Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,192
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    2015Wrx
    Newest Member
    2015Wrx
    Joined

Severe Weather Threat Week...so many threats!!!


weatherwiz
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Chrisrotary12 said:

Was there even a legitimate severe thunderstorm? Not those fake New England severe ones.

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, weatherwiz said:

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.

Do the NWS and SPC have different definitions of severe based on geography? I know the NWS does for snow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Chrisrotary12 said:

Do the NWS and SPC have different definitions of severe based on geography? I know the NWS does for snow.

I don't think so but in all seriousness (I know we have the back-and-forth banter with severe :lol: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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, yoda said:

 

 

Considerable tree damage too, he said without surprise.  Public Lands Northern Region staff were cutting their way thru blowdowns on roads and hiking trails yesterday (and probably continuing today.)   As of late afternoon yesterday, they had not gotten up Deboullie Mountain to check the status of the firewatcher's cabin and firetower, though the recently replaced cab was still in place.  Folks have not heard of any injuries, a relief given the heavy recreational use of that Public Lands tract.
Edit:  Evidently the outhouse near the summit got trashed, and as many folks climb up there, quick replacement is in the plans.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Torch Tiger said:

NE severe criteria should be 40mph, high-end like 60mph :lol: 

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. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's definitely a quasi-miss-conception about what severe "should" mean.  It seems there's some lofty expectations for actually seeing severe criteria.  

Not this last one, but the one before...that was a huge success despite most of us in the region not seeing shit. Then, getting another watch just 3 days later or whatever that was, was also a bit unusual for us by pure climatology - people are acting jilted. 

The actual likelihood of experiencing severe criteria when inside a watch box is in the range of 10 or 15%. 

That means that in a tornado watch with an enhanced wording, you're probably not going to see a tornado - much less even criteria.  

Plus, there are other kinds of severe weather producing phenomenon, so each case needs to be taken individually.  Like, the tor box and SC type "tends" to be right turning loner cells - those are the stingers!  But that's a low yield, high impact scenario - the low yield side being the rub. That means you don't likely get to be part of the party.  The storm is a tiny vessel of drama among a sea -sized region of watch coverage.  

The other kind is a sweeping cold pool blast back loaded by an MCS outflow which is far in a way more encompassing - if you miss that...then you may have a better gripe justification.  But how often do we get bona fide MCS around here?    We're really more likely to get fragmented bows off multi-cellular clusters, with the occasional SC thrown in that are mangled by the cluster f and have trouble doing much more than gating a radar scan or two...  And every 50 years ... Monson or Worcester.. etc.   But that kind of activity is also leaving far in a way more real estate not actually verifying any severe.  It's simple odds.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think today's a more impressive set up then the last, fwiw - whether it manifest convective wet dreams into reality remains to be seen. We don't hold any accountability for folks not realizing their totally realistic fantasies.

But the day hosts a quasi SPV over Ontario moving E toward Quebec, and along the southern periphery of the trough there is wind acceleration at mid/u/a, with a diffused cool front to offer some convergence.  More over, concomitant with said wind max there is associated a 3 to 5 dm height fall. These aspects will translate over the area during the afternoon/evening, after subtantive solar heating has boiled modest DP recoveries.

This is just the orbital view. I haven't looked at any soundings and observed sfc DPs...just going with (previous guidance suggestion + a-priori)/2.   That's shear appears on hi res vis loops, with early vil debris over western NY ripping E, while lower CU fractals are moving NE... so modest but in tandem with all important height falls ( signalling some improving lapse rates), working over a region ... heh not bad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually ...DPs recovering more than I thought they would.   Boo ya modeling...which showed 69 to 72.  I keep seeing DPs getting swallowed though, reclaimed perhaps by antecedent aridity in the area.

Anyway, there's some lag in SE NH/N MA where is 60s, but it is 70 toward the Pike and SW. 

There seems to be a diffused warm boundary in the mix here this morning...  An hour ago, WPC analyzed one down near NYC but it's probably smearing across the region and losing identity.   I'd say it's probably now closer to the Pike looking at obs ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

There's definitely a quasi-miss-conception about what severe "should" mean.  It seems there's some lofty expectations for actually seeing severe criteria.  

Not this last one, but the one before...that was a huge success despite most of us in the region not seeing shit. Then, getting another watch just 3 days later or whatever that was, was also a bit unusual for us by pure climatology - people are acting jilted. 

The actual likelihood of experiencing severe criteria when inside a watch box is in the range of 10 or 15%. 

IMO, that's a generous estimate, at least for here.  Perhaps divide it by 10, maybe 20, for MBY.  I think we've been in the box 4 times this year and might make it 5 today, and that's about the average.  In 24+ years we're yet to experience severe conditions - closest was June 2005 and the 14th last month.  It's been close, the hailstorm that defoliated (and partially debarked) trees on several thousand acres in late August 2007 was less than 10 miles away.  Every 2-3 years we get inside a warning area, even a tornado warning once - that system washed out some roads in the next town west (we got 0.09" and no thunder) and dropped an EF-1 about 30 miles to our east.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, tamarack said:

IMO, that's a generous estimate, at least for here.  Perhaps divide it by 10, maybe 20, for MBY.  I think we've been in the box 4 times this year and might make it 5 today, and that's about the average.  In 24+ years we're yet to experience severe conditions - closest was June 2005 and the 14th last month.  It's been close, the hailstorm that defoliated (and partially debarked) trees on several thousand acres in late August 2007 was less than 10 miles away.  Every 2-3 years we get inside a warning area, even a tornado warning once - that system washed out some roads in the next town west (we got 0.09" and no thunder) and dropped an EF-1 about 30 miles to our east.

"tornadoes" are a tough ..because the average tornado is a pinprick over a geographic area that is so vastly large by comparison, you can't really see the tornado at the scale of the watch box its self.  It has to be magnified by an order of magnitude or more to even see the debris path.

But, the thunderstorm and/or aspects containing the vortext are much larger, and can be seen and/or thus experienced with more frequency at any given point, simply for occupying a greater aspect within a watch box.   Still, they are much, much smaller than the total watch box geographical area, so they are still on the short likeliness of actually experiencing...

Ranging up to MCS, which can be almost equal the spatial dimensions of a watch area, and pour out 70 mph wind events, behind which there are nodel DBZ cores with hail...etc..  Sometimes even tors... That's when severe watches get a bigger unilateral realization.  But, then again... how often are those kind of MCS happening ..  

Bottom line, yeah ... probabilities are low whether the watch is marginal, or very impressively warranted, either way. It's a matter of how low in either scenario.  

I wonder if regional acclimation is part of it.  Like, they'll issue a watch for 2% coverage potential in Maine, because they don't usually get tors...But they may opt for some specials in Oklahoma ?  I dunno

 

  • Like 1
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...