thewxmann

Members
  • Content Count

    1,969
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by thewxmann

  1. The portion of Cuba that Irma traversed is flat. 4500 ft will absolutely disrupt Maria. Dominica is a small island with 4500 feet peaks and it disrupted Maria for awhile.
  2. The models are taking it into consideration, and that's why they (almost) unanimously turn Irma northward near Florida.
  3. Yeah they did this with Ike too, having it deepen by quite a bit over the Gulf despite its inner core getting shredded. The Keys and the west coast of FL are more surge prone than the east coast of FL however. So in that track, the surge could still create havoc. Pick your poison really.
  4. West Coast is far more surge prone but less population till you get up to Naples/Ft. Meyers north to Cedar Key. Pick your poison.
  5. Man reading some of these comments I'd think that Cat 5's happened all the time in the Atlantic. Never mind that we went 9 years without one before Matthew, much less one at 35N.
  6. It's neither the worst case scenario nor is it just some "light rain" given the situation. Let's be realistic on both sides.
  7. Actually the 0Z NAM last night was the first hint that something would go down today, and the 0Z 3-km NAM was downright impressive. Both models spun up a subtle low in S OK that backed the winds in E TX to southeasterly. Earlier runs, and the GFS, kept the sfc low buried in S TX/MX and so the sfc winds veered along the front. The kicker was the 3-km NAM veered the 500mb flow slightly more towards 0Z and this allowed more of the stronger bulk shear magnitudes to overspread the free warm sector, earlier. These subtle changes in trof geometry were not captured really well by any models until late-game, but made a huge difference in keeping storms supercellular just long enough. Finally, on the mesoscale level, the sfc obs indicated that there was not one main initiating boundary (the cold front out towards 35), but two... one ahead of the cold front, separating the backed windfield from more veered flow closer to the front. Many of the storms initiated on the latter boundary because convergence was stronger along it.
  8. I have zero doubt that I cursed this setup by coming out to the Plains for this. As is starting to become tradition. Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
  9. I'm not sure how this is relevant to anything. And yes I'm seriously thinking about it. So? P.S. why do you have to be such a prick?
  10. Me and just about everybody else who understands meteorology. I'm sure you know them too, so I'll spare you from my negativity this time.
  11. Yeah. Tonight's 0Z runs are the final nail in the coffin for tomorrow. Great setup wasted and we'll have to wait awhile for the next one...
  12. The convection on Friday has never been the biggest issue for Saturday.
  13. What are you talking about? They're all a hot mess. Just because I side with the NAM doesn't mean I haven't seen all the models.
  14. This x100. If you look closely at the surface maps, you'll see that even on Friday morning there's some kind of a boundary left behind by Thursday's s/w and north of that boundary the sfc flow is weak and easterly. Due east flow north of a boundary with delayed/weak WAA is always a red flag to me. I've seen way too many instances where the LLJ gets shut down around those kind of boundaries (remember that epic AR high risk bust on 5/1/2010?). I don't know what exactly that physical process is, but something is wonky with the low-level fields on Friday and it wouldn't be the first time global models don't pick that up correctly.
  15. We don't have a strong Canadian high but we also don't have a strong lee low.
  16. Well the ECMWF and GFS have that lead 500mb shortwave as well. And we've seen instances like March (or April?) 2009 in the SE where a batch of intense convection eats up the LLJ for areas a few states away. It can happen. Might have been April 17, 2013. I remember GFS showing a retreating WF all the way to KS and a full-blown outbreak, whereas the NAM kept that front down in SW OK, which ended up being right. It's not the same thing but we also have a boundary (much more diffuse this time) draped over N TX/ S OK. So they aren't completely different. Either way, it's an example of the NAM being better than the globals <48 hr out. I have yet to see the reverse happen, at least on big banner severe setups.
  17. What are you talking about? NAM hinted at VBV and had SSW 500mb flow superimposed on top of S sfc flow with a sharp trof axis and a NNE-SSW oriented boundary. If I said that and nothing about CAPE or SRH values you'd scoff at me for even mentioning an outbreak.
  18. What do you even mean the NAM is terrible in situations like this? I mentioned April 2013 -- do you have a counterexample? Hail *might* verify the enhanced, but a lot of convection Friday night is anafrontal in nature which gives me pause about considering having a cluster of large hailers. Winds are not likely to be as significant of a threat given the high PWAT's and the elevated nature of the Fri night storms.
  19. What it means- convection fires off in the mid-Mississippi Valley on Friday. Convection tends to pull low-level flow towards it. That effect is usually not very significant, but without strong cyclogenesis over W TX, it may just be enough to delay the LLJ backing back towards N/NW TX. Regarding the NAM- it's looks like to me that it's been jumping around. Not much of a strong, sustained trend. I guess the latest run does look a little better, but I'll have to wait a few more runs before acknowledging that as a real trend.
  20. FWIW, for severe wx the NAM is absolutely elite within 48 hours, even over global models that have consistent solutions (an example: April 2013). If the NAM continues with its solution in the 12Z run, consider the LLJ and the tornado threat for Friday nuked. My best guess as to what's happening here is that convection in the mid-Mississippi Valley has a "tug" on the LLJ that keeps its axis veered off to the east. The globals aren't properly resolving the convection, so they're prematurely backing the LLJ to the west. Given the weak and delayed cyclogenesis off to the west and the anafrontal nature of this setup, I'd side with the NAM scenario. I'll also have to take back what I said earlier about CI since it *does* look now like the embedded impulse that we need to trigger convection is about 3-6 hours too late. All in all, I'd be beyond shocked if Friday even verifies an enhanced risk at this point.
  21. I could end up being wrong on this, but I'm not too concerned about CI. NW TX is on the favorable right entrance region of the upper-level jet streak and boundary layer moisture is rich, which helps with parcel buoyancy all else equal. The subsidence behind the initial Thursday s/w lifts out about at the right time, around 18Z. EML's have been manageable this year and for this particular system the EML source region is not too far south to advect in super hot temperatures in the mid-levels. I think the most likely scenario is supercells initiate but don't produce tornadoes, to the disappointment of every chaser who's drunk the hype cool-aid and scheduled a Friday chase.
  22. It wasn't that great to begin with, but that's because of these issues which have been hashed out well in this thread. The 12Z Euro advanced the warm front further north because the lead s/w on Thursday is very suppressed on that run. However, it is an outlier compared to the other models. We'll see what 0Z says. Initiation or no initiation, the meager LLJ will be a huge limiting factor even if we do get the WF far north. We'll be highly dependent on the LLJ getting a boost at dusk.
  23. IIRC, 4/14/12 also had subtle height rises, but subtle s/w's out ahead of the main trof initiated storms much earlier than we and most CAM's expected. The net result was that the initial supercells had trouble maintaining strong updrafts (sans one, the Salina EF4) until the main ascent arrived later in the evening.