vortex95

I think the tstm/derecho threat will be confined the Northeast. 700 mb temps are too warm for deep convection here. +10 usually caps it off this part of the country, and they get as high as +13 this week and stay AOA +10 thru Fri. 1000-500 thk stays AOA 579 much this coming week, peaking at 583, which is typically too warm a column for tstms unless you have good forcing.

Lest we forget! Washington DC ended a streak of 2867 days w/o 100 F reading on 6/22/2024. This is the 5th longest period on record since 1872. So "we're due" for a big heat wave??!! | Does this mean DMH will be 110? LOL. Actually, did they fix the issue b/c I look at the temps this month BWI vs. DMH, and high temps are close. June 11-12 -- both days 97 at BWI, and 98 at DMH. Still DMH seems to avg 1-2 F warmer for highs overall, but that's a *far* cry from the 5-7 F difference last year and before. BWI would be 97 and DMH would be 104, and that went into the official climate record! It appears now DMH just has the typical city UHI bias. Seems like when they did that construction a few years ago at the Science Center and DMH was offline for a while, it made the heat contamination worse. More concrete walkway all around and a solar farm within stone's throw. Just incompetent planning. It's like all these wind farms, and ground clutter contamination that occurs even far from WSR-88Ds. Take a look at DDC, VNX, and FDR, as examples. It's really bad. Eventually, there is going to come a time when a TOR is missed due to this wind farm clutter and lives lost I'm afraid.

You know it's bad when you try to just click a reaction emoji for a post, and it fails! CoastalWx is just relieved it's not winter currently. He just says "MEH!" to the 3 supercells today in SE NH and NE MA!

Seabrook NH a short time ago. Photo by Rich Hamel. That's about as good supercell structure you will see in the NEUS.

Seems like the "bad gateway" error is the worst it had been thus far. Not much CGs w/ the supercells. Once again, lack of solid CAPE. Best CAPE is "only" 1500, but the excellent shear is compensating.

HRRR showing a "Hampton Beach Special." Right mover!

"High-handed" is a subjective term and instead of going on the defensive perhaps you should consider a more reasonable/productive approach. I stated clearly previously the value of the debate/discussion. High-handed means using excessive authority. How did you arrive at that? What "authority" are you talking about? Stating facts and opinion/views are not inherently authoritative. I have kept this discussion civil and reasonable, and it gets labeled as "high-handed?" "no one is going to really care accept you about hype ( that no one really takes seriously anyway? ) which is endemic to the environment you both choose to be a part, and are not going to change." Now you are attacking what I had said on other posts and wx hype and how that influences us all and skewed perception, as if acting like is trivial or no one should care. Just b/c something is endemic does not make it right or should not be called out in order to 1) make ppl who are willing to listen aware (once again, not everyone is on the same level on this forum as to knowledge/experience) and 2) strive to do better/improve ourselves. The social part of wx is by *far* the biggest challenge we face now on many fronts. It's main reason why the NWS has been engaged in IDSS for over 10 years now. And these social issues exist to the from the very top powers that be to the individual on social media. It is integral part of wx now, like it or not. So I am going to bring it up as it relates to the hard meteorology.

I assume you are being facetious. As I said, debate/discussion is what the forum is all about on a fundamental level.

One should avoid typing any word in all caps in a civil discussion/debate on social media. It is unprofessional and just promotes conflict. "Not to me anyway?" No one is above criticism, no one. Debate/discussion is how science advances. You really think one can post on a forum like this and not get criticism at times? And criticism is often thought as always negative. It is not, not when it done reasonably and w/ civility. Silencing debate/discussion or making oneself immune/above itall is not a good thing. What you seem to be overlooking is that very fact that is criticism and debate are a good thing overall b/c many read the posts, and can learn something from what is said. Not epiphanies or anything like that, but wx tidbits/info they can take in and absorb, and also can see a productive way to debate/discuss and the way *not* to do it. Not everyone here is an expert meteorologist. Some are up and coming mets and still learning, some are wx enthusiasts, and everything in-between. One needs to consider all members of the forum here.

That's so "FETCH!" What decade are you living in?

I never contested no decent heat, just I think and we see this a lot, the hype alone about a hot period coming up or any inclement wx, all too often takes on a life of it own, and many, included some on this forum, get caught up in the social media hype and mode, and that skews their objectively, as in "I called it first!" or one makes it into more of a deal than it really is. And you'd think it like it never can get hot here, or anywhere else for that matter, and it's end of days. What planet are these ppl living on? It would be highly atypical not to have bouts of well above avg temps anywhere on the globe over time. And I don't want to here about the climate change factor. Forget that factor for a min, and just look at wx history and what has happen before, and how fundamentally the Earth works for heat balance/distribution. That is what is being demonized and hype, the normal order of things - "OMG, impactful/stormy wx is occurring -- PANIC!" The above all rolls back into our perception of things, how we treat/handle it all, and zeitgeist. Things like this need to be said at times b/c ppl often forget, caught up on the social media frenzy. How we view/handle/discuss issues/things in general are just as important as the issues/things themselves.

I was stating solid forecast concerns, that's all. And personally? No, debate/discussion is what this forum is all about. The content of your response by itself suggest you take it personally. How one goes from someone stating forecast concerns and caveats to "don't like the heat" is a non-sequitur argument. Mentioning fine details is not the same as nit-picking, and the details count in any science. You were mentioning how its looks good for sig heat at least from a 500 mb height position, but did not mention that 500 mb is not always a good proxy for sfc temps. "that 00z operational Euro run fully committed to a heat wave later next week .. LOL At least at 500 mb..." So I pointed out the omission. This is of value for others on the board, is it not? It is fact CPC and others often just look at 500 height anomalies, and run w/ temps based on that alone. And "tough cookies?" What kind of statement is that in a serious meteorological discussion? Don't degrade a discussion/debate w/ drivel phrases/terminology like that.

The main issue here is that to may look all fine and dandy from a 500 hgt, 1000-500 thk, and 850 temp POV for heat, but clouds/convection/weak fronts/onshore flow can negate these obvious factors at low-levels quite well. The caveats are rife here for next week and the local/mesoscale will likely modulate temps big time, esp. in eastern New England. Yes, synoptically it looks impressive, but one can't say this enough for certain set ups. and this is one of them -- the details are everything!

We don't live at 500 mb, and using 500 heights alone says nothing about what the sfc temps may be. Convection/fronts as factors are significant as the ridge is dirty w/ its axis at 80W. This precludes a solid Bermuda high set up need for sustained or unabated heat. The details are everything here, so going all out for big heat is premature for New England. GFSX MOS still shows no 90 explicity forecast E of a LEB-CEF-BDL line.

I know this has been said before, but do *not* use 2m temps on any model more than 5 days out. They are literal model output w/ no MOS climo factored in! GFS at times has fcst 110 F at BOS over the years, right!

Be wary of 2m temps more than 5 days out. They do not incorporate MOS climo into their values. I've seen the GFS 2m a number of times fcst 110 F at BOS a week out, and the all-time high in New England is 107 F. That being said, does the ECMWF and other global models have MOS like the GFS? If so, where can the output be found?

Yes, I vividly recall one event in July 1980. N to S cell movement w/ svr, and it was a nasty mid evening event. That's what stuck in my memory as to, "look for for storms that move N to S in hot ridge patterns!" Summer of 1980 was among the biggest heatwaves and drought on record for the CONUS.

At this range, I am just looking at the wavelengths and axis of the ridge. That has not changed much in the last several days overall. The point being it appears New England will be on the fence for big heat. Tastes of heat but lots of caveats present w/ cloudiness, extent of convection, and weak fronts hanging up over or just S of the region. It's not a classic Bermuda High situation w/ solid low-level SW flow for the best heat in the NEUS. But in some ways, I think this will be better if one like tstms. We don't get ring of fire solid situations every year here. Just HHH for days on end, that's get kind of boring after a awhile for some. Very warm/humid w/ bouts of tstms I think many would enjoy better.

T for BOS for pcpn June 1999, but not long after midnight on 7/1, crushed w/ TRW+!

Tomorrow svr risk looks so-so. Once again, we see to be lacking in CAPE. MUCAPE struggles to reach 2000 anywhere. What time of year is this? Wind fields are ok w/ largely straight hodographs on the RRFS, but the NAM shows some messy loops at the lower levels. It's a fairly solid 500 s/w for late June and a 250 mb jet max as high as 145 kt moves right over the region tomorrow aftn, which is outstanding for a svr day here in the summer. 65 kt at 500 over SNE. HRRR looks more impressive that RRFS for "meaty" storms and coverage. Maybe an upgrade to SLGHT for some of region 06 or 13z Fri.

The GFS and ECMWF both show the heat tempered in the NEUS. Ridge axis is too far W and the ridge will be "dirty" w/ lots of mid and high clouds spilling over it into the region. Also, frequent minor s/w in the NW flow will likely promote significant RW/TRW waves w/ weak FROPAs and sea breezes. GFSX MOS does not show BOS above 83 through Thu of next week. Western New England should have some 90s tho. So the big heat PT needs to be put on hold for now IMHO, but the tstm prospects look quite good and WxWiz should get plenty of his EMLs feeding into the region! Storms dropping from the due N can be really nasty in such a pattern. It does not happen often, but when they do, look out. Overnight wild LTG shows are common (thank WxWiz's EML!).

AI just add another layer. Now it is easier than ever to create flashy content, and this floods the market even more. FB and LinkedIn are *loaded* w/ this this crap now, and it is spreading.

Different time and can't compare to today. The problem is everyone doing it now, and thinks they can get rich or a make living. Pipe dreams as the piece of the pie is sliced so thin, there is little left for any individual. It just becomes race to the bottom w/ more ridiculous claims and hype, and ppl do not know what to believe, and thus start tuning it all out. How is that good for society as whole? One can't deny the detrimental impacts here. That's what I am pointing out. I know how it is and how it will not change.

Not contesting that. It still does not change that it is detrimental to the public b/c of misinformation or gross exaggeration, or the ethical and moral issues.

Something to keep in mind w/ the fcst upcoming heat and big ridge in the CONUS, and a good FYI b/c I have found the MSM and others had no concept of perspective and context, let alone wx history. 600 dm 500 mb height is often used a benchmark for record heat. But it is *far* more common than one would think, just by RAOBs alone. Attached is a .txt list I got some years ago of all 600+ dm height for NAMR RAOBs. It has occurred 199 times from 1957-2006 - hardly a rare occurrence overall. In recent decades, we tend to see 600 dm height on model analyses and forecasts more b/c the resolution of the models has increased significantly, so that's not really an apples to apples comparison as to change in frequency over time. RAOBs are in situ, directly measured, not model output. Of note in the list: 604.5 dm Adak AK (ADK) July 1980 That high that far N?...wow. But it makes sense, there was an intense heat wave/drought in the CONUS that summer, so upstream was also quite anomalous! What kind of sigma deviation value would show up here I wonder? You know, those 500 mb height values used by climate alarmists -- e.g. "a one in a 75 million year occurrence!" Which is obviously bunk. The wx in the real world doesn’t follow a Gaussian/normal distribution curve. Extreme events are far more common in a non-Gaussian distribution that reflects the physical world we live in. This is a case of lying or conflating an issue using statistics. 602.6 dm Wallops Island VA (WAL) July 1986 Make sense, SEUS very hot that month. 609.0 dm Chatham MA (CHH) Sep 1989 This was the very strong ridge that flung Hurricane Hugo into SC, and the highest on record for Mid-Atlantic or NEUS in the period. I do recall this ridge, and seeing Sable Island, Nova Scotia RAOB 600 dm. Somehow I missed the CHH value! And it was *not* record heat anywhere on the E Coast. Very tropical and warm for mid-Sep, but not that hot. 612.2 dm Peachtree City GA (FFC) Sep 1994 For a lower elevation location, relatively speaking, that is amazing. Most 600+ dm values are found in high elevation sites. 11 instances of 610.0 dm or higher in the data, enough to suggest that this is attainable w/o equipment error. 601.0 dm Whitehorse YK (YXY) Feb and Oct 1996 Again, that high that far N?, and one in Feb no less! Goes to show it is not always a warm season phenomena, let alone associated w/ record warm temps (why heat done is misleading). In early Feb 1996 there was record Arctic outbreak in the CONUS w/ Tower MN dropping to -60 F. namr600hgt1.txt