• 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 5/25-5/26, 2024

This is really reminding me of the day before the may 3, 1999 outbreak, because almost the exact problems were present.

The atmosphere had every ingredient present for tornadoes, the forecasters just simply weren’t sure of the magnitude of storm coverage.

Even the new mpas models are wishy washy with its members showing convection. Here’s the link to see for yourself.
 
jiharris0220 said:
This is really reminding me of the day before the may 3, 1999 outbreak, because almost the exact problems were present.

The atmosphere had every ingredient present for tornadoes, the forecasters just simply weren’t sure of the magnitude of storm coverage.

Even the new mpas models are wishy washy with its members showing convection. Here’s the link to see for yourself.
Click to expand...
I would agree but not saying this will be anything like that by any means. Forecasters didnt know the true potential until the very early hours of May 3rd. We just have the advantage of seeing the potential setup even earlier now.
 
SmokeEater said:
Jesus, the map from OUN, strong, long track tornadoes possible with ANY storm in the area....
Click to expand...
IIRC, similar wording and/or implication was used for 6 May, both in the outlooks and by NWS OUN in its AFD(s). Personally, given the significant uncertainty at play, I would have gone with an enlarged ENH rather than the very broad MDT for tomorrow. The fact that the ML trough is slower to eject on the latest ECMWF might also favour more capping, despite stronger forcing and more favourable shear vectors overall vs. earlier runs.

Re: CAMs: the thing is, the HRRR has a known tendency to eliminate capping too quickly in late-season setups over the Plains, owing in part to its mixing out of CINH. This is a bias that should probably be taken into account. Given the fact that a) projected high-end events have underperformed and b) marginal events exceeded expectations to date, I would be rather cautious about this D2 outlook, especially about a potential HIGH.

Bottom line: I think there is still a lot of room for yet another unexpected “Forecasted Convective Amplification Deficiency.” Given how synoptically evident this is, CAMs must be seeing something.

jiharris0220 said:
This is really reminding me of the day before the may 3, 1999 outbreak
Click to expand...
Uhh, personally, I think there is no justifiable reason to compare this with such a historic outbreak at this stage. I would think that other setups are more analogous and can be used to make the same comparisons that you do, without indirectly drawing attention to the likelihood of magnitude. Many of these had similar combinations of ingredients and uncertainties at play.
 
Casuarina Head said:
IIRC, similar wording and/or implication was used for 6 May, both in the outlooks and by NWS OUN in its AFD(s). Personally, given the significant uncertainty at play, I would have gone with an enlarged ENH rather than the very broad MDT for tomorrow. The fact that the ML trough is slower to eject on the latest ECMWF might also favour more capping, despite stronger forcing and more favourable shear vectors overall vs. earlier runs.

Re: CAMs: the thing is, the HRRR has a known tendency to eliminate capping too quickly in late-season setups over the Plains, owing in part to its mixing out of CINH. This is a bias that should probably be taken into account. Given the fact that a) projected high-end events have underperformed and b) marginal events exceeded expectations to date, I would be rather cautious about this D2 outlook, especially about a potential HIGH.

Bottom line: I think there is still a lot of room for yet another unexpected “Forecasted Convective Amplification Deficiency.” Given how synoptically evident this is, CAMs must be seeing something.


Uhh, personally, I think there is no justifiable reason to compare this with such a historic outbreak at this stage. I would think that other setups are more analogous and can be used to make the same comparisons that you do, without indirectly drawing attention to the likelihood of magnitude. Many of these had similar combinations of ingredients and uncertainties at play.
Click to expand...
There’s every reason to compare, may 3 wasn’t forecasted to be an historic outbreak until it was.

Tomorrow could surpass that day for all we know, because the potential is there, or nothing could happen at all.

I’m simply comparing from a forecasting perspective, not at all saying that tomorrow will be similar.
 
Casuarina Head said:
IIRC, similar wording and/or implication was used for 6 May, both in the outlooks and by NWS OUN in its AFD(s). Personally, given the significant uncertainty at play, I would have gone with an enlarged ENH rather than the very broad MDT for tomorrow. The fact that the ML trough is slower to eject on the latest ECMWF might also favour more capping, despite stronger forcing and more favourable shear vectors overall vs. earlier runs.

Re: CAMs: the thing is, the HRRR has a known tendency to eliminate capping too quickly in late-season setups over the Plains, owing in part to its mixing out of CINH. This is a bias that should probably be taken into account. Given the fact that a) projected high-end events have underperformed and b) marginal events exceeded expectations to date, I would be rather cautious about this D2 outlook, especially about a potential HIGH.

Bottom line: I think there is still a lot of room for yet another unexpected “Forecasted Convective Amplification Deficiency.” Given how synoptically evident this is, CAMs must be seeing something.


Uhh, personally, I think there is no justifiable reason to compare this with such a historic outbreak at this stage. I would think that other setups are more analogous and can be used to make the same comparisons that you do, without indirectly drawing attention to the likelihood of magnitude. Many of these had similar combinations of ingredients and uncertainties at play.
Click to expand...
I don’t get it. You said there’s a chance of this busting, yet here you are saying theres no reason to compare this to an historic outbreak. We don’t know what’s gonna happen, we can say “Forecasted Convective Amplification Deficiency” or “theres gonna be an EF5.” Regardless, we only know so much of the weather and we’re still learning. With all that being said, we don’t know what will happen tomorrow.
 
hurricaneguy said:
I would agree but not saying this will be anything like that by any means. Forecasters didnt know the true potential until the very early hours of May 3rd. We just have the advantage of seeing the potential setup even earlier now.
Click to expand...
Yeah I don’t think 5/3/99 is a good analogy here. That was a case where things came together the day of to elevate what looked like a run-of-the-mill May severe weather day in Oklahoma up until that morning. This is…not that.

Can’t see much reason not to go high on the first outlook tomorrow unless something majorly changes or they really aren’t sure if the cap will break. Very scary setup, not much else to say at this point.
 
warneagle said:
Yeah I don’t think 5/3/99 is a good analogy here. That was a case where things came together the day of to elevate what looked like a run-of-the-mill May severe weather day in Oklahoma up until that morning. This is…not that.

Can’t see much reason not to go high on the first outlook tomorrow unless something majorly changes or they really aren’t sure if the cap will break. Very scary setup, not much else to say at this point.
Click to expand...
We have to keep in mind that this was back in 1999, we certainly didn’t have the technology to simply ignore models showing no convection occurring like we can now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top