Significant Severe Weather Event Possible for NNE on July 14 into July 15, 2026

[weatherwiz]

If I remember correctly too, some of the research on wildfires and influences on severe weather events is also based on the source of the wildfires (i.e. what is burning). Different burn sources are going to release different particulates into the air. And I think there is a big difference between what is burnt/released from Canadian fires versus what is burned and released within the western U.S. 

[40/70 Benchmark]

51 minutes ago, Cyclone-68 said:

They made it all the way to southern NH and then disappeared 

I woke up to wet ground, so creeped into N fringe of MA.

[Hoth]

26 minutes ago, weatherwiz said:

If I remember correctly too, some of the research on wildfires and influences on severe weather events is also based on the source of the wildfires (i.e. what is burning). Different burn sources are going to release different particulates into the air. And I think there is a big difference between what is burnt/released from Canadian fires versus what is burned and released within the western U.S. 

wasn’t there a high risk in the Plains some years back that busted badly and was attributed to wildfire smoke? 

[weatherwiz]

2 minutes ago, Hoth said:

wasn’t there a high risk in the Plains some years back that busted badly and was attributed to wildfire smoke? 

I do recall something

[Torch Tiger]

massive bust.  so it goes

[tamarack]

12 hours ago, CT Valley Snowman said:

Family cabin on Fying Pond

My ice fishing spot, near the forested island about 1/4 mile from the Rt 41 boat launch.

Three whiffs and we struck out yesterday.  (Or got smoked out)   Had a sprinkle at 10 AM but the opportunities at 6 and 10 PM offered nothing except some grumbles to scare our dog.  All 3 passed to our west.

[CT Valley Snowman]

52 minutes ago, tamarack said:

My ice fishing spot, near the forested island about 1/4 mile from the Rt 41 boat launch.

Three whiffs and we struck out yesterday.  (Or got smoked out)   Had a sprinkle at 10 AM but the opportunities at 6 and 10 PM offered nothing except some grumbles to scare our dog.  All 3 passed to our west.

Took 134 to the New Sharon Dunkin Donuts a few times this week.  Hard to beat the views as far as a quick car ride is concerned.  Taking the kids to hike Bald Mountain Preserve in Camden tomorrow morning.  Usually it's Bald Mountain or Mt Blue in Weld, but I'm out of hiking shape and we are looking to try something a bit different outside of the  Kennebec Highlands trails near us.  

  

[Winter Wizard]

I think it's pretty clear that the wildfire smoke was the main culprit for thunderstorm activity not occurring over Maine as it suppressed instability to an extent and created and maintained a mid-level cap. Doesn't seem like modeling picked up on that at all. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the lack of storms in Maine also meant that the environment S and W was untapped and contributed to overperformance farther south in NY, VT, and NH. The forcing was clearly there and this was close to being a much more destructive event. I think we got pretty lucky all things considered but numerous severe reports in this region doesn't constitute a total "bust" IMO.
 

[tamarack]

45 minutes ago, CT Valley Snowman said:

Took 134 to the New Sharon Dunkin Donuts a few times this week.  Hard to beat the views as far as a quick car ride is concerned.  Taking the kids to hike Bald Mountain Preserve in Camden tomorrow morning.  Usually it's Bald Mountain or Mt Blue in Weld, but I'm out of hiking shape and we are looking to try something a bit different outside of the  Kennebec Highlands trails near us.  

  

Another Bald Mountain to consider is in Oquossoc, part of Rangeley.  It's about 1.3 miles with 900+feet elevation gain to the obs platform, which offers wonderful 360° views - Mooselook Lake to the West and Rangeley Lake to the east, plus lots of mountains.  Last time I climbed it was November 2021, with my son-in-law plus 6 of their 7 kids (the 2-y.o stayed home but the 5 y.o. had a blast) along with 2 neighbor kids.  It's a mile of uphill stroll thru forest then 0.3 miles of steeper, rockier but not vertigo steep, to the summit.

Not much smoke today, but surprisingly breezy along with the forecast lower TD.

[vortex95]

18 hours ago, CoastalWx said:

Congrats on a tstm 

Playing catch-up and just checking things now after a busy first part of the day.  Working from the posts last evening first.

Scott's just mad there was svr winds and tree downed on Rt 16 and in West Ossipee and he wasn't up at the lake!  

[vortex95]

7 hours ago, weatherwiz said:

13 hail reports >= 1.25" last night. That's pretty damn impressive for the region

Yes, so I do not want to hear this is a complete bust! 

The daylight hours were and the smoke is the likely cause of the bust here, but again, there is far too much focus on what did *not* go right rather than what did! 

I can count on one hand how many times in the last 30 years that anywhere in New England has had golf ball sized hail between midnight and noon.

Bona fide supercells between midnight-noon in New England are rare.

And even thought the models overdid the overnight convection, it all quickly dissipated once near the MA border by 10z, which is exactly what the HRRR showed Tue eve.

So is the above just to be discounted?  Sometimes events do not work out at fcst, and I can't tell you how many times in the Midwest/Plains/Southeast on paper everything looks awesome for svr wx parameters and a HIGH risk is issued, and under-performs.  Things do not change meteorologically just b/c this is the NEUS.  Sure, volatile atmospheres like this are uncommon here, esp. a strong EML, but that is irrelevant as to if it works out all as fcst or not.

This is an excellent opportunity to learn from our mistakes, model shortcomings, and conditional factors that can crop up at the last minute (e.g. thick smoke).  I for one will be investigating/researching the role of wildfire smoke on convection now.  It was already mentioned earlier about how it impacts +CG frequency. 

And just b/c the smoke was a determinant to convection this time, does not necessarily mean it always is.  You need to ask, does it matter if it is thin or thick smoke?  Does the height and vertical depth of the smoke layer matter?  Not all smoke particulates are the same, so that does matter as to things like CCN (CoastalWx should appreciate this b/c he is big on sea salt CCN for OES! ).

Turn an experience that was not good or did not work out into something positive.  Experience is what you get when you don't get what you want/expect, and thus you are that much better off going forward!

[vortex95]

8 hours ago, Cyclone-68 said:

They made it all the way to southern NH and then disappeared 

Exactly what the HRRR fcst Tue eve.

[vortex95]

7 hours ago, weatherwiz said:

If I remember correctly too, some of the research on wildfires and influences on severe weather events is also based on the source of the wildfires (i.e. what is burning). Different burn sources are going to release different particulates into the air. And I think there is a big difference between what is burnt/released from Canadian fires versus what is burned and released within the western U.S. 

See, you are already thinking ahead and abstract.  How can I use this experience to be a better uber weenie svr wx forecaster going forward? 

[vortex95]

8pm-8am CG plot.

 

[tunafish]

11 hours ago, JJBASHB said:

Heard from my in-laws in Deering there's a ton of down trees on lines up on their hill from that line at 4AM.  Awaiting pics.

[vortex95]

31 minutes ago, tunafish said:

Heard from my in-laws in Deering there's a ton of down trees on lines up on their hill from that line at 4AM.  Awaiting pics.

Quite the tree damage I am told Springfield VT to Claremont NH.  I-91 was closed for a time.  Saw this report:

"You can see the path just south of mile 48. I-91 is a debris field for a quarter mile. Twisted trees snapped off that were more than a foot in diameter."

[tunafish]

13 hours ago, vortex95 said:

Quite the tree damage I am told Springfield VT to Claremont NH.  I-91 was closed for a time.  Saw this report:

"You can see the path just south of mile 48. I-91 is a debris field for a quarter mile. Twisted trees snapped off that were more than a foot in diameter."

I wondered about a potential spin-up, especially after looking at CC.  Admittedly I am not a pro, though

Families location is the dot above Deering.

 

[tunafish]

19 hours ago, Winter Wizard said:

I think it's pretty clear that the wildfire smoke was the main culprit for thunderstorm activity not occurring over Maine as it suppressed instability to an extent and created and maintained a mid-level cap. Doesn't seem like modeling picked up on that at all. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the lack of storms in Maine also meant that the environment S and W was untapped and contributed to overperformance farther south in NY, VT, and NH. The forcing was clearly there and this was close to being a much more destructive event. I think we got pretty lucky all things considered but numerous severe reports in this region doesn't constitute a total "bust" IMO.
 

The local mets here were saying that when the front passed by the Ontario fires it caused them to flare up a ton - and modeling hadn't considered that.

About 4 minutes in https://youtu.be/K5Y3sW9b4Gs?is=6dEwOaDH-42u7ttl

[Winter Wizard]

3 hours ago, tunafish said:

The local mets here were saying that when the front passed by the Ontario fires it caused them to flare up a ton - and modeling hadn't considered that.

About 4 minutes in https://youtu.be/K5Y3sW9b4Gs?is=6dEwOaDH-42u7ttl

Something similar actually happened yesterday over Pennsylvania too, the fires sharpen the thermal gradient and can increase both the coverage and area and intensity of storms over a local swath. Yeah, models did not pick up on this at all, and it didn't become apparent until maybe midday Tuesday. I suppose if that was the case, it would've led to subsidence elsewhere, maybe farther north. 

[weatherwiz]

4 hours ago, Winter Wizard said:

Something similar actually happened yesterday over Pennsylvania too, the fires sharpen the thermal gradient and can increase both the coverage and area and intensity of storms over a local swath. Yeah, models did not pick up on this at all, and it didn't become apparent until maybe midday Tuesday. I suppose if that was the case, it would've led to subsidence elsewhere, maybe farther north. 

Pretty crazy how this happens. 

There is research too about damage paths in the South contributing to local enhancement of thunderstorm activity because of the temperature gradient which becomes established between the vegetation and the damage path. I think even some research with burn scars in the West with rain/storms

[vortex95]

12 hours ago, tunafish said:

The local mets here were saying that when the front passed by the Ontario fires it caused them to flare up a ton - and modeling hadn't considered that.

About 4 minutes in https://youtu.be/K5Y3sW9b4Gs?is=6dEwOaDH-42u7ttl

Yes, I figured that is what happened, and you confirmed it.  I work w/ fire and smoke detection and mapping where I work.  Here is our main product.
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/products/land/hms.html#maps

Gets reset every day around 6am, and fire points and smoke areas are added in real time both automatically and manually during the day through late evening.

Wind by *far* is the biggest factor in wildfire spread and intensity.  And w/ the passage of a cold front you are going to get drier air advected in as well, so smoldering or low-level fires suddenly can get a massive boost. 

This also happened in central Quebec last summer or the summer before.  Smoldering fires ignited by lightning and held at bay by rain occurred, and then the cold front passed, and all at once, you saw multiple fires erupt in sync across the region w/ big smoke plumes.  This is was due to strong winds behind the cold front. 

Some think, "but it just raining a lot, how could things burn so much?"  Well, that's a disconnect that exists.  Things are a lot more complex than led on.  There is a reason why fire wx has it own branch in meteorology, and the nuances and idiosyncrasies are rife and not what you'd expect!  It is pretty amazing stuff.
The sheer amount of training modules on MetEd/COMET is impressive, so that shows how big and complex this field is.

And despite what MSM constantly pushes, drought or hot temps have little or nothing to do w/ wildfires.  High winds are low RH are *everything*.  You can have the wettest month on record, and then get fire wx warnings not days later.  Recall March 2010 how wet it was in SNE, esp. RI?  Well, a few days after a big flood event events, fire wx warnings were put up for the region  This b/c windy conditions and low RH will dry out grass and shrubs in short order (called 1-hour fuels).  Also, being spring, it's all still dead vegetation that burns easily.

Open grasslands in the Plains are the same.  Massive wildfires occur when no drought is present, again b/c it is largely 1-hour fuels.

And in places like CA?  Well, you have the wet season, and then the dry season by default, so most everything that sprouts/grows during the wet season, dies and decays in the dry season for a prime fuel load, and the wetter the wet season, often the worse that wildfire season later in the dry season.  Couple that w/ Santa Ana winds, and drought conditions are irrelevant.  You are going to get dried out and desiccated vegetation for lots of wildfire fuel no matter what every year.
 

 

[vortex95]

10 hours ago, Winter Wizard said:

Something similar actually happened yesterday over Pennsylvania too, the fires sharpen the thermal gradient and can increase both the coverage and area and intensity of storms over a local swath. Yeah, models did not pick up on this at all, and it didn't become apparent until maybe midday Tuesday. I suppose if that was the case, it would've led to subsidence elsewhere, maybe farther north. 

Reminds me of anvil shading.  Thick, large, sharp anvils from intense storms can induced a thermal gradient on their edges well downwind.  Another mesoscale wildcard the models will not handle well or at all!

[tamarack]

My forestry education at U. Maine included only one semester on wildfire behavior/control.  However, 2 historical fires in Maine illustrated some interesting facets.  The largest of the 1947 fires, one which covered about half of the 200k acres torched that October and wiped out the centers of 2 small towns, was already large when a dry cold front quickly changed the wind from SW to NW.  That almost instantly making the long flank into the head and endangering those on that flank side.  At the time, October had had no measurable rain and the last week of September only 0.08".  Given the diurnal ranges at CF time, the air must've been extremely dry.  PWM temps:
10/23   83   35  CF early afternoon?  That night?
10/24   59   26
10/25   65   20

The 2nd fire was in July 1977 at the SW corner of Baxter Park with some Great Northern land also involved.  In November 1974 a heavy wet snow followed by strong NW wind flattened 3,000+ acres.  Due to Governor Baxter's deed of trust, very little salvage was done beyond roadside cleanup.  June 1977 had been wet, but July had had very little rain when lightning ignited the ultra-seasoned tangle of trees in mid-month, the fire covering nearly all of the blowdown area plus some outside of it, about 3,500 acres in total.  The forest had been heavily stocked with mixed hardwoods and softwoods, not especially old but probably about 30 cords/acre and very few trees remained standing after the 1974 event.  Stems were often piled 12-15 feet high.  The forester who was managing the salvage told me that the flames were able to move downhill at night, thanks to the incredible volume of well-seasoned fuel.