jiharris0220
Member
An overwhelming total of 3 tornadoes with 1 in the moderate risk.
A slam dunk forecast.
-
Welcome to TalkWeather! We see you lurking around TalkWeather! Take the extra step and join us today to view attachments, see less ads and maybe even join the discussion. CLICK TO JOIN TALKWEATHER
Severe Weather Threat 4/27-4/28
- Thread starter Bulkshear
- Start date
A slam dunk forecast.
kcyalater
Member
i know it’s easy to dunk on the SPC, but there’s no world that exists in which you don’t make the same forecast 10/10 times.
the parameter space yesterday was ELITE, and you have to look at the ceiling for human impact, not the floor.
“people will stop paying attention to warnings.” that’s on them. it’s also a bad idea to play russian roulette, even though the vast majority of pulls have no round in the chamber. until they do.
it’s all about what could be, not what’s going to be.
DanLarsen34
Member
So, we got a severe weather outbreak, but we didn’t get a single tornado within the PDS tornado watch and had 3 total. lol
Edit: that number will go up across Illinois and Indiana with the QLCS that occurred though.
Edit: that number will go up across Illinois and Indiana with the QLCS that occurred though.
Last edited:
Has anyone considered that some of those damaging wind reports might have been unwarned brief tornadoes?
US_Highway15
Member
I'm sure there will be several surveys done to confirm whether they were tornadoes or not. Similar to the ENH QLCS outbreak we had in IL a week or two ago.
DanLarsen34
Member
T
If you had asked me what I thought the floor was going in, I would have said something like 15-25 tornadoes, with a few strong and 1-2 intense tornadoes. The assumption was that the main failure mode would lead to more of a QLCS threat. We got that, ironically enough, but it happened north of where the highest risk was thought be, at least if we go off of the PDS tornado watch issuance (i expect us to see more reports out of Indiana and Illinois).
As someone mentioned last night, I think both the location and the timing of the main jet streak was a small factor in yesterday failing. It never aligned with where we got more discrete supercell development, and it wasn’t able to be an aiding factor in triggering OWS development further east. However, given the prolific hail we got in with the discrete cells in S MO, I think low level shear was a major factor, as well as CIN being stronger than expected in the lowest 3km. The latter is also why we got no OWS in the PDS watch despite multiple attempts at it.
Given the limitations they had in making this forecast, I totally agree with this. I don’t think anyone in this forum would have expected this event to play out like this.
If you had asked me what I thought the floor was going in, I would have said something like 15-25 tornadoes, with a few strong and 1-2 intense tornadoes. The assumption was that the main failure mode would lead to more of a QLCS threat. We got that, ironically enough, but it happened north of where the highest risk was thought be, at least if we go off of the PDS tornado watch issuance (i expect us to see more reports out of Indiana and Illinois).
As someone mentioned last night, I think both the location and the timing of the main jet streak was a small factor in yesterday failing. It never aligned with where we got more discrete supercell development, and it wasn’t able to be an aiding factor in triggering OWS development further east. However, given the prolific hail we got in with the discrete cells in S MO, I think low level shear was a major factor, as well as CIN being stronger than expected in the lowest 3km. The latter is also why we got no OWS in the PDS watch despite multiple attempts at it.
Last edited:
So I found a post over on the StormTrack forum that discusses an NSSL-launched sounding from Fayetteville, Illinois, around 19z. It points out several possible issues that likely contributed to yesterday not meeting its ceiling. I highly recommend going over to read it!
Schoeppeya
Member
There is no way around yesterday being an epic bust by nearly the entire modeling suite. Even the soundings yesterday added to confidence of a major severe weather outbreak. And no hate to the SPC, I thought they were being too conservative yesterday. One of the reason I love the weather is mother nature can still show us we havent outsmarted her yet and yesterday was a great example of that.
Ledian
Member
I agree with what kc said. I certainly didn't think yesterday would play out like it did...especially how little tornado activity there was.
I've been put in the 5% tornado area for today, and asides some thunder earlier this morning as well as one storm with some decent hail that went to my south, not a whole lot has happened here. We'll see what later on brings.
I've been put in the 5% tornado area for today, and asides some thunder earlier this morning as well as one storm with some decent hail that went to my south, not a whole lot has happened here. We'll see what later on brings.
TH2002
Member
- Messages
- 4,966
- Reaction score
- 11,086
- Location
- California, United States
- Special Affiliations
- SKYWARN® Volunteer
Still can't find any damage photos from the Hanover tornado, but updates this morning indicate nothing catastrophic, and no known casualties.
cincywx
Member
I thought I remembered that too, but it looks like there were seven watches issued on 4/28/2025 but none of them were PDS. The highest set of tornado probs was 70/60.
Kds86z
Member
Wildfire smoke and dry air a contributor ? Was a post on this.
jackhutwx
Member
do we know what went "wrong" with yesterday's setup? the environment was really ripe, but only a few supercells managed to develop in that warm sector. i did see that arkansas got a pds torw with a rather large cc, so there was at least that.
bckhd2
Member
I feel for both the SPC and especially the local meteorologists who are no doubt getting screamed at by every Facebook warrior in their viewing area, blaming the TV weatherman for "hyping for clicks" and "just trying to get views and likes." As if local meteorologists spend their days intentionally trying to deceive and scare their viewers all for some bonus points on social media. I can't imagine how frustrating it must be for them to see the model outputs and the soundings, realize how bad the scenario could be for their area, and try their best to warn people to prepare for what really could have been a very high-end event, only to be yelled and cursed at when "nothing" happened.
To me, something felt "off" about this event all day, even as early as the morning convection over parts of MO/IL. Despite a prime parameter space, it felt like every time we expected something to happen, storms died immediately or failed to initiate at all. I am glad the SPC did not go high risk or CIG3, and I'm glad the event did not truly live up to the expectations. I did like the YouTube Live that Bentley and the SPC did - I found it very informative and I hope they continue doing those for more outbreak days.
I'm curious to see the post event analysis on this. I've also seen the theories that wildfire smoke or dry air could have contributed to the underperformance. If I recall correctly, 4/27/11 had some wildfire smoke involved as well? If so, just goes to show how fine the line between helping and hurting environmental parameters is in these type of events.
To me, something felt "off" about this event all day, even as early as the morning convection over parts of MO/IL. Despite a prime parameter space, it felt like every time we expected something to happen, storms died immediately or failed to initiate at all. I am glad the SPC did not go high risk or CIG3, and I'm glad the event did not truly live up to the expectations. I did like the YouTube Live that Bentley and the SPC did - I found it very informative and I hope they continue doing those for more outbreak days.
I'm curious to see the post event analysis on this. I've also seen the theories that wildfire smoke or dry air could have contributed to the underperformance. If I recall correctly, 4/27/11 had some wildfire smoke involved as well? If so, just goes to show how fine the line between helping and hurting environmental parameters is in these type of events.
Most likely a Combination of trough geometry, forcing and jet placement, capping, and dry air. Everytime there’s a bu$t and there’s a wildfire somewhere, that smoke theory gets shoehorned as the reason. I don’t buy it at all. Wildfire smoke has been present for many events, as you noted, 4/27 and 3/14. It seems like the 5/20/2019 bu$t really gave that “hypothesis” legs. I still haven’t seen any definitive literature that wildfire smoke plays any role in bu$ting weather events.
Had a lot of CAPE on Saturday. According to what I saw on the morning news, storms shouldn't arrive until 5 or 6.
CheeselandSkies
Member
Yeah, I don't think the impact of wildfire smoke is well understood. I saw it hypothesized in at least one article that it had aided 4/27 by providing additional condensation nuclei for developing storms. Then after 5/20/19 it was thrown around as a potential limiting factor. It was heavily present throughout much of the epic "10 Days in May" of 2003 and certainly didn't seem to do anything to hinder those outbreaks, apart from creating visibility issues for chasers/spotters on certain days.
This is really understating it. The entire jet was misplaced by like, a few hundred miles? Models were COMPLETELY wrong about it.
Exactly. For whatever reason that’s WxTwitter’s pet theory. I mean it makes sense why fires occur at the same time occasionally, dry air and low humidity getting advected west due to the winds/cyclone. There are stories about both Palm Sunday and 4/3/74 having a ton of dust in the skies, I can guarantee you there were wildfires most likely burning somewhere as those systems progressed east