RCNYILWX

96/78 at ORD approaching noon, vs. 93 at this time yesterday. The highway construction on the west side of the airport may be contributing at ORD given that MDW is currently 94, but it's time to get this 100 at ORD. Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

ORD is currently 88/78 as of 929am. For reference, it was 88/79 on the 10am ob yesterday. So it should be a degree or two warmer by the top of the hour today than it was yesterday. In our morning update, we bumped the forecast high at ORD to 100. Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

Quick note on 12z Euro: It slowed down enough and tracked farther north with 500 mb low and surface low to maybe keep most of Monday out of the game threat wise for NYC metro and bring in Tuesday as the day. Lots of time to watch this and certainly could end up as no big deal. Pieces could potentially come into place though. Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

The 12z Euro looks classic synoptically - timing a hair slower which is something to watch given that parent system is an anomalous closed h5 low which commonly tend to slow down. Forecast surface and 500 mb pattern looks more like a spring setup but the upper jet flow is marginal at only 40-50 kt, which can favor HP mode or earlier upscale growth to an MCS or both. But anyway, backed winds I-39 and east with a 40-50 kt southwesterly 500 mb jet core punching in and low 70s dew points into southern WI is prime. So in this sort of scenario you might see tornadic HP supercells transitioning to a tornadic QLCS with higher end potential tornado intensity vs. last Friday night given much stronger forecast low level and deep layer shear. That's if you have initial supercell mode and do have upscale growth of course and certainly couldn't rule out very rapid transition to a QLCS near or west of the MS River. I'll be in NY during this so will be a spectator, though sometime in the Monday evening-Tuesday timeframe could have higher end severe potential on the east coast too. Will be interesting to watch this unfold.

Idk if it's on the radar yet since higher end patterns for severe weather in the east are not necessarily common, but holy moly at the 00z Euro for Monday. Sub 1000 mb low pressure over the northeast is impressive for early August, let alone May or June. And 70+ dew points were forecast up to I-90 during the afternoon and evening, amidst strongly supportive low level and deep layer wind shear. The 12z GFS is honestly not too far off from that. I'm originally from College Point in Queens, worked at OKX from Feb 2009 until July 2010 and been at NWS Chicago ever since. I'll be visiting my family Friday the 4th to Friday the 11th and staying in CP, so I'll be there on Monday if that setup holds.

The look on the 12z Euro for Sunday was likely the most impressive this summer at that range for a favorable large scale pattern for severe weather. Will be interesting to see if the Euro holds with its much slower s/w and cold frontal approach tonight.

It's so absurd to have such a small gen TS area paired with the giant marginal. Marginal risks are whatever ultimately, but his outlooks for last night and today for this area were total fails, since they were a rip and read of convective feedback contaminated NAM runs.

Say what you want about Broyles (he's not good in general), but for for my money, Goss is the worst performing SPC outlook forecaster. Those who are familiar with the 4/7/2020 wind driven sig hail event in eastern IA, southwest WI, and northern IL will remember that he issued one of the worst day 2 updates of all time (removed general TS in much of the sig hail area) on 4/6/2020. He's on midnight shifts now and his outlooks have been bad as usual. The current day 3 he issued last night may take the cake in terms of silliness.

This afternoon was the first time I had any sort of excitement writing an AFD since one of the late season winter events. I was on a ski trip out west for March 31st and I worked April 4th but I don't think I wrote one of the AFDs for that. So yeah, it's been a while. Next couple weeks look potentially solid if you like mid summer RoF type stuff. Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

Since that's what the 2nd paragraph of their statement implies, and they apparently only see their role as alerting sensitive groups, I tend to agree. Behind the scenes, there's bureaucratic stuff with IDEM that we've had to sort out, but they've been very proactive in putting out AQAs, just like all the other state EPAs have been in this stretch, with the exception of the IL EPA. Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

Confirmed that the only reason we got an AQA is that the WCMs from LOT, ILX, and DVN pleaded for one. My take from the mess today is that only if you're in a sensitive group do you deserve an AQA according to the IL EPA. For everyone else, take some responsibility, go to airnow.gov, and step outside to judge for yourself if the air quality is hazardous. It would be like the NWS never issuing headlines for hazardous weather because people should be able to figure out it's unsafe. Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

I'm off today but according to my coworker, we had to essentially beg the IL EPA to put out an AQA today. They hand out AQAs like candy on 90 degree days for ozone potentially impactful to sensitive groups, but then crickets most of this morning for the worst air quality in years (decades?) here. And then they put in a dig at us in the 2nd paragraph of the AQA, basically implying that they didn't think they needed to put out a AQA because the air quality is obviously bad and the AQI is available at airnow.gov. Good stuff. Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

Agree, looking bleak. Saturday and Sunday gonna be hot, heat might even get to the lakefront on Sunday. If we're lucky, some weakening MCS stratiform rain makes it in early Sunday, though likely hostile environment locally and poor timing cast doubt on that. Veered winds with the front Sunday PM make widespread CI unlikely, and leaning against lake breeze convection being in play. Could very well be a gap situation, where better convective coverage ends up east of us Sunday PM after being west of us Saturday night. Monday looks to have a chance for scattered storms in northwest flow, followed by a reinforcing surge of dry air for at least a couple days. We need widespread inches of rain for meaningful drought relief given the deterioration occurring this week, and not seeing it the next 10 days.

18z NAMs backed off unfortunately, so the 12z Euro is the only model current model run of note to offer up a chance at a decent rain of 0.70 to locally 1" across northern IL. Since the setup will be cool season-like with a banded fgen component, the model variance is at least partially driven by the difference in placement of the response to the fgen circulation. Hopefully we're not north of the cutoff. Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

Yes, everyone in Illinois follows the ban and doesn't shoot off fireworks. Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.