Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,508
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    joxey
    Newest Member
    joxey
    Joined

October Discussion


TalcottWx

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

NAM is still good for Wed morning, esp south. Wind profiled are a bit weird with winds veering then backing, and then veering again.

I noticed this too, the result is some rather messy hodographs, despite otherwise strong wind fields/shear.

The RGEM isn't all that much different though. Have to imagine that wind this wind support, it won't take much instability for some fun regardless.

post-533-0-44575000-1412612016_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure I would go there in the true spirit of an EML, but models do show decent lapse rates aloft advecting over the region early Wed.

 

i.e. a pocket of decent lapse rates, rather than a mixed layer advecting off the western high terrain.

 

 

The NAM is quite odd. It has a very steep area of lapse rates... nearly dry adiabatic from 850-650mb. 

 

Area of relatively steep lapse rates looks to move in from the SW but yeah I don't think I would classify that as a true EML either.  I remember a few summers ago we saw a similar feature where it looked like an EML but it was situated lower in the troposphere than usual...we had a debate about whether it was an EML or not and Ekster said it was not a true EML.  

 

It's interesting though b/c looking at 850mb RH values, they seem fairly juicy SW of us...I would have guessed drier given where the lapse rates seem to be working in from, however, there is an area of dry air which works in from the Atlantic at 850mb.  

 

Would like to do an 850-600mb mean RH field.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NAM is still good for Wed morning, esp south. Wind profiled are a bit weird with winds veering then backing, and then veering again.

 

Uh oh, the Midwest weenies don't like that one bit.

 

But that's typically for widespread tornado outbreaks. If enough turning in concentrated in the low levels around here, it would still be a concern.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh oh, the Midwest weenies don't like that one bit.

 

But that's typically for widespread tornado outbreaks. If enough turning in concentrated in the low levels around here, it would still be a concern.

 

 

It's pretty unstable in the lower levels so I wouldn't think it matters too much if the NAM were to be correct...but just noting the interesting profile. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No kidding. Looks like a 55-60kt LLJ crosses over CT with 1000-1500 SBCAPE for much of the area. Even some subtly backed winds to the SSE.

 

I didn't see that much CAPE on the Euro - but it's hard to read on the wxbell maps anyway. 

 

If nothing else the warm sector looked pretty expansive with the triple point fairly far northwest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't see that much CAPE on the Euro - but it's hard to read on the wxbell maps anyway. 

 

If nothing else the warm sector looked pretty expansive with the triple point fairly far northwest.

Yeah that was a typo, looking at it again I meant 500-1,000. The interesting thing is that 10/3/79 was a relatively low instability setup too. (Although a surface low spun right up the valley) 18z estimated about 1,000 J/kg SBCAPE. Meaning at the time of the tornado, it couldn't have been much higher.

NARR4pCAPE_1979100318.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah that was a typo, looking at it again I meant 500-1,000. The interesting thing is that 10/3/79 was a relatively low instability setup too. (Although a surface low spun right up the valley) 18z estimated about 1,000 J/kg SBCAPE. Meaning at the time of the tornado, it couldn't have been much higher.

NARR4pCAPE_1979100318.png

It wouldn't surprise me if Cape values shot up to around 1500 locally...from reports I've heard the sun came out fairly strong like an hour before the tornado so the temps probably jumped several degrees and in an environment like that capes would boost quickly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah that was a typo, looking at it again I meant 500-1,000. The interesting thing is that 10/3/79 was a relatively low instability setup too. (Although a surface low spun right up the valley) 18z estimated about 1,000 J/kg SBCAPE. Meaning at the time of the tornado, it couldn't have been much higher.

NARR4pCAPE_1979100318.png

 

Yeah... the low level shear was off the charts. There's a couple of interesting journal articles about the storm and how funky the near storm environment was. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...