• 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 4/28-4/30

AJS said:
I haven’t seen anything so far that suggests that anything could underperform.
Click to expand...

There are some weird things about this setup. It's certainly not going to be your absolutely classic 500mb pattern for a tornado outbreak (like, say 3/31/23 and 4/26/24 were). At first glance the 500mb looks way too positively tilted. However, it doesn't seem to have the big problem you usually get with a strong positive tilt, which is a SW-NE oriented front with all the strong 500mb flow parallel to and relegated to largely along/behind it. With Monday, at the surface we still have a more N-S oriented cold front/dryline with the flow extending out over the warm sector.

NAM/3K NAM are doing weird things with the thermos (surprise) which makes it tough to get a good handle on what the warm sector environment will actually be like over Iowa/Wisconsin going into Monday evening. All in all I think the Day 3 MDT was a bold call given all this (seems to be based solely on the jet translation speed), but they're the ones who have been doing the work on it.
 
Last edited:
Wow just saw the day 3 outlook (only 840 over here in Seattle)
I think its a very bold call, not saying anything to undermine this event but personally I did not expect the SPC to go MDT on day 3. Particularly because its a more unusual setup.
 
12Z GFS throwing out some big boy soundings for eastern IA/SE MN/western WI

Typically when globals are spitting out PDS TORs this close to the game, it's a pretty good signal that the event has a high ceiling. Agreed with Cheese, NAM is being weird with thermos and might not have a great handle on the kinematics.

Tonight's runs should be interesting.
 
US_Highway15 said:
View attachment 40388
Take this with a grain of salt, but SARS is spewing out a couple supercells from May 3rd/4th 1999, none of the big tornadoes from 5/3/99, but the fact that its spewing out any supercells from that day, I think is a tad concerning.
Click to expand...
I believe GOK is Oklahoma (not sure the exact location) and JCT is Grand Junction, Colorado or possibly Junction City Kansas. Although I’m pretty sure it’s the former.

So the analog is saying that particular environment that is displayed on the sounding is analogous to those dates/locations listed.
 
US_Highway15 said:
View attachment 40388
Take this with a grain of salt, but SARS is spewing out a couple supercells from May 3rd/4th 1999, none of the big tornadoes from the outbreak, but the fact that its spewing out any supercells from that day, I think is a tad concerning.
Click to expand...
Also take note of the fact that it's also showing one of the soundings from the 4/10/1979 Red River Outbreak (AKA "Terrible Tuesday").
 
I am not trying to be contrarian (I love a high end setup as much as the next guy) so would love some feedback on why some of y'all disagree but I still think there are plenty of reasons why this could have stayed a slight risk at this point and why it wouldn't go high risk as we approach. Moderate instability, variable low level shear across the models, many locations would be relying on speed shear vs directional shear without backed surface winds to produce, and even questions about storm mode, capping, and or convective initiation.
 
Last edited:
Schoeppeya said:
I am not trying to be contrarian (I love a high end setup as much as the next guy) so would love some feedback on why some of y'all disagree but I still think there are plenty of reasons why this could have stayed a slight risk at this point and why it wouldn't go high risk as we approach. Moderate instability, variable low level shear across the models, many locations would be relying on speed shear vs directional shear with backed surface winds to produce, and even questions about capping and or convective initiation.
Click to expand...
Last time someone or some peeps questioned the forecast they were wrong and the pink pencil guy was correct.
 
Schoeppeya said:
I am not trying to be contrarian (I love a high end setup as much as the next guy) so would love some feedback on why some of y'all disagree but I still think there are plenty of reasons why this could have stayed a slight risk at this point and why it wouldn't go high risk as we approach. Moderate instability, variable low level shear across the models, many locations would be relying on speed shear vs directional shear with backed surface winds to produce, and even questions about capping and or convective initiation.
Click to expand...
I think because of the ceiling this event could have, if everything comes together. My assumption is you've read the SPC outlooks and AFD discussions from Des Moines and Quad Cities, etc?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top