Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,609
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    NH8550
    Newest Member
    NH8550
    Joined

June 7-8 Severe Weather Threat


snowlover2

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 277
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Afternoon outlook 20 minutes late and counting.

Must be making some sort of changes... even with modest instability there should be good enough dynamics to sustain a severe threat through the evening/early night. IWX liked the potential for a HSLC event

 

EDIT: 30 minutes and counting...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Enhanced risk shifted north on the afternoon day 2 outlook, now covering a pretty good chunk of Chicagoland.

SPC also notes that there would perhaps be an enhanced tornado risk in Southern Lower Michigan, where uncertainty is pretty substantial at this point. 

 

 

 

THIS ACTIVITY WILL LIKELY CONGEAL INTO A WSW/ENE-ELONGATED  

QUASI-LINEAR MCS THROUGH THE EARLY EVENING HOURS...LARGELY ORIENTED  

PARALLEL TO THE MEAN CLOUD-LAYER FLOW...WHILE GRADUALLY SPREADING  

ESEWD/SEWD INTO PARTS OF CNTRL IL...CNTRL INDIANA...AND SWRN LOWER  

MI. DMGG WINDS AND MARGINALLY SVR HAIL WILL REMAIN POSSIBLE WITH  

THIS ACTIVITY AS CONVECTION REGENERATES/SPREADS INTO MOIST/UNSTABLE  

AIR FARTHER ESE/SE. THE MCS SHOULD DECAY BY LATE SUN NIGHT AS IT  

APPROACHES/REACHES THE OHIO RIVER.  

 

NOTABLE CONDITIONAL SVR RISK COULD EXTEND INTO OTHER PARTS OF SRN  

LOWER MI...OUTSIDE OF THE ENH/SLGT AREAS...WHERE RELATIVELY MORE  

BACKED LOW-LEVEL FLOW ENCOURAGES GREATER SRH AND ROTATING-TSTM  

POTENTIAL. HOWEVER...SUBSTANTIAL UNCERTAINTY REGARDING EVOLUTION OF  

ANTECEDENT CONVECTION/CONVECTIVE DEBRIS AND RELATED  

DELAYED/MITIGATED DIURNAL DESTABILIZATION EXTEND TO THE SVR-TSTM  

POTENTIAL. AS SUCH...EVEN HIGHER SVR-TSTM PROBABILITIES HAVE NOT  

BEEN INCLUDED AT THIS TIME...THOUGH SOME SUPERCELL/TORNADO POTENTIAL  

MAY NOT BE ENTIRELY NEGLIGIBLE.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since I brought it up originally and Tsnow just mentioned it, one difference from 6/5/2010 is that mid-upper level winds are weaker this time (there was like a 70 kt 500 mb max in 2010).  Surface lows are similar strength with tomorrow's being farther north.  Low level flow didn't really back at all but there was plenty of directional shear with the WNW flow aloft. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This could be one of the more impressive threats in MI in awhile taking a brief peruse of 12z guidance. Will be dependent on destabilization of course, but the NAM variants in particular are showing some seriously impressive low level shear profiles over western/central portions of the lower peninsula tomorrow afternoon and evening. Would think any supercell that fires across the northern tier of the risk area may have a substantial tornado threat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This could be one of the more impressive threats in MI in awhile taking a brief peruse of 12z guidance. Will be dependent on destabilization of course, but the NAM variants in particular are showing some seriously impressive low level shear profiles over western/central portions of the lower peninsula tomorrow afternoon and evening. Would think any supercell that fires across the northern tier of the risk area may have a substantial tornado threat.

Yeah the 4km NAM backs the flow later in the evening along 75 near Flint as well. That would substantially increase the low level shear. Dare I say this might be one of the better potentials locally in a while especially if the NAM is correct.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This could be one of the more impressive threats in MI in awhile taking a brief peruse of 12z guidance. Will be dependent on destabilization of course, but the NAM variants in particular are showing some seriously impressive low level shear profiles over western/central portions of the lower peninsula tomorrow afternoon and evening. Would think any supercell that fires across the northern tier of the risk area may have a substantial tornado threat.

 

I'm not really sold on that area destabilizing enough for a more substantial threat, but if it does, then there certainly would be decent tornado potential as that area has the best low level shear in the afternoon/evening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not really sold on that area destabilizing enough for a more substantial threat, but if it does, then there certainly would be decent tornado potential as that area has the best low level shear in the afternoon/evening.

With the wind shear being shown 1500 J/kg would be enough, most models show at least that with some showing more.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the wind shear being shown 1500 J/kg would be enough, most models show at least that with some showing more.

 

 

If that happens, game on.  I'm just a bit skeptical the farther north you go into Michigan but it's really only a guess.  Will have to see what things look like in the morning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that happens, game on. I'm just a bit skeptical the farther north you go into Michigan but it's really only a guess. Will have to see what things look like in the morning.

Yeah usually I am on the lol MI potential too but this does have some favored MI potential aspects, the low location, lack of major morning convection, and warm front intersecting the area during peak heating.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing really new to add today compared to yesterday.  Still looks like a solid severe threat for the areas SPC outlined.  I thought SPC did a fantastic write up on tomorrow.  

 

Good to see someone other than Darrow on those outlooks. Was growing really frustrated with his.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill Marino (WDM) with GRR is underplaying tomorrow's event hard (which isn't uncommon with him lol) non-shalantly saying "he supposes areas along I-94 could probably see a severe storm", while focusing most attention to our mid-late next week with a quasi-stationary front being the focus of a much better chance of heavy rain/severe weather.

I guess we'll wait and see, but at this point I'm seeing a pretty decent threat for southern lower Michigan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill Marino (WDM) with GRR is underplaying tomorrow's event hard (which isn't uncommon with him lol) non-shalantly saying "he supposes areas along I-94 could probably see a severe storm", while focusing most attention to our mid-late next week with a quasi-stationary front being the focus of a much better chance of heavy rain/severe weather.

 

I can understand why. 

 

It's certainly not the most ideal setup (in our area) from a instability standpoint. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mid level lapse rates are terrible on the NAM (generally about 5-6C from 700-500 mb) so it says something that it's still generating CAPE in excess of 2000-3000.  The GFS seems a little better so it will be interesting to see what wins out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting reading various forecasters thoughts concerning the threat for IN tomorrow. The afternoon forecaster at IWX is kind of downplaying it, while Mike Ryan at IND is hyping the severe as well as heavy rain aspect. After reading many of Mike's detailed discussions since his arrival at Indy, I strongly suspect he is a well-educated :weenie: .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mid level lapse rates are terrible on the NAM (generally about 5-6C from 700-500 mb) so it says something that it's still generating CAPE in excess of 2000-3000.  The GFS seems a little better so it will be interesting to see what wins out. 

 

Important to note that the 18z NAM also had a large MCS over all of E NE/W IA right now, when in reality everywhere south of Norfolk is essentially convection free.

 

It then proceeded to bring the remnants over the threat area tomorrow in the morning. If that southern part fails to materialize, it obviously opens the door to stronger destabilization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mid level lapse rates are terrible on the NAM (generally about 5-6C from 700-500 mb) so it says something that it's still generating CAPE in excess of 2000-3000. The GFS seems a little better so it will be interesting to see what wins out.

Very good point. Heck I think this is showing the highest CAPE numbers of 2015

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mid level lapse rates are terrible on the NAM (generally about 5-6C from 700-500 mb) so it says something that it's still generating CAPE in excess of 2000-3000. The GFS seems a little better so it will be interesting to see what wins out.

Dare I say if the plains convection doesn't blow up too much the GFS might end up right with better lapse rates, imagine colocating those lapse rates with the surface temps/dews off the NAM. Of course this would be your ceiling but it is something to factor on as the 12km NAM is doing terribly with current convection.
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...