I'd like to see Trey do a case study on this (or just anyone else, frankly) to see what really went wrong.
The High Risk was very clearly warranted based off of models and morning/afternoon observations, and yet almost everything still went wrong.
-
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 -
April 2024 Weather Video of the Month Post your nominations now!
Severe Weather Threat - May 6, 2024
- Thread starter KevinH
- Start date
The High Risk was very clearly warranted based off of models and morning/afternoon observations, and yet almost everything still went wrong.
Kds86z
Member
Indeed. In fact for his discussion yesterday he noted 5/20 and how this was different.
Tempestas Tonitrua
Member
Yeah, most storms clearly struggled with regards to tornado production. There was also the quick, destructive transition to a linear line for that first batch of supercells. Some of the CAM solutions of a very quick linear transition turned out to be correct.
What somewhat confuses me is how OUN was certain that it wouldn't go linear early on, and yet it still did. They also mentioned that if it became linear, it wouldn't affect the tornado potential. Maybe that second point remained true, since the storms on their own still didn't produce many tornadoes, but still, very confusing.
I know @joshoctober16 has an experimental tornado risk calculator with several things on there, and it mentioned BRN as a problem and that it would lead to a much more linear mode due to not enough 0-6km shear combined with the extreme CAPE values. Perhaps it wasn't wrong in that regard?
I know @joshoctober16 has an experimental tornado risk calculator with several things on there, and it mentioned BRN as a problem and that it would lead to a much more linear mode due to not enough 0-6km shear combined with the extreme CAPE values. Perhaps it wasn't wrong in that regard?
Clancy
Member
From soundings there was quite a bit of 3CAPE, so something else might've been going on. Main things I've heard thrown around is maybe cells moving parallel to shear vectors and, what seems perhaps most significant, the dry air aloft. Either way, I look forward to other folks' in-depth analysis on this event, and I'm certainly glad that storms out west didn't intensify, because we may have seen a lot more of what happened to Barnsdall last night.
Edit: Meant to say parallel, rather than perpendicular.
Last edited:
Yeah, we really had a best-case scenario last night, except for the Barnsdall storm. Thank god it wasn't as bad as it could've been.
Clancy
Member
Between those Thunderbolt 1000Ts and the tornado itself, the sound alone would give me many second thoughts about standing outside.
jiharris0220
Member
I wonder if we pull another 2024 style event in where today out performs yesterday.
- Messages
- 3,490
- Reaction score
- 5,617
- Location
- California, United States
- Special Affiliations
- SKYWARN® Volunteer
Careful. The storms might hear you.
Tempestas Tonitrua
Member
I think this also shows you can have the most high end thermodynamic environment and parameters off the chart, but if the smallest factor is out of whack or a healthy supercell isn’t in the area to take advantage, it doesn’t matter
Clancy
Member
Saw Brandon Black (MOB forecaster) suggest that it may have been too moist at the low levels (to add to the theories of parallel movement and dry mid-layer). Either way, shows how incredibly delicate the balance is for these freaks of mother nature.
Clancy
Member
Throwing a wrench into pretty much all of those theories. Agree with Halbert, I think the X-factor is still uncertain for this event.
warneagle
Member
Yeah exactly what I was thinking. Very similar connective evolution too, just a bit further east.
Clancy
Member
TSA has found evidence of at least EF-3 damage this morning in the SW corner of town, though from reports last night, the worst damage occurred on the east side.
warneagle
Member
Yeah I guess there’s also the “we don’t actually know why some supercells produce tornadoes and some don’t” aspect of it. Even on high-end days you usually don’t have every single cell putting down a long-tracker. Maybe there’s just some aspect of the process that we don’t understand yet?
Clancy
Member
Oh absolutely. There's still a lot to learn.
- Admin
- #1,718
- Messages
- 3,413
- Reaction score
- 2,739
- Location
- Fayetteville, AR
- Special Affiliations
- SKYWARN® Volunteer
Wow. I just figured out that this video is in true stereo. I can't wait to go home tonight and listen to this on the sound system. It is really good quality and scary at the same time.
joshoctober16
Member
man this really became just like the may 20 2019 high risk event....
i also notice a lot of these events we call bust tend to be storms making a mess.
its strange how it seems in the open no one is making some sort of way to check if its going to be a mess or not (qlsc and outflow and no space at all)
i also notice a lot of these events we call bust tend to be storms making a mess.
its strange how it seems in the open no one is making some sort of way to check if its going to be a mess or not (qlsc and outflow and no space at all)
Peter Griffin
Member
Just a classic case of we still have a whole lot to learn about tornadogenesis. There are just simply too many data points and variables to fathom. A seemingly endless number of interactions and outcomes are possible. Considering that though all-in-all I would say the SPC is pretty darn good.
Last edited:
