PSUBlizzicane2007 Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 It was the NAM...not using it for mesoscale placement. Was looking at it at a synoptic scale. The ucar vv's product one of Paul Markowski's favorite tools he used to teach us/me when analyzing maps for favored areas for tornado genesis. Google him...then you might not critique the method so much. Actually you shouldn't have to even google him, if you have studied anything about convective processes/tornado genesis it should be a household name like Doswell. Didn't you say you took that class from him about 15 years ago? Methods change over the course of 15 years, you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebo Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 It was the NAM...not using it for mesoscale placement. Was looking at it at a synoptic scale. The ucar vv's product one of Paul Markowski's favorite tools he used to teach us/me when analyzing maps for favored areas for tornado genesis. Google him...then you might not critique the method so much. Actually you shouldn't have to even google him, if you have studied anything about convective processes/tornado genesis it should be a household name like Doswell. No offense but name dropping doesn't help prove your point. Furthermore I am not seeing what you are seeing in the 00z NAM. Though I guess we can agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hm8 Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 RUC/HRRR are deeper and farther northwest with the surface low than the 12z op runs. The usual noaa.gov sites aren't working for me...are you using somewhere else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QVectorman Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Didn't you say you took that class from him about 15 years ago? Methods change over the course of 15 years, you know. It's tried and true...use it every svr wx season and it hasn't failed yet. Out preform everyone else forecasts with it when they are forecasting guns a blazing and I look at that and say "it doesn't look favorable". And it may have been cutting edge 15 years ago. He shared all of his theories and papers with us a year or two before they were ever published. So something he was thinking about 15 years ago could just now start becoming knowledge among the general met community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QVectorman Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 No offense but name dropping doesn't help prove your point. Furthermore I am not seeing what you are seeing in the 00z NAM. Though I guess we can agree to disagree. I'm just saying it's not just a personal preference and not something I came up with on my own. It come from one of the best minds in the field. So for you to criticize it you are in turn criticizing him. Just because you were not taught something at Central Michigan doesn't mean the process doesn't work. And if you really want more info about I had JM Fritsch and he endorsed the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebo Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 I'm just saying it's not just a personal preference and not something I came up with on my own. It come from one of the best minds in the field. So for you to criticize it you are in turn criticizing him. Just because you were not taught something at Central Michigan doesn't mean the process doesn't work. Post some maps referencing your point please then because I am clearly not seeing what you are, and I am not the only one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QVectorman Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Post some maps referencing your point please then because I am clearly not seeing what you are, and I am not the only one. It was the 0z run off of ucar. It's gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoosier Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 18z NAM really deepens this thing. 11 mb deeper with the surface low at 0z Saturday compared to the 12z run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoosier Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 The usual noaa.gov sites aren't working for me...are you using somewhere else? Strange, they are working for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebo Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 It was the 0z run off of ucar. It's gone. http://weather.cod.edu/forecast/ has VV maps of the NAM for the last 4 runs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QVectorman Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Here is the 12z run for 36hr. It really has no bearing because the shear and CAPE aren't great over Southern OH anyways to begin with in this run. But you have subsidence over a fairly large area IN and OH at 500 mb and neutral to a little subsidence at 700 mb resulting in a net subsidence over the region. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoosier Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 It's tried and true...use it every svr wx season and it hasn't failed yet. Out preform everyone else forecasts with it when they are forecasting guns a blazing and I look at that and say "it doesn't look favorable". And it may have been cutting edge 15 years ago. He shared all of his theories and papers with us a year or two before they were ever published. So something he was thinking about 15 years ago could just now start becoming knowledge among the general met community. Enough of this. If you're so confident in your method, then make a call for tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebo Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Here is the 12z run for 36hr. It really has no bearing because the shear and CAPE aren't great over Southern OH anyways to begin with in this run. You are using national maps with broad brush placement and a terrible scale. Of course it will look weaker that way... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QVectorman Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 You are using national maps with broad brush placement and a terrible scale. Of course it will look weaker that way... Why are you arguing? It's the exact same maps Markowski and Fritsch use..same site. I told you I'm looking at a synoptic scale. I'm not trying to forecast a cell in a county. If you don't have it at a large scale you don't have it on the small. You were just criticizing me a few posts ago saying I was looking at a mesoscale. Make up you're mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QVectorman Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Enough of this. If you're so confident in your method, then make a call for tomorrow. DUDE, I have said it multiple times here. Go back and read. Hope you're right for radar viewing pleasure. Too many times I've fallen victim when I was younger to this thinking that all the CAPE in the world would over come progged subsidence and generate monsters. 9/10 doesn't happen...especially east of the Mississippi. Discrete cells will probably develop, go severe with mainly wind...switch over to QLCS with strong winds/bow echos and wawa...no tornadoes. Looking at the 3z, still strong subsidence, I would say there could be 1 or 2 tornadoes. Definitely don't see an outbreak like I would expect if we replaced the subsidence with some lift. But again this is all semantics since it's still 40+ hours away. Things will change between now and then And based on the new runs I will say there will probably be a couple tornadoes/spin up over each region. It's a tough set up... ingredients are there. Everything is just borderline on coming together. I would venture a rouge guess...GUESS...like 1 or 2 over west/southern OH for 0z...extremely southern IL for 18z. I like n. AL/MS for 0z but there just isn't enough shear there IMO and limited energy since the atm is raked over from prior convection. Eastern KY also looks feasible if things come together for 0z, but right now it just appears strong squall line. This will probably change a little bit and I will have a better grasp once the 0z's come in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Lizard Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Going back to the St. Louis University GFS derived CIPS analogs, doesn't that seem to indeed favor more tornadoes farther South? (Just an amateur, not well versed in vertical velocities, please don't yell). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QVectorman Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Why are you pushing this so hard? You seem to be attacking everyone who sees potential in this becoming a significant event. I am not attacking anyone. I offered my opinion. EVERYONE in here flips out when someone says something they DON'T want to hear. Just when someone comes in with a torch winter everyone attacks and says, how dare you say that. BLASPHEMY. And again when I said the snow storm over lower Mich. would be an under performer. BLASPHEMY and everyone attacks me. Now I am saying, my OPINION, I don't think this has TORNADO outbreak written all over it. I offered my opinion why to back up my forecast and everyone attacks my reasoning. I said I think it will be a SVR wx event...as SPC has mention with lots of wind reports as again...in line with them I said I think this has the potential to produce some tornadoes but I don't think it's an outbreak as some appear to be insinuating with their wording and graphics they post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QVectorman Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Going back to the St. Louis University GFS derived CIPS analogs, doesn't that seem to indeed favor more tornadoes farther South? (Just an amateur, not well versed in vertical velocities, please don't yell). Here. Why take stabs at me? If you want...read the papers on vv's gradients and tornado genesis. You need vv gradients for tornado genesis. Hence, better vv gradients better probability for TG. And the larger the amplitude of the +vv's the large scale the better the vv's gradients will be within the storm. Secondly, I like CIPS, but the analogs for the storm last week across the Midwest...which the models did hint at some svr wx possible across the south, CIPS top 3 analogs had tornado outbreaks of 20-30 tornadoes for each event. Which obviously we didn't have an outbreak last week...unless I missed something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSUBlizzicane2007 Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 I am not attacking anyone. I offered my opinion. EVERYONE in here flips out when someone says something they DON'T want to hear. Just when someone comes in with a torch winter everyone attacks and says, how dare you say that. BLASPHEMY. And again when I said the snow storm over lower Mich. would be an under performer. BLASPHEMY and everyone attacks me. Now I am saying, my OPINION, I don't think this has TORNADO outbreak written all over it. I offered my opinion why to back up my forecast and everyone attacks my reasoning. I said I think it will be a SVR wx event...as SPC has mention with lots of wind reports as again...in line with them I said I think this has the potential to produce some tornadoes but I don't think it's an outbreak as some appear to be insinuating with their wording and graphics they post. A few things: 1. Interesting that you chose not to show the 850 mb vv image which shows high positive numbers. 2. vv is usually pretty negative near/outside of thunderstorms... could it be that which is showing up on such a poor resolution/national image? 3. Calm down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebo Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 A few things: 1. Interesting that you chose not to show the 850 mb vv image which shows high positive numbers. 2. vv is usually pretty negative near/outside of thunderstorms... could it be that which is showing up on such a poor resolution/national image? 3. Calm down. Yes after a WF passes through and preceding the CF you tend to have neutral to slightly -VV this allows for insulation preceding the CF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSUBlizzicane2007 Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Yes after a WF passes through and preceding the CF you tend to have neutral to slightly -VV this allows for insulation preceding the CF. Hell, if I didn't have -vv at that time, I'd be one sad panda. Nothing like seeing some bright sunshine to bump up those CAPE values Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QVectorman Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 A few things: 1. Interesting that you chose not to show the 850 mb vv image which shows high positive numbers. 2. vv is usually pretty negative near/outside of thunderstorms... could it be that which is showing up on such a poor resolution/national image? 3. Calm down. 1. How am I not showing the 850 mb? I pulled the exact same maps that Marko/Fritsch use. If you have -vv's at 700 and 500 it's going to nullify 850 vv's. 850 vv's aren't going magically count act sinking air coming from above it. 2. Why are we talking on such a small scale...outside the storms. Of course. We are talking on the synoptic scale; looking on that scale the model shouldn't have problems with it. Large features outweigh small MOST of the time...its meteorology, anything can happen. If you want a paper explanation why Marko uses this process and why it works...just email him or read his book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebo Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Hell, if I didn't have -vv at that time, I'd be one sad panda. Nothing like seeing some bright sunshine to bump up those CAPE values Yeah if the warm sector is full of +VV say hello to junk convection Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QVectorman Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Yes after a WF passes through and preceding the CF you tend to have neutral to slightly -VV this allows for insulation preceding the CF. Hell, if I didn't have -vv at that time, I'd be one sad panda. Nothing like seeing some bright sunshine to bump up those CAPE values Now you're taking the use out of context and confusing it with CIN....and when I see the models matching -vv's over low QPF or weak simulated radar returns it offers me insight that the atm might not be that great when convection at that SPECIFIC time develops or traverses that region. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QVectorman Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Yeah if the warm sector is full of +VV say hello to junk convection Again you're confusing the process. You are assuming +VV at 850/700/500 is acting as a trigger for convection. It's doesn't not trigger convection. It will enhance it or hider it, but not trigger it. You need a lifting mechanism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Lizard Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Here. Why take stabs at me? If you want...read the papers on vv's gradients and tornado genesis. You need vv gradients for tornado genesis. Hence, better vv gradients better probability for TG. And the larger the amplitude of the +vv's the large scale the better the vv's gradients will be within the storm. Secondly, I like CIPS, but the analogs for the storm last week across the Midwest...which the models did hint at some svr wx possible across the south, CIPS top 3 analogs had tornado outbreaks of 20-30 tornadoes for each event. Which obviously we didn't have an outbreak last week...unless I missed something? Not meant as a stab, I don't have the knowledge base to call out red taggers on meteorology... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSUBlizzicane2007 Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 1. How am I not showing the 850 mb? I pulled the exact same maps that Marko/Fritsch use. If you have -vv's at 700 and 500 it's going to nullify 850 vv's. 850 vv's aren't going magically count act sinking air coming from above it. 2. Why are we talking on such a small scale...outside the storms. Of course. We are talking on the synoptic scale; looking on that scale the model shouldn't have problems with it. Large features outweigh small MOST of the time...its meteorology, anything can happen. If you want a paper explanation why Marko uses this process and why it works...just email him or read his book. 1. I guess you didn't look at your image? Your image contains 700 mb and 500 mb vv... not 850 mb. The 850 mb image is mixing ratios... and please tell me you did not just say that about -vv at 700/500 and +vv 850 which is completely ignoring the fact that... ...2. When you are dealing with such small mesoscale features in a model display resolution that can't handle that small distance separating the +vv from the -vv such as that inside/outside of discrete supercells, it's generally not going to display correctly and many times you end up showing one or the other. I have Markowski/Richardson's recently written Mesoscale Meteorology book at home. I'll look through it to find what you are talking about, because I don't remember him being as devoted to such a single aspect as you seem to be when I took a class from him 5 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebo Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Again you're confusing the process. You are assuming +VV at 850/700/500 is acting as a trigger for convection. It's doesn't not trigger convection. It will enhance it or hider it, but not trigger it. You need a lifting mechanism. you mean like the cold front/dry line that will be blasting through the area Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QVectorman Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 If someone offers a different insight to a process why can't you take it and learn from it instead of trying to rip it a part? And justify to yourselves it's wrong just because it isn't something that you learned? Why don't you take it, keep it in the back of your mind and watch it play out or analysis it after the event. NONE of you care about post analysis...it even showed when WXSTN74 posted he post analysis of why the storm under performed last week in Michigan and no one even commented on it or read it for that matter. You were all on to the next storm a week away. You can learn alot from going back over models and seeing what they did and didn't do wrong and what they were proging at different levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QVectorman Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 1. I guess you didn't look at your image? Your image contains 700 mb and 500 mb vv... not 850 mb. The 850 mb image is mixing ratios... and please tell me you did not just say that about -vv at 700/500 and +vv 850 which is completely ignoring the fact that... ...2. When you are dealing with such small mesoscale features in a model display resolution that can't handle that small distance separating the +vv from the -vv such as that inside/outside of discrete supercells, it's generally not going to display correctly and many times you end up showing one or the other. I have Markowski/Richardson's recently written Mesoscale Meteorology book at home. I'll look through it to find what you are talking about, because I don't remember him being as devoted to such a single aspect as you seem to be when I took a class from him 5 years ago. Yes I am aware that the 850 vv's aren't on that image. Secondly, you are arguing 850 vv's can/will dominate -vv's from 700 AND 500 mb combined?? He showed that link every day at the beginning of class. If there isn't much dedicated on it. Email him. I'm sure he would be glad to explain. I had him for 3 semesters. I think I would remember if he showed and talked about the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.