Chicago WX Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 The criteria is (or at least was) different for Cook county. I don't think NWS can issue advisories there...it's either a warning or nothing. That's how it has been anyway. Taken from LOT's website: http://www.crh.noaa.gov/lot/severe/wxterms.php Excessive Heat Warning - Extreme values of the heat index.Chicago metro area: 3 consecutive days with maximum heat index 100 to 105oF with at least 85% sunshine on two of the days, or minimum heat index 75oF or greater each day, or Two consecutive days with the maximum heat index 105 to 110oF, or 1 day with the maximum heat index 110oF or greater Remainder of northern Illinois and northwest Indiana: Maximum heat index of 110oF or greater and minimum of 75oF for two or more consecutive days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wisconsinwx Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 From the LOT criteria page... Excessive Heat Warning - Extreme values of the heat index. Chicago metro area: 3 consecutive days with maximum heat index 100 to 105oF with at least 85% sunshine on two of the days, or minimum heat index 75oF or greater each day, or Two consecutive days with the maximum heat index 105 to 110oF, or 1 day with the maximum heat index 110oF or greater. Remainder of northern Illinois and northwest Indiana: Maximum heat index of 110oF or greater and minimum of 75oF for two or more consecutive days. Heat Advisory - Maximum heat index of 105 to 110oF with a minimum of 75oF for two or more consecutive days. (Heat Advisories not issued for the Chicago metro area.) I personally think that, regardless of any minimum criteria, they should issue an Excessive Heat Warning where Heat Advisories cannot be issued, since MKX has issued a Heat Advisory when criteria probably won't even be met (expected heat indexes of 100 where the criteria is typically 105). Not to mention the number of heat related problems Chicago endured early last week when temps were only around 90. This will be a bit worse than that. For the safety of the public and the fact that it is early June when heat like this isn't quite expected yet, it seems right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago Storm Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 VTC off of the 0z NAM would have ORD around 100F tomorrow afternoon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebo Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 It won't hit the 3 day criteria, but being that it is only early June this would be a time where I would think an Excessive Heat Warning would be justified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerball Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 What will probably end up hapening is LOT issues a heat advisory for the rest of NE Illinois and the media (where the general public gets their weather reports) will take care of the rest with all the hype. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago WX Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 What will probably end up hapening is LOT issues a heat advisory for the rest of NE Illinois and the media (where the general public gets their weather reports) will take care of the rest with all the hype. Hype? I'm assuming that's just a poor choice of words. High heat indexes and Chicago have not mixed well in the past you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebo Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Hype? I'm assuming that's just a poor choice of words. High heat indexes and Chicago have not mixed well in the past you know. 1995 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerball Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Hype? I'm assuming that's just a poor choice of words. I know what I said. Context is the key. Point is the media will make it very well know that dangerous heat is headed for NE Illinois. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago WX Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 I know what I said. Context is the key. Point is the media will make it very well know that dangerous heat is headed for NE Illinois. No I don't think you do. hype 1 (hp) Slangn. 1. Excessive publicity and the ensuing commotion: the hype surrounding the murder trial. 2. Exaggerated or extravagant claims made especially in advertising or promotional material: "It is pure hype, a gigantic PR job" (Saturday Review). 3. An advertising or promotional ploy: "Some restaurant owners in town are cooking up a $75,000 hype to promote New York as 'Restaurant City, U.S.A.'" (New York). 4. Something deliberately misleading; a deception: "[He] says that there isn't any energy crisis at all, that it's all a hype, to maintain outrageous profits for the oil companies" (Joel Oppenheimer). tr.v. hyped, hyp·ing, hypes To publicize or promote, especially by extravagant, inflated, or misleading claims: hyped the new book by sending its author on a promotional tour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago WX Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 1995 Yes, awful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoosier Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 It's only hype if someone mentions it being like 1995. It's something where basic precautions should be taken. Frankly, if I were a TV met, I might not even show a graphic that has every county surrounding Cook under an advisory. Or if I did, I would really emphasize that apparent conditions will be as bad or worse in the city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerball Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 No I don't think you do. Ummm, no. In the quote you posted, it says... To publicize or promote, especially by extravagant, inflated means For anyone that lives in America they know the media sensationalizes everything. Again, context is the key. The point is our fair media will definitely make it well known, or hype up the fact, that dangerous heat is coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoosier Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 VTC off of the 0z NAM would have ORD around 100F tomorrow afternoon. Nice deep layer of dry adiabatic lapse rates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago WX Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 It's only hype if someone mentions it being like 1995. It's something where basic precautions should be taken. Frankly, if I were a TV met, I might not even show a graphic that has every county surrounding Cook under an advisory. Or if I did, I would really emphasize that apparent conditions will be as bad or worse in the city. Well then that's the flaw in the advisory/warning criteria, right? I mean unless there's a lesser temp or heat index value for Chicago/Cook County, versus the rest of NE IL, it's all the same essentially. Granted there's a good reason I'm sure for the way they do the warnings/advisories, with 1995 being a big part of it, but in simple terms it seems kind of weird IMO. For anyone that lives in America they know the media sensationalizes everything. Again, context is the key. The point is our fair media will definitely make it well known, or hype up the fact, that dangerous heat is coming. Fair enough. The word hype can be played a couple of ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoosier Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Well then that's the flaw in the advisory/warning criteria, right? I mean unless there's a lesser temp or heat index value for Chicago/Cook County, versus the rest of NE IL, it's all the same essentially. Granted there's a good reason I'm sure for the way they do the warnings/advisories, with 1995 being a big part of it, but in simple terms it seems kind of weird IMO. Yeah, I know 1995 plays a role in it but I'm not sure how they arrived at that criteria. It's definitely weird in simple terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hm8 Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Out of curiosity, why is the criteria for heat warnings different for the metro area? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyclone77 Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Still 83 here at 10:30. Hard to believe not all that long ago 80 sounded very warm for a daytime high, and now it'll probably be that at midnight. I'm going with 98 tomorrow, and 96 Wednesday for here. Wednesday could end up being hotter, but have a feeling high clouds streaming in from the west in the afternoon may limit temps a smidge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerball Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Out of curiosity, why is the criteria for heat warnings different for the metro area? A very minor part of it probably has to do with the urban heat island effect. Then it's the fact that a much larger population is being impacted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundersnow12 Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 A few over/under bets ORD- 99 MDW-100 RFD-97 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago WX Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 A few over/under bets ORD- 99 MDW-100 RFD-97 For tomorrow? Under, Under, Over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyclone77 Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 A few over/under bets ORD- 99 MDW-100 RFD-97 I'd say under for all three, but it's gonna be close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoosier Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 I wonder what it took to get to 102 in Chicago on June 1, 1934. You look 2 weeks later in the month and the record high for the 15th is only 95. I'm not sure where the ob site was back then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoosier Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 I think Chicago's record for the 8th is in danger given what will be a very warm start and similar 850 mb temps/mixing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoosier Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 A few over/under bets ORD- 99 MDW-100 RFD-97 no equals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundersnow12 Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 For tomorrow? Under, Under, Over Ya tomorrow, forgot to say what day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago WX Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Out of curiosity, why is the criteria for heat warnings different for the metro area? I'm sure there's a technical explanation, but here's a blurb from the IL State Climatologists site: http://www.isws.illinois.edu/atmos/statecli/General/heat.htm The National Weather Service worked with the City of Chicago, looking at past mortality statistics and weather statistics to determine the meteorological thresholds that result in significant numbers of heat deaths. Prolonged heat waves, warm nighttime temperatures, and abundant sunshine appear to be significant factors. Because of the heat island effect and socio-economic problems, the Chicago NWS Forecast Office has established different guidelines for heat warning for the Chicago Metropolitan Area than for other areas of Illinois (heat advisories are not used in Chicago). A warning is issued for any of the following three conditions:Three consecutive days with maximum heat index of 100 to 105 and either 85 percent of possible sunshine on two of the three days or minimum heat index of 75 or greater. Two consecutive days of maximum heat index of 105 to 110 One day of heat index greater than 110 For the rest of Illinois, a warning is issued for maximum heat index of 115 or greater and minimum heat index of 80 or greater. A heat advisory is issued for heat index of 105 or greater with a minimum heat index of 80 or greater. Warnings and advisories are issued when the heat is imminent or likely to occur in the first 12 to 24 hours of the forecast. If the heat warning criteria are expected to be reached in 12 to 48 hours, a heat watch will be issued. A heat outlook may be issued for a heat wave that is several days away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundersnow12 Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 no equals? nope its a bit of a 2 day cold snap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago WX Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 I wonder what it took to get to 102 in Chicago on June 1, 1934. You look 2 weeks later in the month and the record high for the 15th is only 95. I'm not sure where the ob site was back then. University of Chicago. Kind of the same thing at the WL COOP too though. The hottest June temp on record happened on the 1st of the month. Then there's four 100º or > record highs through the 10th and then only one 100º record high temp in the next fifteen days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundersnow12 Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 good lord, it was still 86 degrees at ORD as of 3z. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago WX Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 good lord, it was still 86 degrees at ORD as of 3z. ORD and MDW FTL. And Wheeling too. OHARE CLEAR 86 68 54 SW12 29.82R HX 89 MIDWAY CLEAR 86 66 51 SW7 29.83R HX 88 AURORA CLEAR 83 70 64 SW8 29.84R HX 87 LANSING* CLEAR 81 68 65 SW7 29.85R HX 83 JOLIET* CLEAR 82 68 61 S5 29.84R HX 85 WAUKEGAN CLEAR 84 69 60 SW12 29.80R HX 88 WEST CHICAGO CLEAR 84 68 58 S9 29.83R HX 87 KANKAKEE* CLEAR 84 66 54 SW10 29.81S HX 86 WHEELING CLEAR 87 68 52 SW8 29.83R HX 90 MORRIS* CLEAR 81 64 57 SW7 29.84R HX 82 LEWIS AIRPORT* CLEAR 82 70 65 SW8 29.84R HX 86 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.