Jump to content

  • Member Statistics

    17,606
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    ArlyDude
    Newest Member
    ArlyDude
    Joined

Late April severe weather risk ~Mon thru next Mon 4/24-5/01

weatherextreme

By weatherextreme,
in Central/Western States

Recommended Posts

jojo762

jojo762

Posted
Posted

I guess the bottom-line at this point is, regardless of current model depictions, that wave timing (in addition to trough orientation/amplification) is going to make ALL the difference in what happens on Friday/Saturday. Current models are trolling the wx community. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 794
  • Created
  • Last Reply
weatherextreme

weatherextreme

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, Upper Level LOL said:

Yeah I agree. This is almost Reed Timmer levels of overhyping, and for the exact same, self-serving reasons.

Speaking of Reed Timmer.  Here's his latest

 

WEDNESDAY: Significant severe weather including tornadoes by PM for central AR into SE MO, large area of hodos w/ > 30 kts 0-1 km shear

 

C-M0FwDVYAMDnXq.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
weatherextreme

weatherextreme

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Latest from  

National Weather Service Norman OK

  

 Better shower and thunderstorm potential will likely arrive
Friday night and into Saturday, as the front moves back northward
as a warm front and a stronger upper level storm system moves into
the Plains states. Uncertainty remains when it pertains to the
eventual location of the warm front and any resultant severe
weather potential. Current data would suggest that the severe
potential may be highest later than previously advertised, and
possibly farther south and east. Heavy rain and flooding potential
also appears to be high during this time frame, especially
considering antecedent conditions in portions of the area.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stebo

Stebo

Posted
Posted
Just now, bjc0303 said:

Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but the "onshore sampling" thing is a myth.

 

This setup looks to be dead in the waters. On to May!

 

I wouldn't call it a myth, it isn't exactly as strong of a correlation as previous years, but it is still a factor that hasn't been fully resolved. Until you get dropsondes to occur regularly over the Pacific it will still be an issue. The main reason the correlation isn't as great now though is the models have improved over the years though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jojo762

jojo762

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Stebo said:

The Euro verbatim is still a very good setup for Southern and eastern OK and Northern and Eastern Texas for Friday. It isn't the perfect chase area but meterologically speaking it is still a very good setup for those locations.

Yeah, its still decent at the very least. LLJ isn't quite as impressive as earlier runs, but surface winds are strongly backed (but relatively weak speed wise), with substantial instability and strong deep-layer shear. Also any storms that do form would almost certainly be isolated discrete supercells.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
brettjrob

brettjrob

Posted
Posted

The Euro verbatim is more like a run-of-the-mill April setup with plenty of weaknesses IMO, similar to a few we've seen this month already. Probably worthy of a 5% tornado outlook, perhaps 10% over a small bullseye if mesoscale details worked out. Now, if you sped the system up by even 3-5 hours from what the 12z run shows, it might be a different story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jojo762

jojo762

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, brettjrob said:

The Euro verbatim is more like a run-of-the-mill April setup with plenty of weaknesses IMO, similar to a few we've seen this month already. Probably worthy of a 5% tornado outlook, perhaps 10% over a small bullseye if mesoscale details worked out. Now, if you sped the system up by even 3-5 hours from what the 12z run shows, it might be a different story.

Exactly why i'm not throwing in the towel on any of this yet. A SMALL shift of just a few hours will/can make a world of difference... This has been shown well in the last few days of model runs as timing has adjusted to varying degrees, resulting in a wide array of outputs and outcomes. Still a highly complex, and evolving, situation for late this week. It is doubtful that what models currently depict over 100 hours out is what will actually occur. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bjc0303

bjc0303

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Drz1111 said:

Yikes.  Someone doesn't understand how weather models work.  OU sophomore?

Lol, who are you?

I'm actually wrapping up my degree, bud. What background do you have in meteorology?

8 minutes ago, Stebo said:

You have a link to that number because I am very certain it is no where near that number.

I've never heard an official number from a paper so I could be wrong, but I'm fairly confident that it makes no difference. I've heard from respectable meteorologists (not some wx weenie on americanwx) repeatedly that the "better sampling" thing is a complete myth. Not to mention the poor spatial resolution radiosondes offer. 

 

It's a myth. Models could trend to something significant as Brett observes, but it won't be because of "better sampling" lol. That's a joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stebo

Stebo

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, bjc0303 said:

Lol, who are you?

I'm actually wrapping up my degree, bud. What background do you have in meteorology?

I've never heard an official number from a paper so I could be wrong, but I'm fairly confident that it makes no difference. I've heard from respectable meteorologists (not some wx weenie on americanwx) repeatedly that the "better sampling" thing is a complete myth.

So, lets just sum this up. You don't have official data, and you heard that "better sampling" is a complete myth. No offense but I know that it isn't a myth and I know that the number is no where near 90% satellite data. If it was even close to that you wouldn't have 100s of radiosondes launched twice daily across this country. You also wouldn't have dropsondes occur in major events by hurricane hunters.  Also not sure who you are referring to as a wx weenie, as Jim is far from it and I certainly am not a weenie or moron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
1900hurricane

1900hurricane

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Wmsptwx said:

Wednesday is catching my interest for Lower Miss Valley.

I originally going to wait until most of the 00Z suite was in before mentioning this myself, but I'm warming up to it as well. Issues with backing wrt height between 850 and 700 mb appear to be lessening with the more recent runs. Critical angles are still pretty low though with shear vectors closely aligned with the front.

 

dnVBSdq.png

NAMSGP_con_mucape_054.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bjc0303

bjc0303

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Stebo said:

So, lets just sum this up. You don't have official data, and you heard that "better sampling" is a complete myth. No offense but I know that it isn't a myth and I know that the number is no where near 90% satellite data. If it was even close to that you wouldn't have 100s of radiosondes launched twice daily across this country. Also not sure who you are referring to as a wx weenie, as Jim is far from it and I certainly am.

I don't have the time to offer up sources; if you have something bookmarked, please send it my way.

 

Radiosondes are helpful for more than just DA, but they offer their own deficiencies...which is why boundary-layer sampling UAVs are a hot topic right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jojo762

jojo762

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Wmsptwx said:

Wednesday is catching my interest for Lower Miss Valley.

Looks pretty linear to me... BUT a tornado would be possible given the impressive low-level hodographs: 1. With any discrete/semi-discrete supercells or transient supercell structures embedded within the clusters/lines, and/plus 2. In areas where the VBV isn't as awful as it is forecast to be in northern AR in the near-storm environment by 00z on the 18z NAM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stebo

Stebo

Posted
Posted
Just now, bjc0303 said:

I don't have the time to offer up sources; if you have something bookmarked, please send it my way.

 

Radiosondes are helpful for more than just DA.

I think you are the one who should be proving your stance here, you made the blanket statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stebo

Stebo

Posted
Posted
Just now, jojo762 said:

Looks pretty linear to me... BUT a tornado would be possible given the impressive low-level hodographs: 1. With any discrete/semi-discrete supercells or transient supercell structures embedded within the clusters/lines, and/plus 2. In areas where the VBV isn't as awful as it is forecast to be in northern AR in the near-storm environment by 00z on the NAM.

Yeah at the very least could see some QLCS stuff if the storms line out, there is still good shear in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hoosier

Hoosier

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, bjc0303 said:

Lol, who are you?

I'm actually wrapping up my degree, bud. What background do you have in meteorology?

I've never heard an official number from a paper so I could be wrong, but I'm fairly confident that it makes no difference. I've heard from respectable meteorologists (not some wx weenie on americanwx) repeatedly that the "better sampling" thing is a complete myth. Not to mention the poor spatial resolution radiosondes offer. 

 

It's a myth. Models could trend to something significant as Brett observes, but it won't be because of "better sampling" lol. That's a joke.

Then I guess we need a massive reeducation effort for NWS mets, because I have seen the RAOB sampling thing mentioned often in afds.  

I think "lack of RAOB sampling" can be easily overstated, as there are plenty of other data that the models utilize (as you mentioned).  But to claim it never has any effect?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stebo

Stebo

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Hoosier said:

Then I guess we need a massive reeducation effort for NWS mets, because I have seen the RAOB sampling thing mentioned often in afds.  

I think "lack of RAOB sampling" can be easily overstated, as there are plenty of other data that the models utilize (as you mentioned).  But to claim it never has any effect?

Yeah I mean I will even compromise that RAOBs aren't the biggest component of data assimilation into weather models, but in a highly variable forecast like this, the more data going into the modelling the better. Right now there is no RAOB data over the ocean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bjc0303

bjc0303

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Hoosier said:

Then I guess we need a massive reeducation effort for NWS mets, because I have seen the RAOB sampling thing mentioned often in afds.  

I think "lack of RAOB sampling" can be easily overstated, as there are plenty of other data that the models utilize (as you mentioned).  But to claim it never has any effect?

I have specifically read/heard that it makes no statistical difference in model verification (when talking about before/after the wave moves onshore).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...