emergency. First, all tornadoes are emergency situations that require immediate action. Second, hearing "only" a tornado warning can be perceived as not as urgent to many. So a PDS blizzard or ice storm, same thing. And what exactly constitutes a PDS really? It is not always due to the meteorological severity or hard numbers. If a large population is impacted, does that mean a PDS is warranted. It's like saying a smaller population is less important than a larger one. Meteorological intensity and impact are two different things and not necessary correlated. I can just see PDS being overused from factors that have nothing to w/ the wx event itself. And it gives an excuse for the media and all the hype masters out there to ratchet things up even more, which promotes warning apathy further. The idea of PDS may look good on paper and in theory, but how it is handled in a practical sense in reality is an entirely different ballgame, and the way wx is handled these days in itself as if all inclement wx is "extreme," "unusual," and "not supposed to happen?" The ordinary is turned into the extraordinary far too often. What's next, a PDS for a hurricane landfall? Dense fog? Dust storm? More warning is not necessary better. There comes a point of diminishing returns. pds.pdf
  25. vortex95
    Thornton NH 852 pm 6/6. Probable Scott spinner. Video link and video stills attached. I think there are two funnels! One in the center of the video at the start, and then one off to the left at the end! https://www.facebook.com/TheWizardline/videos/1009799924785673/ This looks like a classic brief spin-up tor on the S side of a comma head associated w/ a bow echo. These are more common than once thought, and sometimes you can get a bunch clustered from the comma head. The cloud structure is not classic back edge of the storm w/ a clear wall cloud. This is b/c the comma head makes it more chaotic/messy from a visual standpoint. It is not raining that hard near the funnel as the visibility is good, and that would make sense given the lower echoes in the rear of the comma head. The drone pix shows very localized tree damage. Too small and sharp for a microburst. Yes, the trees are all laying in one direction but that can be misleading. The bow echo was moving E 40-50 mph, so a weak tor moving that fast can easily have it winds on one side of the circulation negated to a point no tree damage occurs, and the other side enhanced, so trees would all fall in the same direction. And we know from observations in the field now, brief tornadoes like this are much more common than we once thought. So many spotters, chasers, cameras, and now drones make detection much more likely. This is about 65 mi from GYX WSR-88D and that would make it about 5000 ft at VEL1. A little high to catch the best low-level rotation, so I bet there was better below 5000 ft. I sent all this to WFO GYX.
×
×
  • Create New...