Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,587
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    LopezElliana
    Newest Member
    LopezElliana
    Joined

Severe weather thread number ...I think X ?


Typhoon Tip

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The lower-level EML is good and bad:

The bad:

1. In general, has more potential to mix into low levels

2. Reduces mid-level lapse rate

The good:

1. Doesn't take as much forcing and/or heating to break cap

2. Can increase the deep-layer CAPE

The morning MCS will leave a boundary somewhere from NE PA / N NJ into CT / NY and it will keep the LCL low if current modeling is correct.

The potential for a significant tornado is higher than normal with convection interacting with these features and with the associated pressure falls.

If we can keep those llvl winds more southwesterly; given how model progs are for speeds of near 30 knots that I would think would really help to keep the moist air flowing into our region. Given how moisture in the llvls is quite impressive I would think this should win out over drier air attempting to mix down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope its a late day thing. Id hate to miss something big. Were going on a field trip with camp but well get back to torrington around 3 probably. Maybe I can sneak away early.

I would think it's an after 3 PM deal but we'll worry about timing and such tomorrow evening.

Did I have your cell number or no? Text me if you can get out early on Thursday. Normally I work until 4:30 but I'm going to try and take someones early care so I can work 7:30-3:30 instead of 8:30-4:30.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18z NAM near Waterbury, CT. That looks pretty impressive. I also think we should have enough of a strong persistent low level moisture flux to maintain the high PBL RH / low LCLs. This profile resembles that of a strong tornado day.

NAM_218_2012072418_F48_41.5000N_73.0000W.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6/6/10 wasn't an epic fail for me!

I was right in the middle of that microburst!!!!!

I kind of disagree though on the 6/6/10 ordeal...lapse rates that day SUCKED and I don't think they will be as bad Thursday as that day and I think that is something that could be a major difference breaker.

Text me if you have a phone again...well take this planning out of the thread to not muck it up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6/6/10 wasn't an epic fail for me!

I was right in the middle of that microburst!!!!!

I kind of disagree though on the 6/6/10 ordeal...lapse rates that day SUCKED and I don't think they will be as bad Thursday as that day and I think that is something that could be a major difference breaker.

Plus, If I recall correctly, cloud cover was a huge issue too. Still got some decent storms, but nothing tornado warned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it does

The timing and strength of the major features were pretty different with that event IIRC...I believe that event had a sub 990mb low near Buffalo around noon on 6/6/10. The surface low is modeled on the NAM to be near Detroit around noon Thursday.

The other thing about that event was the height falls and a powerful s/w...nothing modeled is quite that prolific. It really is a shame that set up didn't work out...I haven't gone back and looked at any re-analysis but I can remember it like yesterday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18z NAM near Waterbury, CT. That looks pretty impressive. I also think we should have enough of a strong persistent low level moisture flux to maintain the high PBL RH / low LCLs. This profile resembles that of a strong tornado day.

NAM_218_2012072418_F48_41.5000N_73.0000W.png

I'd like to see a stronger velocity in the 0-3km level, but the directional aspect combined with the curve of that sounding are a solid 2 out 3. Agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus, If I recall correctly, cloud cover was a huge issue too. Still got some decent storms, but nothing tornado warned.

There was a tornado warning for Hartford County that day.

There were several different issues but one issue I think played a major part is with the poor mid level lapse rates instability really never became impressive, while there were lots of clouds there were sufficient breaks and we warmed up very nicely. With such strong shear though and poor mid-level instability updrafts sort of were ripped apart and this prevented storms from really developing impressive enough cores to really tap into the wind shear/helicity to really produce anything tornadic...plus LCL's were high that day as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The timing and strength of the major features were pretty different with that event IIRC...I believe that event had a sub 990mb low near Buffalo around noon on 6/6/10. The surface low is modeled on the NAM to be near Detroit around noon Thursday.

The other thing about that event was the height falls and a powerful s/w...nothing modeled is quite that prolific. It really is a shame that set up didn't work out...I haven't gone back and looked at any re-analysis but I can remember it like yesterday.

IIRC, wasn't there actually quite a large disconnect between the much better upper-level forcing/support and stronger instability and such on 6/6/10?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...