• 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

A Guy said:
I noticed this on the 06z forecast when it was issued yesterday (my time zone):

View attachment 27702

Does anyone have a specific meteorological definition of 'digging' on hand?
Click to expand...

I think it just refers to the way a trough appears to "dig down" toward the Equator on a map (here in the northern hemisphere).
 
Maxis_s said:
View attachment 27704
I think this was posted before but... does this mean confluence bands or something? I saw people freaking out over it and I'm a bit confused
Click to expand...
It’s actually pretty self explanatory, moisture convergence, it’s exactly how it sounds.

The parameter shows low level moisture, and how much is being focused on an area. These areas include any boundary including dry lines, warm fronts, cold fronts, confluence bands, stalled boundaries, etc.

Surface moisture tends to congeal/converge in these spots and so this parameter is useful for determining where convection might initiate.
 
jiharris0220 said:
It actually pretty self explanatory, moisture convergence, it’s exactly how it sounds.

The parameter shows low level moisture, and how much is being focused on an area. These areas include any boundary including dry lines, warm fronts, cold fronts, confluence bands, stalled boundaries, etc.

Surface moisture tends to congeal/converge in these spots and so this parameter is useful for determining where convection might initiate.
Click to expand...
So it is confluence bands kinda.
...well I'm scared.
Not even concerned, just scared. Tomorrow is going to be a horrible night.
 
jiharris0220 said:
Well, confluence bands are something that low level moisture tends to converge at, but like I said previously, any boundary typically has LLM convergence.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's why I said "kinda", because it's not specifically confluence bands but it's similar stuff that does what I expect it to do; initiate storms.
 
KCweatherboy said:
If anything, I feel like events like 4/27/11 and 4/3/74 belong in their own separate "extreme" risk category to truly convey the significance of those events. Days where it is well forecasted that it is going to be a very very bad day.
Click to expand...

KCweatherboy said:
I think your interpretation of a high-risk day is exactly what it should be imo, but it doesn't feel like a high-risk means that anymore to the public, which is unfortunate.
Click to expand...
I agree. After this season settles down the SPC should retroactively apply an "Extreme Risk" to generational events like 03-04 Apr 74, 27 Apr 11 & any applicable outbreak that comes afterward.
Clancy said:
I can't remember the other one, but the one that happened down South was April 7, 2006. That was a very long evening for us here.
Click to expand...
I don't know why the SPC didn't assign a 60% on 27 Apr 11 over N AL. That definitely deserved it more than Apr '06. Maybe they got too busy, which is altogether possible given how bad that day was for so many.
 
brianc33710 said:
I agree. After this season settles down the SPC should retroactively apply an "Extreme Risk" to generational events like 03-04 Apr 74, 27 Apr 11 & any applicable outbreak that comes afterward.

I don't know why the SPC didn't assign a 60% on 27 Apr 11 over N AL. That definitely deserved it more than Apr '06. Maybe they got too busy, which is altogether possible given how bad that day was for so many.
Click to expand...
Hindsight is 20/20. A 60% would have been warranted, sure, but maybe they hesitated to put it out because of the area the 45% covered. That would be my best guess, and when thinking from their perspective on that day, I don’t blame them for sticking with 45%.
 
brianc33710 said:
I agree. After this season settles down the SPC should retroactively apply an "Extreme Risk" to 03-04 Apr 74, 27 Apr 11 & any applicable outbreak that comes afterward.

I don't know why the SPC didn't assign a 60% on 27 Apr 11 over N AL. That definitely deserved it more than Apr '06. Maybe they got too busy, which is altogether possible given how bad that day was for so many.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree. However, adding another category would add even more confusion to the public in general. Definitely hard to get a 60% TOR probability nowadays, but I wouldn't think it impossible.
 
slenker said:
Hindsight is 20/20. A 60% would have been warranted, sure, but maybe they hesitated to put it out because of the area the 45% covered. That would be my best guess, and when thinking from their perspective on that day, I don’t blame them for sticking with 45%.
Click to expand...
To add on, they’re discussion the day of was about a few violent tornadoes possible? If I remember correctly, which a few can be between 3-5? Which would already be a memorable outbreak in itself. If they went with the 60% their verbiage would’ve been much more volatile.
 
JPWX said:
I tend to agree. However, adding another category would add even more confusion to the public in general. Definitely hard to get a 60% TOR probability nowadays, but I wouldn't think it impossible.
Click to expand...
For a 60% you would need every single model across the board to consistently agree 2 days at minimum, and all have to agree consistently that the environment has to be extreme and have essentially no failure modes whatsoever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top