• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited



  • Rank
  • Birthday 05/27/1984

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location:
    Naperville, IL

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Liking the ARW tomorrow night and Euro continues to be locked in. If we had northwest flow aloft, would've been better for faster propagation and maintaining severe farther south. That said, temps well above 80 deep into evening with 70s Td, and breezy southerly winds should yield at most a shallow stable layer. Expecting the outflow and 850-300 mb thicknesses pointing southeast ahead of the MCS to do the trick in keeping it decently strong farther south than you'd normally expect given less than ideal 500 mb flow and time of night. As Alek has been mentioning, in support of this idea is strong low level jet pulling from a very steep lapse rate plume, and large (>2k j/kg) MUCAPE reservoir. Best chance for severe winds in LOT CWA looking like northern tier but could see severe threat extending south toward I-80. The faster movement the better to maintain intensity farther south. Edit: spoke to SPC day 2 update forecaster and it sounds like he's gonna pull the risk areas farther south, with slight possibly down near or slightly across WI/IL state line.
  2. It's still running on the ESRL page. Obviously not nearly as good an interface as COD. https://rapidrefresh.noaa.gov/hrrr/HRRR/Welcome.cgi?dsKey=hrrr_jet Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
  3. We fixed it. 82 is what we came up with, which is much more reasonable. I believe that was with the help of the observer doing a manual observation. The ASOS had a power surge that likely resulted in the problems. We also noticed that the low temperature in the afternoon CLI was incorrect, erroneous 54 degree reading at 10 something AM CDT. Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
  4. Any flooding you know of there? Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
  5. Just put out an infographic on our website and social media. Even though Chicago and Rockford didn't overperform, it was still the coldest May morning since 5/3/04 at ORD and coldest since 5/4/05 at RFD. I did a quick query for the Rensselaer COOP site which bottomed out at 24. There's 9 missing years but most years do have data going back to 1902. The low there is by far the coldest in their records in the month of May. The latest reading of 24 degrees or colder is April 25th. Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
  6. Regarding this potential event and 4/14/19, I think that these are two different scenarios, though it's a fair point about the temperatures leading in. Aside from the NAM likely being overamped with a much stronger synoptic forcing and low level response (closed 850 mb low, 50+ kt southwesterlies at 850 mb, even tighter thermal gradient and f-gen response), the other guidance seems to be pointing toward this being driven heavily by narrower mesoscale banding. 4/14/19 was a stout synoptic system with a strong deformation axis with embedded f-gen circulation. I certainly think there will be road impacts with this event given the favorable timing and obviously as last year showed heavy enough rates overwhelm even April sun. But paradoxically, temps in this case will have to be driven downward solely by evaporative cooling, as well above freezing starting point won't be aided by radiational cooling since clouds will have been increasing by then. The guidance is showing dew points ending up around 31-33, so I do think it's plausible many areas outside the heaviest banding end up staying above freezing, while locations within heaviest banding are driven down to 31-32. Euro may be overzealous in keeping even places within heaviest banding above 32F, though I can't completely discount it because it tends to perform quite well overall with 2m temps. In this event, I'm not sure yet that more than a narrow area and a good deal narrower than 4/14/19 gets the very heavy rates for reasons I mentioned earlier. I'm curious to see how roads behave since in the March 22-23 event, it was surprising how little impact the 3-6" amounts had overall.
  7. Having looked at things a little bit, some thoughts: The model guidance is overall in good agreement conceptually that there will be a fairly narrow band of higher QPF and snow. This will be driven at the mesoscale by response to a strong f-gen circulation amidst high moisture for a snow event (PWATs up to 3/4"). It's too far out to be a lock still and we know how things went at this time range during the winter. However, we can be reasonably confident that the above scenario will play out in some fashion. That said, while models are good at indicating f-gen response, actual placement can vary substantially at go time. Temperatures, while chilly for April, will warm to 45 to 50 Thursday PM. With late August equivalent sun, road and near surface soil temps will be quite warm going into the evening. Evaporative cooling will quickly cool air temps, but it's possible they only get down to freezing, or even stay above freezing, as shown on 00z Euro. Ground and especially road temps will lag. This will cut into accumulation efficiency and the ratios despite the otherwise very favorable timing to get sig. accums in a late season event. Going back to the placement of strongest mesoscale forcing from the f-gen, another thing we know is that in intense mesoscale banded setups, there is subsidence outside that band. Considering the marginal surface temps and antecedent warm ground temps, accumulations could struggle outside the heaviest banding. Inside that banding, rates could be 1-2"+/hr. But even there, road impacts might be mitigated some like the March 22-23 event. The snowfall gradient *may* end up tighter than modeled due to the above factors. At this time, there is a decent shot at wet snow accums of 6"+ within the heaviest banding. However, regarding headlines, unless we become confident in amounts well over 6", we might be able to get by with an advisory given overnight timing, less cars on road due to covid and possibility that marginal surface and road temps mitigate road accums and impacts. As an example, the 00z Euro increased QPF amounts vs 18z run but actually only has narrow areas of 6"+ within LOT and DVN CWAs due to the marginal 2m temps and low ratios.
  8. April 2, 2016 redux. Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
  9. The thinking for our area is that the biggest concern is the strong capping that could potentially hold. However, the conditional threat is rather high given how steep the lapse rates are along with more than sufficient bulk shear. We routinely get marginal or even slight risks in this sort of scenario where strong EML capping is a concern. And then to go farther and remove the general thunder when that's always broad brushed while several models not just the Euro show CI in the area it was removed from is an even bigger head scratcher. The Euro has had essentially the same scenario for 4 days in a row, which doesn't necessarily mean it's right, but it hasn't diverged as it's gotten closer to the event. Considering that the Euro typically does quite well with temperatures, dew points and thus instability in this area, I'm not sure why it was completely discounted by Goss. What makes it tough is that the outlook text doesn't even explain why the change was made, plus the fact that within marginal or slight risk categories the SPC never collaborates proactively with the WFOs. We have to chat them to get feedback about how the outlook may look. Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
  10. I'm completely baffled by that outlook. The ECMWF has had CI over northwest/north central IL every run since at least Friday. And SPC took general thunder out from that area. It makes no sense. Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
  11. Liking Tuesday for a potential NW flow severe event somewhere in N/C IL. Wind/shear profiles provisionally would favor supercells and models in good agreement on strong EML with plume of very steep lapse rates overhead (near or above 8C/km 700-500 mb). 12z ECMWF verbatim would support a potentially sig hail threat. Boundary layer moisture and thus LCL heights are somewhat questionable for for tor threat. There's been variance on warm frontal progress, though 12z op runs favored area getting solidly into warm sector ahead of cold front. Warm front getting hung up some would probably elevate tor potential. Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
  12. I can confirm that IND has a positive COVID case. IWX is providing service back-up through the weekend. So far so good here. Hopefully it stays that way. The way the agency is limiting our potential for exposure is by limiting people in the office to 2 people as much as possible, with main exception to that being severe weather. Everyone else is teleworking and we've developed remote capabilities so teleworkers can help the ops staff as needed. Last Saturday, we had someone doing mesoanalysis remotely. Edit: just got word it wasn't a positive case but someone who is a high risk of testing positive because of exposure to a positive COVID case. That forecaster is on quarantine and those who were in contact with the forecaster are self quarantining. They are planning to open back up tomorrow.
  13. Moderate risk coming for eastern DVN, western LOT and northwest ILX CWA with day 2 outlook. Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
  14. 'Not an evil and monolithic orwellian total state'? Ask the 1 million Uighurs in concentration camps what they think about that statement. Don't fall for the propaganda: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/03/china-coronavirus-blame-victory-propaganda-trump.html I won't further belabor this point but please don't equivocate between us and their government and don't say nice things about a regime that's the descendant of ones that murdered millions upon millions of its people and still 'disappears' critics, including some whistleblowers of their handling of the coronavirus outbreak. Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
  15. [email protected], @King James,@RobertSul, your responses are well taken and I agree. I wanted to focus on the China angle not to deflect from the poor response our own government has had, including the testing fiasco. There's many elements to it, and it's been largely a collective failure. The travel ban from China probably bought us some time but then we sqandered that time with a largely business as usual approach that spanned the entire month of February and the beginning of March. Hopefully the actions being taken since at a state level and the federal level finally taking it more seriously can avoid a true Wuhan/Italy/Spain/Iran scenario in many cities. But returning to the China point, I think we can both be critical of our government's prep and response and also acknowledge the role the Chinese government played in this. The important thing to know is that you can't trust anything coming out of authoritarian governments like China because they control the flow of info and censor anything bad for the leadership. This is very analogous to the USSR's initial handling of Chernobyl. They have the control over their populace, they have a police state, I don't see how it was a logistical thing to shut down Wuhan and Hubei province because they had the ability to do it prior, they did it when they did it as a last resort because their cover up couldn't prevent a situation that was rapidly spiraling out of control. In terms of big picture geopolitics, people need to know China is an evil actor and things shouldn't return to the way they were with their role in the global economy and supply chain once this crisis subsides, whenever that happens. Good Twitter thread: https://mobile.twitter.com/shadihamid/status/1240708244881854465 Direct link to article in Twitter thread: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/china-trolling-world-and-avoiding-blame/608332/ Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk