weatherwiz

We're too quick to judge every weather event as bust or not...and then quick to make a judgement based on what happened in our backyards. Now I don't think there is anything totally wrong with that mindset, but when that mindset is then used to try and justify to a group of people...I think that's problematic. Now at the end of the day if you're going to forecast something as significant as tornadoes or widespread wind damage or a widespread 1-2 foot snowstorm...there really better be something, otherwise the public loses faith, especially if it happens over and over.

yeah it had a pretty evident TDS. Surprised it took a while for the warning to be updated to make mention of radar confirmed.

Part of the problem is perception. Keeping this tied solely to convection when watches are issued and of course with the SPC convective outlooks...these are probabilistic forecasts - meaning they are that...probabilities. It is very difficult to verify probabilistic forecasts. If there is a large say severe thunderstorm watch box that extends from say Maine through New England and maybe into Pennsylvania and New Jersey the majority of people would probably anticipate and expected widespread severe weather or a significant amount of reports within the watch box - but is that really true? Is that a fair assessment to make? All a severe thunderstorm watch means is that atmospheric conditions are favorable (key word) for any thunderstorms which develop to become capable of producing damaging winds, hail > 1'', or a tornado. Now you would expect that there will be at least some of these events within the box. But what accounts for verifying? I'm sure the SPC has a defined criteria which is probably in a publication somewhere but if let's say there were a total of 10-severe reports within that entire watch box, was it really a bust? Anyways and this probably answers the question, but there is a reason why watch boxes probably only get thrown up when there is an expectation for a certain number of reports. But in terms of the SPC probabilities if we have a 10% TOR contour and no TOR's is that really a bust? That defines that there is a 10% probability for a tornado within 25-miles of any point within that contour...or in other words, a 90% probability there will not be a tornado. Obviously in terms of climo that 10% is going to be extremely high...but at the end of the day the probability is still exceedingly low. I wouldn't be surprised if some years from now you see major adjustments with convective forecasting, how it's communicated, and even with probabilities and so forth as the data set grows and we become more sophisticated.

That cell must be interacting with some local boundary

I've reached my attachment quota

Ughhh saying I can’t upload photo. Something about size but it’s a small photo

Looks like a TDS

I think we can all agree some of the numbers being floated around are not going to happen. Unless we saw significant changes regarding the placement of the upper-level ridge (for starters). But if you're looking for a pattern that isn't boring and want some [convective] rain chances the projected look is what you want. Anytime we can end up on the crest (especially downwind) of the upper-level ridge you're in a favorable position for lots of shortwave energy and fronts to move through. While it will certainly be hot and humid there will also be plenty of chances for some convection.

It all really should come down to impact on the public and public awareness. If a thunderstorm in Iowa produced a wind gust of 85-mph which knocked down trees and a few happened to land on peoples homes and a wind gust of 45-50 mph knocked down a few trees which happened to land on peoples homes...they both produced the SAME impact and were a disruption to someone's life and property. If a line of thunderstorms with wind gusts of 50-55 mph went through and produced scattered wind damage along the way resulting in some power outages, road closures, maybe some property damage...who cares that it wasn't a 80-100 mph derecho there was still disruptive impact.

I don't think so but in all seriousness (I know we have the back-and-forth banter with severe ) it's something wouldn't be a bad idea to consider. I think outside of the wind criteria, another measure used is the size of any tree limbs which come down (I think like 4'' or greater in diameter). While we don't get [severity] of thunderstorms like they do out West thunderstorms here tend to be more disruptive and this is obviously related to the greater coverage of trees (which are also heavily weakened) and a higher density of population. One tree taking down power lines can knock out power to hundreds. The toughest aspect I think (and we'll just focus on severe though this can probably be applied to other phenomena too) is trying to separate the scientific aspect vs. public impact. Let's say we get a strong thunderstorm which doesn't look like much at all and it's producing wind gusts of 40-45 mph and knocks down a bunch of trees/power lines across several towns and you have road closures, people without power, maybe a tree fallen into a house...that's going to be a pretty big deal for the impacted areas, but for us it's not that big of a deal because we know what "real storms" look like. Like last week or the week before there were some storms that went through the Albany, NY area and I think resulted in 30K without power. The event overall I didn't think was that impressive or nothing in the category of outbreak but does the thinking change b/c of the impact it had and number of power outages resulted? I don't think number of wind damage reports should be used as a metric to define a severe weather outbreak or event unless; 1) There are numerous measured wind gusts which meet or exceed severe criteria 2) We are able to identify exactly what the dame consists of. For example, with trees. What types of trees are they? If they're all a bunch of weak trees then it's not that crazy but if you're seeing numerous oaks or pines down...well that's impressive.

Looks like the next bust is tomorrow. Forgot about that bust potential. Week flew by

Based on how the NWS and SPC define severe...yes there was. Why do people try and compare thunderstorms here to out West lol. Going to start applying that philosophy to our snow events. Sure our severe events are laughable to what happens out West during the big events...but so are our snow events compared to what other areas of the country get.

There is a growing signal for another round of big heat to push into the region moving through the first week of August. GEFS advertising am extensive ridge across the heart of the country with the 588dm height pushed well into the northern Plains and even moreso the 591dm contour...this is rather impressive. GEFS also showing some big time warmth in the 850mb layer with high anomalies and potential for 850's well over 20C More importantly, given the subtle trough signal over our region, this implies we would be dealing with a westerly to northwesterly flow aloft in the mid-levels...maybe we can get some EML action in here Anyways, as Tip had pointed out several times in the July thread, teleconnections are SCREAMING for a surge of high heat into the region and hopefully with some dews, dews, dews (and severe chances)

ahh got it, thanks! I didn't even see the view details

WTF...there's no thunderstorms going on in the Northeast. Unless does this mean that flights destined to these airports are being delayed from airports being impacted by thunderstorms?

That's another good point regarding the pre-frontal trough which obviously was the source for the wind shift. Perhaps all that was described above could be attributed to the pre-frontal trough and it's timing. But you're right...this feature is very common with W-E cold fronts here and more times than not it is the pre-frontal trough which is the driver for the development of convection as opposed to the actual cold front. Days in which instability is rather robust you may see some additional development with the fropa but it's very isolated...sort of like what occurred yesterday. Regarding the lapse rates/height falls are those really more important when assessing the potential for severe weather on a widespread level as opposed to just aerial coverage of thunderstorms...well at least lapse rates, height falls do have a strong(er) correlation to aerial coverage. But I think this all makes sense now!

I'll admit, I actually did not look at any forecast soundings for this setup which I have no clue why I would not. I got a bit too carried away with just assessing instability, shear, and seeing a forcing mechanism approaching during prime heating. Based on those factors I went a bit overboard. When I saw a tweet last night (actually two) which mentioned drying in the mid-levels and one tweet showed a sounding it hit me. This is why we were seeing dews mix out a bit...due to the deep mixing which was occurring as we got stronger heating and favorable llvl flow for better mixing, drier air in the mid-levels was seeping into the llvls and down to the surface. Back to the discussion on the height falls, I don't think the lack of stuff was due to neutral or not really falling heights. Certainly falling heights can enhance the potential for more widespread activity and subsequent severe weather potential but IMO, that tends to be a bigger factor when assessing for widespread severe weather potential, just necessarily widespread convection (unless there are an overwhelming number of unfavorable ingredients). Looking back, the dry air advection into the mid-levels and seeping into the lower-levels would make the perfect sense as to convection did not evolve or materialize and this is what the mesos must have been picking up upon. Where convection was able to form there was extra enhancement. One of those areas was farther north where the steepest mid-level lapse rates were present as Brian showed. The second area was again the northern NJ onto Long Island where there was probably enhanced convergence. I also don't buy the idea that the convection there robbed us of any potential. I also can't see the morning clouds/precip having had played much of a role either given the fact that we recovered quite well. Temperatures rebounded and met what guidance suggested and instability was plenty. But looking back at it also...given how well we cleared and how quickly we got strong heating...that should have been a clear cut indicator how much drying was really occurring aloft. This is why it's imperative to fully assess everything and all factors. All these charts like UD helicity swaths, supercell composite parameter, significant tornado parameter, and the hazard type on the SHARPPy soundings are cute and all, but just like the stupid, ridiculous horseshit model snowfall maps they are leading to bad and lazy forecasting and I got sucked into that hole yesterday.

Well the same logic would apply with that. With convective events and convective setups you're generally not going to get a widespread much needed rain. On a magnitude of scale, convection is just too small. You're always going to have a case where some towns get hit while others don't (now some situations more will get hit than not) but you can't rely on convection to provide a widespread much needed rain. This is why we rely quite a bit on getting at least seasonal snowfall totals and at least a few spring nor'easters to build up water tables for the summer and then for fall nor'easters to replenish what is lost during the summer. What we have lacked out a bit on the past few years is widespread synoptic rains which tend to be associated with warms fronts.

I think the biggest challenge overall is how these events are perceived. There seems to be a mindset that every single setup has to result in a widespread outbreak or all parameters need to be perfect. Was yesterday really a bust? I mean there were some severe weather reports but was it a bust? This answer is tied into how an individual is perceiving the potential and what they're expecting. When we look at and discuss parameters whether it be shear, CAPE, lift, lapse rates, height falls, forcing, etc. there is a tendency to only look for what is typically found with high end events. High end events don't happen often and there is a reason for that. Even other areas of the country where sure they have a higher tendency for higher end events, but they still don't happen with a high frequency. At the end of the day, no setup is ever going to have perfect parameters, not every setup is going to produce as a high end event, but does that mean every single event that doesn't mean these criteria is a bust? I mean when it comes to convective forecasting how can an event be a bust anyways?

In New Britain getting my severe downpour

The next bust. Only season that doesn’t bust around here is spring. Cold, windy, and crap.

Maybe I need my eyes re-checked

Can severe rains be a thing and count as severe?

Ahhh just saw a tweet…mid level dry air may be the culprit here…

Mesos did pick up on something. Kind of want to dig into all the equations that are used within them. I know height falls weren’t great but I didn’t think there were terrible. At least they weren’t rising which is what we had a week ago or whatever. How often do we do height falls well anyways? I mean we should have still had at least some severe or even storms and pretty much nil. I mean they had decent storms in NJ/LI and height falls were probably worse or just the same.