Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,598
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    PublicWorks143
    Newest Member
    PublicWorks143
    Joined

Sunday, June 30, 2024 Thunderstorm Thread


weatherwiz
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ehhh…I’m not sure what the exact criteria is for verifying the risk categories, but based off the storm reports I don’t think the enhanced was a terrible call. There were concentrated swaths of wind damage reports within the risk area. I guess maybe you would expect to see a significant damaging wind gust report or two (>65 knots). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well lets put it like this...

We were upgraded to an enhanced risk for the potential damaging winds (30%). What does that mean? It means there is a 30% chance of a damaging winds or gusts (>50 knots) within 25 miles of a point within the outlined area. 

So I guess there are two ways to look at this

1) How many measured wind gusts of 58 mph were there?

2) How many wind damage reports were there?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, weatherwiz said:

Well lets put it like this...

We were upgraded to an enhanced risk for the potential damaging winds (30%). What does that mean? It means there is a 30% chance of a damaging winds or gusts (>50 knots) within 25 miles of a point within the outlined area. 

So I guess there are two ways to look at this

1) How many measured wind gusts of 58 mph were there?

2) How many wind damage reports were there?

 

For that area in terms of geographical, could have been slight or less. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

For that area in terms of geographical, could have been slight or less. 

Certainly can't argue with that. 

IMO, why the early activity held things back is the forcing wasn't there just yet. Even with the early activity, we achieved maximum instability, which I didn't think would happen with an earlier show. SBCAPE got to ~3000 and MLCAPE ~2000 per mesoanalysis. I don't think we would have gotten any higher with another few hours of heating given the marginal lapse rates. 

Strong forcing/height falls goes a tremendous ways with severe weather and widespread severe weather. Great CAPE and shear is needed but if the forcing isn't there, the extent of potential will not be realized. While we had the steeper lapse rates Wednesday, we also had much favorable shortwave forcing. IMO, that is what we lacked today.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, WxWatcher007 said:

Why does there need to be a geographical coverage criteria for the higher categories? That’s how you get enhanced damage on slight days. 

That was a fail. As I said a slight would have been better and even that was aggressive. This want even close to the other night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

That was a fail. As I said a slight would have been better and even that was aggressive. This want even close to the other night.

I’m just asking generally, not really talking about today. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, WxWatcher007 said:

Why does there need to be a geographical coverage criteria for the higher categories? That’s how you get enhanced damage on slight days. 

I guess my question is when do they look at it like “damn, we said slight risk and that forecast was wrong because it should’ve been enhanced”?

Isn't the forecast criteria just probabilities anyway?  While verification is always going to be very black and white.  Severe either happened or it didn’t.

I feel like the forecast vs verification is almost like looking at it two different ways.  Forecasting is probabilities (30% chance of severe wind within X miles) while verification is binary (either happened or didn’t).

I’m curious how they grade the different risks (probabilities).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, powderfreak said:

I guess my question is when do they look at it like “damn, we said slight risk and that forecast was wrong because it should’ve been enhanced”?

Isn't the forecast criteria just probabilities anyway?  While verification is always going to be very black and white.  Severe either happened or it didn’t.

I feel like the forecast vs verification is almost like looking at it two different ways.  Forecasting is probabilities (30% chance of severe wind within X miles) while verification is binary (either happened or didn’t).

I’m curious how they grade the different risks (probabilities).

The forecast result wasn’t even close to the end result and further emphasizes how clueless SPC is to our weather. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

The forecast result wasn’t even close to the end result and further emphasizes how clueless SPC is to our weather. 

I do think that if I’m in a Midwest NOAA office, and I know that every time a strong storm happens in the northeast that it is amplified in the media.  A couple EF-0s in the population corridor garner as much (if not more) attention nationally as an EF-4 in the cornfields.

I could see where this media focus (due to population) may lead to “enhanced” scrutiny in the northeast.  Over-warning is definitely a thing for our region.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, powderfreak said:

I do think that if I’m in a Midwest NOAA office, and I know that every time a strong storm happens in the northeast that it is amplified in the media.  A couple EF-0s in the population corridor garner as much (if not more) attention nationally as an EF-4 in the cornfields.

I could see where this media focus (due to population) may lead to “enhanced” scrutiny in the northeast.  Over-warning is definitely a thing for our region.

It’s just a tough area. Our meh days are really meh and on the higher end days we’re so densely populated that can be highly impactful.

My question about the geographic scale is—I think we are kind of end up in a compressed range on the SPC categories part because of climo and part because of size. They wouldn’t really do an enh for a few counties and mod and high risk aren’t really possible here. Once a generation days don’t count. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, CoastalWx said:

Last summer was wide spread. This is just a narrow area from CT to SE MA.

Who cares about anyone else in summer. I am so so sick of flash floods destroying a section of the back yard, yesterday's over 2 inches in an hour left a gouge 12 inches deep. I just got through humping rocks gravel and soil hopefully that's it for me this summer.  Holy hell.

Screenshot_20240701_110545_Chrome.jpg

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like my point in sarcasm from the day before was made fairly well.

Whenever you see risk assessments elevated east of ALB ... assume the scenario finds challenges to realization. 

There's that ... but in this case, I don't think the mid level lapse rates were helping matters.  There was some organization into small linear segments but watching rad loops, it seemed the situation was a hybrid between that level or organization and just pulsing.  Better lapse rates and perhaps a little more direction component to the total bulk shear... if we'd passed that over/through that 90/75 things would max better.  

Timing that 12z delivery over SE NY was useless too...  We were vil choked across much of the area and doomed from the get go.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, powderfreak said:

I guess my question is when do they look at it like “damn, we said slight risk and that forecast was wrong because it should’ve been enhanced”?

Isn't the forecast criteria just probabilities anyway?  While verification is always going to be very black and white.  Severe either happened or it didn’t.

I feel like the forecast vs verification is almost like looking at it two different ways.  Forecasting is probabilities (30% chance of severe wind within X miles) while verification is binary (either happened or didn’t).

I’m curious how they grade the different risks (probabilities).

Verified here for sure. Jesus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Chrisrotary12 said:

Were there storms yesterday?

Not here, though 10 miles to our south and 50 miles to the north got hit.  That's okay, June precip was 0.59" AN, as it continues to be our 2nd wettest month, trailing only October.

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...