Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited



  • 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. it's all over folks, lot getting ready 2 punt until july There's the cutoff low that may set up far enough west to bring beneficial rain out here early next week, but that's more of a crapshoot at this range. Then out toward day 10, operational models are hinting at a return toward westerly flow aloft shown on the ensembles at that range. Later in the ensemble runs, a more classic position of the mean summertime 500 mb ridge is shown, centered over Texas. If that occurs, could be favorable for MCS activity in the subforum. The precip. and evaporation hole will be getting progressively deeper until then, especially if we miss out on the cutoff low early next week, and won't be easy to quickly dig out of. However, the potential for the persistent high amplitude blocky pattern to finally erode offers some hope for more regular rain/thunder chances returning.
  2. Operational Euro already going balls out with the drought feedback next week lol. ~95 to 100 parts of the local region next Wednesday-Thursday with fairly pedestrian 582 DM 500 mb heights and 850s around +20C. Overdone, but into the 90s looks realistic. Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
  3. That's what we had in May-June 2012. 5 days in the 90s and 14 days of 80+ highs in May 2012 got things rolling. Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
  4. Have felt the same way. The only truly subpar winter in that stretch was 2011-12. Around here, 2012-13 had bad luck involved, and parts of the subforum ended up with solidly above normal snow. Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
  5. One of the turning points in how the pendulum has swung toward too stringent an EF-5 standard was the engineering assessment in the wake of the Joplin tornado. I I'm not mistaken, that assessment found that hardly any/none of the destroyed homes would have withstood EF-3 winds. It seems like, despite Moore receiving an EF-5 designation, that since that Joplin engineering assessment, there's been a granular focus on home construction vs. coverage of damage DI 10 with the highest DOD. Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
  6. I feel confident in saying that Rochelle-Fairdale on April 9, 2015 was also an EF-5. The wind rowing in the aerial photo from IEMA Air-One looks strikingly similar to that seen in some of the April 27th tornadoes. The survey process for that tornado was rushed imo - we never had an in person QRT consultation, just a virtual one. I'm not sure how that was decided upon, if the QRT felt comfortable going virtual or our since retired MIC pushed for a faster decision to stick with high end EF-4.
  7. To the supposed lack of EF-5s since Moore, if EF-5 were adjusted down to 190+ mph, we'd have seen the "normal" amount of EF-5s over the past 10 years. Particularly with that DI and DOD for houses. As an NWS employee, I think that the agency as a whole has lost the plot when it comes to damage ratings. Having some reference to engineering standards is all well and good, but an impossible standard to reach EF-5 has been set based off building codes that don't exist in much of the country. We've become fixated on finding everything a tornado didn't do as opposed to judging what a tornado did do with respect to totality of damage. If a large swath of a town has catastrophic destruction, it's not the town's fault if they don't have structures built to withstand >200 mph winds. The lower bound on the DIs is used too liberally imo. Vilonia is an example less than a year after Moore of a tornado that by all accounts should have been rated EF-5. Prior to that, there's a good case to be made that Tuscaloosa 2011 should have been EF-5. On the flipside of that, it seems likely that the post-Moore survey standards would have yielded at least a few less EF-5s on April 27, 2011. In recent years, I think Mayflower is probably the best example of how the pendulum has swung well too far in the direction of assigning impossible engineering standards to reach EF-5. Hopefully, the forthcoming updates to the EF scale help bring things back to a more reasonable/realistic place.
  8. Yep, if the most recent Euro and GFS runs are right, the whole subforum isn't going to sniff normal next Monday and Tuesday. Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
  9. There likely were gravity waves or an undular bore acting upon the stable layer. In these cases with elevated convection, the lower level stable layer ducts the gravity waves or bores, which can then temporarily augment the stable layer. It's more common to see damaging wind as the main threat when there is strong low level stability, getting tornadoes is more rare. I was one of the co-authors on published research regarding the June 30, 2014 double derecho and QLCS tornado outbreak. The northern tornadoes with a MV that passed right near LOT had signs of bore propagation in augmenting the much shallower stable layer north of the stalled OFB/effective warm front. Wouldn't be surprised if there ends up being published research on Tuesday's event in the QCA. Fascinating stuff. Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
  10. There's definitely a path in which tomorrow underperforms, but don't want to get too caught up in what the CAMs are showing. Since today didn't play out close to the expectations we had for it yesterday, more surprises are probably a decent bet. Pattern and parameter space remain favorable for noteworthy severe, but the uncertain effects of overnight-early AM convection cast a good deal of uncertainty. Recent runs of the RAP continue to show a solid environment out ahead of the cold front in the late AM and early to mid afternoon. Should overnight storms be less widespread, that would seem to be a point in favor of tomorrow living up to its potential closer to peak heating. On the other hand, can also envision scenarios in which overnight-early AM convection causes destructive interference...or the early AM storms are the main show out this way. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.
  11. The 12z NSSL-WRF has a supercell latched on the warm front right into the Chicago metro this evening. 12z NAMnest finally showing storms into the CWA this evening. Regarding tomorrow, unclear if a remnant QLCS/MCS moves across in the early morning, though timing wise and conceptually, redevelopment in late morning over the area would certainly be more concerning for higher end severe over parts of the LOT CWA. A weakening MCS preceding redevelopment could put some leftover OFBs in play, with respect to the tornado threat. Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
  12. Easiest way to tell that's likely an issue is the super low T/Td spreads and saturated low levels indicating socked in stratus. If dew points get that high, highly unlikely 2m temps will only be 1-3F higher than Td. Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
  13. I had a feeling that's what you meant, but wanted to clarify for those following the discussion. It's definitely a colloquial thing to call variance in the guidance on capping issues "struggling". Regarding your second point, I'd say that it's fair to say higher end events likely had a strong EML and therefore needed some sort of wave to help break the cap if the large scale synoptic forcing (such as height falls) was lacking. I've brought up April 7, 2020 because of how that event hinged on the cap breaking and there was decided variance on whether the cap would break and coverage of storms. SPC outlooks seemed to largely discount the ECMWF for that event interestingly enough. While Tuesday is not similar synoptically to that 2020 event, time of year, strong EML, and consistency of the ECMWF depiction are interesting parallels. Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
  14. I wouldn't necessarily call it struggling with the cap. It basically underscores the conditional nature of the threat with eastward extent in the late afternoon and early evening. There's good agreement on a fairly strong cap, but variance on whether there's a wave to break the cap. Without a short-wave, the convergence along the warm front alone likely wouldn't be enough to overcome the minimal forcing and height rises. We won't hit convective T with an EML that stout. The fact the Euro has shown a short-wave and CI multiple runs in a row has my attention though.
  15. *If* the cap breaks as the Euro is showing, the parameter space is high end. For those who recall the wind blown sig hail event on 4/7/20, it had CI pegged for that setup from 6 days out and locked in. It's recently been the most robust with the 500 mb short wave and speed max, enough for CI between 21z and 00z. Because the cap is rather stout, I wouldn't lock in the Euro depiction playing out, but it's interesting that's it's latched onto that scenario. If I were drawing up the outlook for the DVN, LOT, MKX CWA border region and points east, would probably go 15% hatched hail, 15% wind and 2-5% tor. Conditional, but potentially higher end setup late Tuesday afternoon into Tuesday evening, in the 21-03z timeframe. LCLs look a bit marginal for higher tornado probs, but warm front proximity suggests anything close to the front would have that potential if a couple storms go. Edit: Added a gif showing the last several runs of ECMWF 6-hour lightning density valid 06z Wednesday. Edit 2: Added 500 mb heights and vorticity loop from the last several ECMWF runs valid 00z Wednesday [i was on a spring break ski trip last week, though I'll be around and working day shifts this week to add to the discussion. Last Friday was one of the few significant severe events in the LOT cwa that I've missed since I've been out here.]
  • Create New...