Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,502
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Weathernoob335
    Newest Member
    Weathernoob335
    Joined

April 12 Severe Event


joshwx2003
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, MUWX said:

One of the Birmingham NWS mets was on twitter saying that the NAM 3KM rarely produced realistic convection in the SE.

This is not a statement with too much scientific support, so I wouldn't lend too much credence to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jpeters3 said:

This is not a statement with too much scientific support, so I wouldn't lend too much credence to it.

I mean, that may be true, but its a NWS Met in the target area basically saying to discount it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A met for the same NWS office was also saying that the low level moisture will take care of and somewhat compensate for subpar low level lapse rates. While this is certainly true to an extent, I tend to think that low level instability is far more the consequence of low level lapse rates than is on moisture and numerous setups in the past which depended on OWS thunderstorm development suffered for it (5/20 says hi). Furthermore, cold core events with their 50s dews and 7.5*C/km+ LLLRs are the absolute quintessential example of this. Despite the moisture quality being good here, I think if the low level lapse rates decide not to cooperate we may be out of luck and storms may struggle to become surface based in the warm sector. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, MUWX said:

I mean, that may be true, but its a NWS Met in the target area basically saying to discount it. 

It's just the type of statement that requires a fairly detailed scientific study involving analysis of many events and inter-comparisons between regions to validate (which doesn't exist).  From my experience, even seasoned forecasters can succumb to "forecaster dogma," and this sounds like exactly that.

Not saying the 3km NAM is a great model, but it seems like folks are looking for wishful reasons to excuse it's latest solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jpeters3 said:

It's just the type of statement that requires a fairly detailed scientific study involving analysis of many events and inter-comparisons between regions to validate (which doesn't exist).  From my experience, even seasoned forecasters can succumb to "forecaster dogma," and this sounds like exactly that.

Not saying the 3km NAM is a great model, but it seems like folks are looking for wishful reasons to excuse it's latest solution.

The opposite can also be true. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, hlcater said:

A met for the same NWS office was also saying that the low level moisture will take care of and somewhat compensate for subpar low level lapse rates. While this is certainly true to an extent, I tend to think that low level instability is far more the consequence of low level lapse rates than is on moisture and numerous setups in the past which depended on OWS thunderstorm development suffered for it (5/20 says hi). Furthermore, cold core events with their 50s dews and 7.5*C/km+ LLLRs are the absolute quintessential example of this. Despite the moisture quality being good here, I think if the low level lapse rates decide not to cooperate we may be out of luck and storms may struggle to become surface based in the warm sector. 

I agree with this 100%.  Particularly in supercell and tornado environments, MLCAPE seems to be a better outcome discriminator than SBCAPE.  While a few degrees of dew point at the surface may substantially change the lifted parcel path of a SP parcel, the probably won't impact MLCAPE much.  So the low-level lapse rate issue is certainly a potential bust mode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, jpeters3 said:

Lots of quibbling here over details this far out.  At this point, I think we can all agree that we have the potential for a VERY high end event.  But like many recent would-be high events that did not pan out, the current guidance suite has also shown us a few ways that this could bust.  Maybe it will bust, maybe it won't?  Obviously too early to responsibly make a call either way.

I love the way you and other mets are admitting this could be quite a high end event and then picking all the variables that could mitigate that outcome.  To me that is what good mets do as we approach the day itself.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MUWX said:

People trying to find every reason to talk down a risk. 

You are right about this one, but that is not what is happening here.  The first CAM we get gives us a solution that would certainly qualify as  a "bust."  I don't think this is reason to reduce day 3 to a "see text", but it would be asinine to simply discount this solution based on ill-founded scientific reasoning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jpeters3 said:

You are right about this one, but that is not what is happening here.  The first CAM we get gives us a solution that would certainly qualify as  a "bust."  I don't think this is reason to reduce day 3 to a "see text", but it would be asinine to simply discount this solution based on ill-founded scientific reasoning.

Fair enough, but if we are only going to base forecasting off of things that have been scientifically proven, we aren't going to get super far. I think there is reason to potentially discount the NAM in the short term, based on what the Met who knows the model and the area has to say about it. Doesnt necessarily mean it is wrong, but until other models back it up, that gives me some reason to doubt it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MUWX said:

Fair enough, but if we are only going to base forecasting off of things that have been scientifically proven, we aren't going to get super far. I think there is reason to potentially discount the NAM in the short term, based on what the Met who knows the model and the area has to say about it. Doesnt necessarily mean it is wrong, but until other models back it up, that gives me some reason to doubt it. 

While I don't think it is wrong to doubt this solution (I have my doubts too), I don't think it is good practice to forecast based on dogma and scientifically unfounded principles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jpeters3 said:

I don't understand this statement at all.  Are we not supposed to mention potential bust mechanisms?  Only the high end scenario?  Your logic doesn't make any sense.

I mean to say that it is the job of good mets in my thinking to acknowledge high end potential and then watch for all the things that could possibly work against that outcome and lower expectations.   On 3/28 the moderate risk outlook for western IL had very high lapse rates, but the anticipated moist low levels did not arrive.  Jonesboro had the moisture.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jpeters3 said:

Right, so isn't that exactly what is going on here?  I don't understand your criticism of us basically doing exactly what you state in this post.

I am not criticizing.  I am extending a compliment.  Saying that I love the discussion is not meant in a sarcastic way.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Indystorm said:

I am not criticizing.  I am extending a compliment.  Saying that I love the discussion is not meant in a sarcastic way.

I just re-read your original post, and I realize that it was complementary and I mistook it as criticism.  My apologies.  I will delete my offending posts.

I am cranky today, sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, jpeters3 said:

I agree with this 100%.  Particularly in supercell and tornado environments, MLCAPE seems to be a better outcome discriminator than SBCAPE.  While a few degrees of dew point at the surface may substantially change the lifted parcel path of a SP parcel, the probably won't impact MLCAPE much.  So the low-level lapse rate issue is certainly a potential bust mode.

Anymore, I find myself using 0-3km MLCAPE as my instability parameter of choice over SBCAPE, particularly with regard to tornadoes. I've found SBCAPE is best used as a discriminator as to how robust an updraft may be but not how "good" that instability is for tornadoes. That definitely applies here I think and the fact numerous models are struggling to surpass 50 3CAPE is something I find tough to ignore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, hlcater said:

Anymore, I find myself using 0-3km MLCAPE as my instability parameter of choice over SBCAPE, particularly with regard to tornadoes. I've found SBCAPE is best used as a discriminator as to how robust an updraft may be but not how "good" that instability is for tornadoes. That definitely applies here I think and the fact numerous models are struggling to surpass 50 3CAPE is something I find tough to ignore.

Where do you look at 0-3km MLCAPE?  There is a lot of recent research that supports the role of buoyancy in this layer in making/breaking tornado formation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jpeters3 said:

Where do you look at 0-3km MLCAPE?  There is a lot of recent research that supports the role of buoyancy in this layer in making/breaking tornado formation.

adc2aa3c97c10cd1e356b8ac318b53f9.png

 

its on Sharppy skew-ts. SPC meso has a 3CAPE/LLLR crossover plot thats really helpful too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Wmsptwx said:

As an amateur last two pages have been confusing a bit lol... is this trending toward less severe or more severe or stable. I see ingredients in place especially with low placement and strength and sheer but lapse rates are only average looking.

High ceiling event, but there are several reasons that it could bust

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Wmsptwx said:

As an amateur last two pages have been confusing a bit lol... is this trending toward less severe or more severe or stable. I see ingredients in place especially with low placement and strength and sheer but lapse rates are only average looking.

I would say the models have been trending toward a higher-end event over the last few days, in term of ingredients.  The lapse rate issue was somewhat apparent in every model solution I've seen (though it seems ever so slightly less pronounced today).  The NAM nest was a hiccup, but too early to throw in the towel.

18 UTC NAM coming in. Should we spar on this one????

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jpeters3 said:

I would say the models have been trending toward a higher-end event over the last few days, in term of ingredients.  The lapse rate issue was somewhat apparent in every model solution I've seen (though it seems ever so slightly less pronounced today).  The NAM nest was a hiccup, but too early to throw in the towel.

Thanks, wrapped it up nicely. Learning from you all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...