Jump to content

jpeters3

Meteorologist
  • Posts

    731
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jpeters3

  1. Now there's a wind profile you don't see every day...
  2. I agree, I think the updrafts are stronger today. More instability, slightly higher tropopause.
  3. I noticed they were betting blasted by hail as well. Interesting, there wasn't much in the way of large hail with last week's storms.
  4. Not sure. The KLIX profile looks pretty crappy.
  5. Yeah, this is sort of strange. I remember pulling numerous classic looking low-level hodographs yesterday.
  6. Looks like my toddler drew those profiles...
  7. Funny that the weenies were going nuts this morning about the lack of a High risk call from SPC. Seems like another good forecast on their end, given the uncertainty.
  8. It appears to be north of two fairly well defined outflow boundaries, so probably sitting over stable air and unlikely to be tornadic.
  9. I don't think it's so much the surface winds, as it is the lack of stronger deep layer shear and low-level storm-relative flow (~20-25 kt and ~50-55 kt). Both these measures are considerably weaker than they were for the event last weekend at this same time.
  10. One possibly large difference between this event and last week's is the roughly 10 kt difference in 0-6 km shear (weaker today than last Sunday). Low-level shear is obviously most relevant to the immediate process of tornadogenesis through enhancing low-level upward dynamic pressure accelerations, but deep-layer shear (and the associated low-level storm-relative flow) have a strong influence on whether sustained supercells-like updrafts are possible. The comparatively strong deep-layer shear last weekend may have facilitated the formation of sustained supercell-like updrafts within the QLCS, and facilitated the subsequent formation of numerous tornadoes because of the favorable low-level environment. In this event, we will have a favorable low-level environment but not quite as much deep layer shear - this may make all the difference in terms of whether sustained supercell-like updrafts occur within the QLCS and subsequently whether a prolific QLCS event will happen.
  11. Issuing a high risk last weekend would have been irresponsible given the uncertainty. And issuing a high risk this morning also would have been irresponsible, regardless of the outcome. Yet another difficult forecast this morning. There will be some regions of the warm sector with higher end parameters, but the CAM guidance is far from screaming "outbreak." To me, it looks like we'll have another QLCS event with the chance of some rogue isolated supercells in the warm sector (though CAMS are all across the board in terms of the prevalence of the later). QLCS tornado events are quite difficult to forecast. Obviously last week's event was prolific, and there are some similarities this week (low-level saturation). But there have been plenty events with high end parameters in the warm sector and a QLCS that plowed through the high end parameter region without producing many tornadoes. Given these uncertainties (which to me seem a tad up from last weekend), it would have been totally irresponsible to issue a high risk.
  12. The first NAM NEST is a similar story to last event. Shows a very volatile environment over LA/MS at 2100-0000 UTC, but mainly grungevection with a trailing MCS, rather than discrete supercells. Some very impressive looking forecast soundings though.
  13. First Bassfield tornado upgraded to EF-3. https://forecast.weather.gov/product.php?site=NWS&product=LSR&issuedby=LIX
  14. I still find it fascinating how those two monster supercells emerged so quickly out of a cluster of grungevection that I had pretty much written off. You don't see that every day. Obviously the parameters supported such an evolution, but still...
  15. Would have verified as a High, but I think SPC forecasters did an excellent job leading up to this event and I agree with their calls the day of. There was a lot of uncertainty, and it was unclear that a widespread outbreak would happen until pretty late in the day.
  16. Where did you hear this? Please do share.
  17. Some of the aerial photos also show very intermittent destruction of houses, which supports the idea that (at least some of) these houses were not well anchored.
  18. This comes 15 minutes after the trolls start calling bust...
  19. @Quincy You called this one buddy.
  20. It's really an issue of low-level buoyancy. If you can get enough low-level buoyancy, that aids (or at least doesn't act as a deterrent) in the vertical stretching of near surface vorticity, then you are golden. Likewise, weaker low-level laps rates equates to less low level acceleration and makes it harder to stretch near surface vorticity. So there may not necessarily be a CAP (there could be no CIN), but it's still hard to punch through the layer with very weak buoyancy. It is possible for low-level dynamics to overcome this issue, but we don't really have a good understanding at this point of which conditions do, and which do not permit this "compensation." For those of you who are more technically inclined, it's not actually the low level buoyancy that does the near surface stretching. It's actually the buoyancy-driven low pressure that sits at the updraft bottom, and the associated upward accelerations below the updraft base and the center of this low pressure. When low-level buoyancy is stronger, this low pressure feature is also stronger. Note that this effect is separate from the low-level dynamic accelerations driven by rotationally driven low dynamic pressure.
  21. He has been touting that for days, but obviously they are limiting things here.
×
×
  • Create New...