Severe Weather Threat - May 6, 2024

TornadoFan said:
SPC added a 30% risk area for Monday
Click to expand...
Intriguingly, despite the rise in confidence, the wording is rather iffy, almost implying a conditional setup, rather than a synoptically-evident one:
With a southerly low-level jet forecast to strengthen to at least 50-60 kt Saturday evening, a corresponding rapid increase in low-level shear will likely support a continued threat for tornadoes with any discrete convection. Some of these tornadoes could be strong.
Click to expand...
If I recall correctly, this phraseology implies that there may be complications that could modulate the extent, if not degree, of discrete activity. VBV issues seem to be a possibility, given the rather amplified pattern. Typically prior to high-confidence big Plains outbreaks widespread discrete activity is assumed as a given. In this case I don’t see it, but I could be missing something. The 00Z CIPS data look a bit less impressive too. Maybe a small hatched D1 MDT might verify for EF2+ tornadoes...even a more-linear solution might suffice to support this. I do think that if trends hold a D1 MDT may well be issued. Nevertheless, a bona-fide D1 HIGH verification has not been seen on the Plains in May for some time, so 2024 has a lot of catching up to do.
 
The more I look at the guidance, the more I see problems with convective mode and timing. The low is starting to look a bit more “occluded” vs. earlier runs, meaning more linear forcing and height-falls arriving a bit later. The overall pattern on Monday just does not seem to match that of HIGH-Risk days. It definitely supports a potential MDT, but not a HIGH. This part of the Plains has not seen a genuine HIGH-Risk D1 verification in a good while. There has certainly been a regional “lull” since the early 2010s (which to some extent is also seen elsewhere, e.g., parts of Dixie, though not to the same degree, as there have been a few top-tier events since then). We are seeing higher-amplitude, blockier setups and/or stronger EMLs during the traditional peak of the Plains season.
 
Don't recall anyone mentioning a high risk probability. It doesn't matter. There is a chance there could be severe weather - and probably tornadoes if the past week is any indication - for pretty much the next week. It doesn't take multiple tornadoes or even high-end tornadoes for people to lose their homes, their farms, be injured or lose their lives. Under the right circumstances, you can be killed by an EF0. Or a severe thunderstorm. The general public just needs to know that there is a threat and they need to act accordingly. Most of them don't know what a "high risk" or even the SPC are and don't care. Yes, it's fun playing armchair met and seeing videos, but the whole point of meteorology as a whole is to save lives. I think a lot of people have forgotten that. Thank God for Freddy yesterday because he didn't. /soapbox
 
MichelleH said:
Don't recall anyone mentioning a high risk probability. It doesn't matter. There is a chance there could be severe weather - and probably tornadoes if the past week is any indication - for pretty much the next week. It doesn't take multiple tornadoes or even high-end tornadoes for people to lose their homes, their farms, be injured or lose their lives. Under the right circumstances, you can be killed by an EF0. Or a severe thunderstorm. The general public just needs to know that there is a threat and they need to act accordingly. Most of them don't know what a "high risk" or even the SPC are and don't care. Yes, it's fun playing armchair met and seeing videos, but the whole point of meteorology as a whole is to save lives. I think a lot of people have forgotten that. Thank God for Freddy yesterday because he didn't. /soapbox
Click to expand...
You do have a point there (well, maybe not entirely on social media), but science and safety go hand in hand, and in this case I do not understand why discussing the more technical aspects of a potential outbreak, e.g., probabilistic, is off limits. In general there is also a fine line between undue complacency and unwarranted fear. While I can definitely agree that downplaying an event can be dangerous, I find that there is just as much risk in giving vent to hype, especially in today’s conditions. Our ancestors used to be very resilient for thousands of years, yet today we have things such as “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces.”

People have recovered from major catastrophes in the past, including natural, with far fewer resources than we have today. Today we almost have too many resources, or the wrong kinds of resources—maybe even disproportionate and/or inappropriate. Life itself is risky and miraculous, even in its smallest, most innocuous aspects. You are correct about the variables that can yield a wide array of hazards under various circumstances, however. On the other hand, by taking personal responsibility one can make some reasonable progress toward mitigating impacts from comparatively minor events, e.g., low-end* tornadoes.

*EF0/1
 
What I seeing as of now , course changes will happen . Model s and guidance I see, Monday and both Tuesday has a great chance seeing a moderate risk issued at some point . Interesting week ahead next week . Almost whole week at that
 
Casuarina Head said:
You do have a point there (well, maybe not entirely on social media), but science and safety go hand in hand, and in this case I do not understand why discussing the more technical aspects of a potential outbreak, e.g., probabilistic, is off limits. In general there is also a fine line between undue complacency and unwarranted fear. While I can definitely agree that downplaying an event can be dangerous, I find that there is just as much risk in giving vent to hype, especially in today’s conditions. Our ancestors used to be very resilient for thousands of years, yet today we have things such as “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces.”

People have recovered from major catastrophes in the past, including natural, with far fewer resources than we have today. Today we almost have too many resources, or the wrong kinds of resources—maybe even disproportionate and/or inappropriate. Life itself is risky and miraculous, even in its smallest, most innocuous aspects. You are correct about the variables that can yield a wide array of hazards under various circumstances, however. On the other hand, by taking personal responsibility one can make some reasonable progress toward mitigating impacts from comparatively minor events, e.g., low-end* tornadoes.

*EF0/1
Click to expand...
What you do is not discussing. It’s your extremely arrogant tone and the hundreds of times Andy or Fred or someone actually educated refuted your points and your refusal to ever admit you are wrong. You’ve been at this for years and this is your weird grift. There’s a word for people like you but I’m not going to use it on here because I’d get banned.

If I recall, on 3/31 of last year, you were saying “these storms are struggling in Arkansas” right as members of the community on here were sheltering.

To everyone else, he’s most likely a troll, so take whatever he says with a large grain of salt. It’s easy to set back and say “this event isn’t going to be 4/27/11”. Because we all know if we had an event of that magnitude again, he’d just move the goal posts to something else.

Edit: I do want to add, it’s a testament to the overall kindness of the majority of users here that you haven’t been laughed off or ridiculed off the forum. Sure we have disagreements on here, but everyone’s input is usually taken. I would imagine on a few other forums you’d be exiled within a week.
 
Last edited:
Next week from HUN:

Although details are unclear at this time range, conditions will
become more favorable for convection at the end of the extended
period (Wednesday night/Thursday), perhaps in the form of MCS
activity that may initiate along a cold front to our northwest and
propagate southeastward into the local area. Should this scenario
materialize, conditions will be favorable for organized severe
thunderstorms across our region, with boundary layer dewpoints in
the u60s-l70s beneath a belt of mid-level WSW fl
 
Clancy said:
Fairly substantial probabilities modelled by CSU's ML-model for D5 and D6.
Click to expand...
Wow, that's a massive area for D6.
Also, the 12z NAM for D4 looks interesting, but it shows a linear mode with no discrete convection. It's far out but it's still something of note.
 
Maxis_s said:
Wow, that's a massive area for D6.
Also, the 12z NAM for D4 looks interesting, but it shows a linear mode with no discrete convection. It's far out but it's still something of note.
Click to expand...
NAM has lined out almost every severe threat this year. I'm at the point of not even bothering to look at it anymore
 
cincywx said:


always love when the spc mets chime in
Click to expand...

Same.
TheSuckZone said:
NAM has lined out almost every severe threat this year. I'm at the point of not even bothering to look at it anymore
Click to expand...
CAMs were useless on last Saturday’s threat. They had convection firing throughout the day in Oklahoma. But we were staring at a barren warm sector during peak heating convection wise.
 
The NAM is still a dangerous solution, 84-hour modelled convective mode aside.

The bigger concern I have re: Monday is the degree of occlusion of the main upper low and separation from the jet streak that rounds its base later in the day. The 12z Euro shows this well, with a lack of "focus" to the main belt of mid/upper level flow (helps sharpen the dryline) and relatively meridional mid level flow. This would be less favorable for long lived supercells and encourage upscale growth. IMO, the Euro would not be a top tier event, but would probably still yield some significant severe. To get the high end, the trough needs to be a bit more focused on the southern end and stay more of an open wave as it ejects (something perhaps akin to the 12z UK, GFS, or Euro AIFS solutions).
 
Casuarina Head said:
You do have a point there (well, maybe not entirely on social media), but science and safety go hand in hand, and in this case I do not understand why discussing the more technical aspects of a potential outbreak, e.g., probabilistic, is off limits. In general there is also a fine line between undue complacency and unwarranted fear. While I can definitely agree that downplaying an event can be dangerous, I find that there is just as much risk in giving vent to hype, especially in today’s conditions. Our ancestors used to be very resilient for thousands of years, yet today we have things such as “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces.”

People have recovered from major catastrophes in the past, including natural, with far fewer resources than we have today. Today we almost have too many resources, or the wrong kinds of resources—maybe even disproportionate and/or inappropriate. Life itself is risky and miraculous, even in its smallest, most innocuous aspects. You are correct about the variables that can yield a wide array of hazards under various circumstances, however. On the other hand, by taking personal responsibility one can make some reasonable progress toward mitigating impacts from comparatively minor events, e.g., low-end* tornadoes.

*EF0/1
Click to expand...
To be honest... I'm no moderator or anything but this seems like it belongs on the "Random Comment Thread" more than a severe weather thread.
 
Back to next weeks threat , spc seems pretty confident upgrades are coming for days 4 and 5 also. The ozarkanto across the mid south area…area wide of summer time dew points in the spring with strong jet , equals trouble
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top