Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,607
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    ArlyDude
    Newest Member
    ArlyDude
    Joined

February 27-28 Severe Threat


pen_artist
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, IWXwx said:

From the wording of the watch (a couple of intense tornadoes and 3" hail likely), I kind of surprised that they didn't go PDS.

Probably because moisture is not all that high in the sixties but the contras is great for this time of year

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, IWXwx said:

From the wording of the watch (a couple of intense tornadoes and 3" hail likely), I'm kind of surprised that they didn't go PDS.

EDIT: Especially since an extremely large population center is bullseye.


The initial wording in the Tornado watch on the iOS weather app caught my eye

Severity: Extreme
Extraordinary threat to life or property

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Indystorm said:

Probably because moisture is not all that high in the sixties but the contras is great for this time of year

I remember March 31 didn't have super high dewpoints.  Only low 60s at best.  Low LCLs AND good instability still happened because it was cold aloft.  Same here.  The warm sector was a little broader and deep layer shear was stronger though.  That seems like the only thing off.  The best shear arrives after dark.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, frostfern said:

Elevated and high based don’t mean the same thing.  You can have either one and not the other.  Out west you often have high based storms that are still rooted in the boundary layer, because the boundary layer is extremely deep.  Storms that move over Lake Michigan are almost always elevated, technically, in the spring and summer because surfaces based parcels are rarely unstable, but the cloud base is often way lower than what you’d see in Colorado, New Mexico, or Arizona.


Just to reference for everyone on here in case some aren’t as informed, NWS defines ‘Elevated Convection’ on their meteorological discussion glossary as this:

AD1EFBD3-8E30-4234-9DAA-345B5074B806.jpeg.8e0b6fd7611789d84706e82428b4762f.jpeg

https://forecast.weather.gov/glossary.php
- - -

And I never wrote that ‘elevated’ and ‘high-based’ storms were indeed the same and I already explained what high-based normally, or better yet, logically means.

’High-based’ though, can be interpreted differently because it is not an existing term in the NWS glossary.

But, SPC also uses both terms in their convective discussions (and it’s been like that for a lot of years now as I’ve seen & read). Each forecaster may very well have a different interpretation of what's actually ‘High-based’ to them. But they could also just be meaning ‘Elevated’ at the same time too because there doesn’t seem to be an actual top layer criteria that strictly defines an elevated storm, looking at that NWS definition.

’Surface-based’ is indeed in their glossary as well. But it obviously has no room for individual interpretation because it inevitably means storms that are based within the surface layer (very near the ground), as written on there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Stx_Thunder said:


Just to reference for everyone on here, NWS defines ‘Elevated Convection’ on their meteorological discussion glossary as this:

AD1EFBD3-8E30-4234-9DAA-345B5074B806.jpeg.8e0b6fd7611789d84706e82428b4762f.jpeg

https://forecast.weather.gov/glossary.php
- - -

And I never wrote that ‘elevated’ and ‘high-based’ storms were indeed the same and I already explained what high-based normally, or better yet, logically means.

’High-based’ though, can be interpreted differently because it is not an existing term in the NWS glossary.

But, SPC also uses both terms in their convective discussions (and it’s been like that for a lot of years now as I’ve seen & read). Each forecaster may very well have a different interpretation of what's actually ‘High-based’ to them. But they could also just be meaning ‘Elevated’ at the same time too because there doesn’t seem to be an actual top layer criteria that strictly defines an elevated storm, looking at that NWS definition.

’Surface-based’ is indeed in their glossary as well. But it obviously has no room for individual interpretation because it inevitably means storms that are based within the surface layer (very near the ground), as written on there.

Okay. 

At this time of year in the eastern regions of the US high based storms are usually also elevated and non-severe.  So yea, in this context what you said makes sense.  It just seemed like an overgeneralization to say "high base" means non-severe, so I responded.  No need to nitpick anymore.  We both get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chinook said:

Grlevel3 already has hail information on the two new ones

this is going to go big.jpg


Not surprised as I just checked the SPC 22Z DVN (Davenport IA) observed sounding. Again similar to a few weeks ago in eastern TX, Low CAPE (282 MU), but both steep low & mid-level lapse rates. Surface temp at 72 F which I guess pretty warm for this time of year up there. WBZ height isn’t ideal for large hail, but FZL height is definitely low for more hail production. PW only at 0.57

BRN shear parameter is low at 24 which doesn’t support supercells though at least in the immediate Davenport area (mainly multicells). Gonna try to watch how this evolves as that environment aloft around there is definitely still interesting.

*Edit: 22 Z or utc DVN sounding. ILX sounding just off to the southeast in central IL showing much more CAPE around 1000 & better shear parameters.

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...