Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

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

Wednesday, July 22, 2020 and/or Thursday, July 23, 2020 Severe Threat


weatherwiz
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, radarman said:

A correlation coefficient image from yesterday... The x band view of the cell to the SE was attenuated, especially in the h polarization, but the structure is apparent all the same.   Probably good we were missing some ingredient.

umaxx_rhohv_20200722.png

oof that is a pretty classic structure. If you were to show that to someone and ask them what they were to expect from that I bet most would say a TOR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dryslot said:

Going to be a more widespread outbreak today, Lot of debris clouds right now, Would like to see the sun to destabilize more though.

image.png.72337c7f911d30bfce77eff9f1d7464b.png

Today is a day where instability may be a bit weaker, but we have better dynamics and forcing. the better dynamics/forcing should result in thunderstorms being more widespread but instability (well lack of stronger and deeper instability) will keep any severe more localized. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, weatherwiz said:

Today is a day where instability may be a bit weaker, but we have better dynamics and forcing. the better dynamics/forcing should result in thunderstorms being more widespread but instability (well lack of stronger and deeper instability) will keep any severe more localized. 

0.04" overnight from the leftovers from that batch of cells that passed thru NE MA last evening, I'm expecting a little more today as they look to track further north, Always skeptikal of severe here anyways as they typically get killed by the seabreeze with winds being ESE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dryslot said:

0.04" overnight from the leftovers from that batch of cells that passed thru NE MA last evening, I'm expecting a little more today as they look to track further north, Always skeptikal of severe here anyways as they typically get killed by the seabreeze with winds being ESE.

I think that hindered things in CT too yesterday...I noticed there was a bit of MLCIN which seemed to correlate with the SE flow. This is why you really need an EML in place when dealing with a SE flow...or have SST's which are virtually similar to the dewpoints. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, weatherwiz said:

I think that hindered things in CT too yesterday...I noticed there was a bit of MLCIN which seemed to correlate with the SE flow. This is why you really need an EML in place when dealing with a SE flow...or have SST's which are virtually similar to the dewpoints. 

 I do know the marine layer can be more problematic especially up here as SST's are generally colder then in SNE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dryslot said:

 I do know the marine layer can be more problematic especially up here as SST's are generally colder then in SNE.

I've always found the marine layer/convective connection rather interesting. I do sometimes wonder if too much emphasis gets placed on the marine layer...during the spring/early summer I can certainly see it playing a big role, however, I think it also depends. First off, the marine layers usually aren't relatively thick...but I'm sure they still do slow down the upward acceleration of parcels through this layer, however, when it's hot and humid or when you have steep lapse rates these should be enough to overcome that. 

I wanted to use this for my senior thesis but I did not have enough time but my thinking is that the biggest culprit for us (outside of weaker lapse rates) is lack of stronger dynamical support and large-scale forcing (though these tend to be greater in NNE which is why like northern ME does very well for severe (IMO). But down this way we often see thunderstorms die and it gets blamed on sea-breeze...I don't necessarily agree with that. I think what happens is the storms start to outrun the better forcing/dynamics which gives the aided boost into keeping convection deep. Otherwise, convection is just relaying on large surface CAPE (needed to initiate the convection) and meh mixed-layer CAPE (which helps the storms build in the vertical and when there is enough we get the pockets of severe). But when you're only relying on instability and weak forcing/shear the instability is enough to build it and the lack of the latter prevents it from doing much more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Full sun is certainly good but honestly in a situation where you have poor lapse rates there isn't a whole heck of a lot of difference between full sun and mostly sun...I mean if the difference is like 3-4F in temperature then yeah there is a big difference but when you have poor lapse rates your ceiling about how unstable you can become is very limited. A temp difference of 1-2F can also be a difference maker in CAPE but regardless we're only looking at 1000-1500 J of MLCAPE today...maybe 2000 where any dewpoint pooling occurrs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, weatherwiz said:

Full sun is certainly good but honestly in a situation where you have poor lapse rates there isn't a whole heck of a lot of difference between full sun and mostly sun...I mean if the difference is like 3-4F in temperature then yeah there is a big difference but when you have poor lapse rates your ceiling about how unstable you can become is very limited. A temp difference of 1-2F can also be a difference maker in CAPE but regardless we're only looking at 1000-1500 J of MLCAPE today...maybe 2000 where any dewpoint pooling occurrs.

How about partly sun?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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