Login to AccuWeather.com Premium Login to AccuWeather.com Professional Login to AccuWeather.com RadarPlus AccuWeather.com
We have updated our Privacy Policy and our Cookie Policy effective May 25, 2018. Please review them.
X

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Closed TopicStart new topic
> SPC Outlooks/Watches/Warnings - Disco
Chicago Storm
post Jun 1 2011, 01:44 AM
Post #1




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 34,724
Joined: 14-February 08
From: The 630
Member No.: 13,697





Broken off from the current severe weather thread...

This post has been edited by Chicago Storm: Jun 1 2011, 01:44 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Chicago Storm
post Jun 1 2011, 01:44 AM
Post #2




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 34,724
Joined: 14-February 08
From: The 630
Member No.: 13,697





QUOTE(Hertz @ May 31 2011, 08:09 PM) *
(referencing my post)

About Kerr, he's fooled me twice now this year by putting me in notably higher tornado probabilities in his outlook than there were in both the previous AND next outlooks - it's as straightforward as these statistics:

April 27, 2011:
1630Z outlook (not by Kerr) - My probability = 5% unhatched
2000Z outlook (by Kerr) - My probability = 10%-15% with some hatching nearby
0100Z outlook (not by Kerr) - My probability = 5% unhatched = same as 1630Z

May 31, 2011:
1630Z outlook (not by Kerr) - My probability = Just barely in a 2% zone
2000Z outlook (by Kerr) - My probability = Clearly in a 5% zone
0100Z outlook (not by Kerr) - My probability = Not even in a 2% zone < my 1630Z probability

The same applies for most areas around me as well, so this is not strictly IMBY. Notice a pattern? In both cases, Kerr's 20Z outlook is far more sensational than the 1630Z outlook and then the succeeding 0100Z outlook is at most the same probability as the 1630Z outlook (because in today's case, it's actually less).

I don't see how I can prove this part better than stating the raw facts.

Did you look at the analysis for the events?

April 27th, '11: Your area(Cleveland) was indeed under 5% tor probs on both the 1630z and 0100z outlooks. For the 2000z outlook, the Cleveland area was actually on the far northern edge of the 10% probs and not near the hatching, which extended up into C. Ohio.

Looking over the analysis, a 996mb SLP was moving northeast from the Bootheel of Missouri up towards Detroit. This portion of the trough had taken on a negaive tilt with a 500mb flow of 100+kts and even the 850mb flow was 70+kts. The setup was favorable for not only cells moving up from the south to produce a severe/tornado theat, but also a QCLS along the cold front. In the end it did not end up panning out that far north, but the potential was there.

May 31st, '11: The past day or so and even through the day today, hi-res/short term models showed a good amount of activity developing along/ahead of the cold front. As the day went on they backed off the poential. On top of this, other things did not pan out as they were projected to. This is why today did not live up to the potential it had at one time. There was an ample amount of instibility and a weak convergence boundary could have helped to initiate some storms...along with any that could have moved in from the west. Even though winds a the surface were veered, SRH values were over 100 in your area, which would aide in some tornado threat...worthy enough for 5% probs. Did widespread development occur? No, for a few reasons. For one the main forcing ended up pushing into Wisconsin, Northern-Upper Michigan and then into Canada. Also, convecive debris limited development in WI/IL/IN along the cold front. These storms would have moved in during the evening/night. As for development in the local area, 700mb temps and the lack of convergence ended up preventing it, even though the weak convergence boundary was in the area.

This post has been edited by Chicago Storm: Jun 1 2011, 02:23 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Chicago Storm
post Jun 1 2011, 02:25 AM
Post #3




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 34,724
Joined: 14-February 08
From: The 630
Member No.: 13,697





QUOTE(Hertz @ May 31 2011, 08:09 PM) *
And I've seen many other days besides today in which SPC did not follow what I stated in the above paragraph. They always bother me, even if it's not IMBY. Here's a solid four examples I can find from 2010:

1. April 4, 2010 1300Z, 1630Z, and 2000Z outlooks in Arkansas
2. April 5, 2010 same outlooks as April 4 except in western KS/western OK
3. September 23, 2010 0100Z outlook (24/0100Z issuance) in much of Upper MS Valley region
4. October 26, 2010 0100Z outlook (27/0100Z issuance) in northern Mid-Atlantic states (mainly PA/NJ)

And none of these referenced outlooks involved 5% or greater tornado probs in my area.

Once again may I ask, did you even look a the analysis for the events?...

1. April 4th, '10: I actually remember this day very well. Many of the hi-res/short term models where painting a scenario where numerous discrete cells were to develop in portions of Arkansas during the late afternoon/evening. These models showed this all of the way through the day of the potential event. As the day went on they continued to hammer away at the potential. SPC analysis showed SRH values around or above 300, which is quite high. Wind profiles were quite nice and there was a decent amount of instibility. The issue with this day was the cap. Even though the cap was a concern, the models were showing development so he SPC went with 5%/non-hatched tornado probs, which was acually conservative given the uncertainty. As menioned above, many models were breaking the cap allowing vigorous development to occur. There were a few soundings throughout the day from LZK which did show changes in the capping, but by the 0z sounding the cap had acually increased. By this time it was clear development would not occur and the new models runs finally backed off the potential for development. In his case the SPC did prepare for if development were to occur as models showed with 5% probs, while at the same time they stayed conservaive due to the uncertainty as the soundings showed. If this event would have panned out, we would have likely seen 10-15%/hatched probabilities. There is nothing wrong with how they handled this situation.

2. April 5th, '10: The SPC had 5%/non-hatched tornado probs up for the KS/OK area in all three outlooks. Analysis for the area shows favorable wind profiles and SRH values of 300-500 by 0z, which is quite high. The poential for tornadoes was there. In there outlooks for this area they hit it hard that the threat is conditional due to capping, but if development occurs the potential is there. The also played this situation well with the 5% probs, as if the event would have panned out 10-15%/hatched probs would have been needed. So they stayed conservative due to the uncertainty while at the same time keeping the area prepared that there is the potential risk. They once again handled things quite well.

3. Sept 23rd, '10: With this situation the outlook included 5%/non-hached tornado probs. Analysis shows wind profiles were favorable for tornadoes ahead of the cold front/souh of the warm front in the MN/IA/IW/IL area. SRH values were VERY high, running between 300-700. The biggest issue on the day was convective debris, which we have seen mess up threats on multiple occasions. On this day, if and where clearing would occur things were favorable for tornadoes. This is yet another day that he were conservative by going with 5% probs due to the convective debris issues, bu also prepared the area for the potential higher threat. This is also another day that would have seen 10-15%/hatched tornado probs if things would have panned out.

4. Oct 26th, '10: There are in question(PA/NJ) had 5% tornado probs for the 0100z outlook. This was the "Octo-bomb" from last Fall that many of us remember. A negaive tilt trough and sub-960mb SLP were located in the Midwest. A serial derecho had started in the Mississippi Valley late on the 26th, and was set to push into the area in question later in the day on the 27th. The line had a history of producing widespread damaging winds and numerous embedded tornadoes. In the PA/NJ risk area wind profiles and SRH values(300-600) were favorable for tornadoes. There were no reports in this portion of the risk area, but the potenial was there given a favorable enviroment and the history of the line. The SPC handled this situation well too.

This post has been edited by Chicago Storm: Jun 1 2011, 02:30 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Chicago Storm
post Jun 1 2011, 03:03 AM
Post #4




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 34,724
Joined: 14-February 08
From: The 630
Member No.: 13,697





QUOTE(Hertz @ May 31 2011, 08:09 PM) *
As for the conditional threats, I'm simply saying that these are the highest probabilties that should be issued in any outlook of the day given that notable severe storm development has not occured yet nor is imminent, and the level of uncertainly that severe storms will eventually develop over and/or move into the area during the outlook period is:

Low - This would mean they're fairly certain of the threat, so I don't consider this conditional.

Moderate - This would mean there's modest uncertainty, and therefore I'd call the threat "moderately conditional". In this case, the max probabilities that should be used are: 2% tornado, 15% wind/hail (slight risk for wind/hail, sub-slight risk for tornadoes).

High - This would mean that development is highly uncertain, and therefore the threat is "highly conditional". In this case, the max probabilities that should be used are: 2% tornado, 5% wind/hail (non-zero but sub-slight risk in all three categories).

So the bottom line is, if it's at least moderately conditional (and I don't consider anything less than moderately conditional to even be conditional, so that's kind of a moot point), the tornado probabilities should not be slight risk level or above.

What you're trying to suggest they do really makes no sense at all.

As mentioned in the previous two posts, all 6 events you questioned the SPC actually handled very well. With most of the events in question the SPC was conservative given some uncertainty, but at the same time they had high enough probs to make the areas in the outlook aware of a potentially higher end threat. This is essentially the "middle of the road" option. They can either back down a bit or scale things up depending on how thing evolve. This is a much better way to handle things instead of having to back way down after hyping things up or really ramp things up with short notice, potentially puting peoples lives in danger. When the higher probabilities are issued, local safey/emergency management offices prepare for the situation in he risk area. So the "middle of the road" option also helps them, as it prepares them for the poential without hyping it up to much given uncertainty. This is also why the wording in outlooks says a lot into the event and it's potential too.

With a few of the events you mentioned, models showed that the event was going to occur even as the day of was occuring, only to end up being wrong. In those cases the "middle of the road" option also worked quite well.

The technology we have for predicting the weather and for watches/warnings is quite amazing if you think about it. We're at the point where we have higher resolution/short range models that can sometimes correctly predict locations of squall lines/supercells 24hrs out on the simulated radar. What makes it amazing is that there are so many things that go on within that 24hr period that can alter the outcome of the situation, that when they're right it's quite remarkable. Even though we have this technology, we are still nowhere near totally accurately predicting the weather.

This post has been edited by Chicago Storm: Jun 1 2011, 03:03 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hertz
post Jun 1 2011, 02:06 PM
Post #5




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,107
Joined: 14-May 10
From: Cleveland, OH
Member No.: 22,778





QUOTE(Chicago Storm @ Jun 1 2011, 03:25 AM) *
Once again may I ask, did you even look a the analysis for the events?...

1. April 4th, '10: I actually remember this day very well. Many of the hi-res/short term models where painting a scenario where numerous discrete cells were to develop in portions of Arkansas during the late afternoon/evening. These models showed this all of the way through the day of he potential event. As the day went on they continued to hammer away at the potential. SPC analysis showed SRH values around or above 300, which is quite high. Wind profiles were quie nice and there was a decent amount of instibility. The issue with this day was the cap. Even though the cap was a concern, the models were showing development so he SPC went with 5%/non-hatched tornado probs, which was acually conservaive given the uncertainy. As menioned above, many models were breaking the cap allowing vigorous development to occur. There were a few soundings throughout the day from LZK which did show changes in the capping, but by the 0z sounding the cap had acually increased. By this ime it was clear development would not occur and the new models runs finally backed off the potential for development. In his case the SPC did prepare for if development were to occur as models showed with 5% probs, while at the same time they stayed conservaive due to the uncertainty as the soundings showed. If this event would have panned out, we would have likely seen 10-15%/hatched probabilities. There is nothing wrong with how they handled this situation.

2. April 5th, '10: The SPC had 5%/non-hatched tornado probs up for the KS/OK area in all three outlooks. Analysis for the area shows favorable wind profiles and SRH values of 300-500 by 0z, which is quite high. The poential for tornadoes was there. In there outlooks for this area hey hit it hard that the threat is conditional due to capping, but if development occurs the potential is there. The also played this situation well wih the 5% probs, as if the event would have panned out 10-15%/hatched probs would have been needed. So they stayed conservative due ot the uncertainty while at the same time keeping the area prepared that there is the poential risk. They once again handled things quite well.

3. Sept 23rd, '10: With this situation the outlook included 5%/non-hached tornado probs. Analysis shows wind profiles were favorable for tornadoes ahead of the cold front/souh of the warm front in the MN/IA/IW/IL area. SRH values were VERY high, running between 300-700. The biggest issue on the day was convective debris, which we have seen mess up threats on multiple occasions. On this day, if and where clearing would occur things were favorable for tornadoes. This is yet another day that he were conservative by going with 5% probs due to the convective debris issues, bu also prepared the area for the potential higher threat. This is also another day that would have seen 10-15%/hatched tornado probs if things would have panned out.

4. Oct 26th, '10: There are in question(PA/NJ) had 5% tornado probs for the 0100z outlook. This was the "Octo-bomb" from last Fall that many of us remember. A negaive tilt trough and sub-960mb SLP were located in the Midwest. A serial derecho had started in the Mississippi Valley late on the 26th, and was set to push into the area in question later in the day on the 27th. The line had a history of producing widespread damaging winds and numerous embedded tornadoes. In the PA/NJ risk area wind profiles and SRH values(300-600) were favorable for tornadoes. There were no reports in this portion of the risk area, but the potenial was there given a favorable enviroment and the history of the line. The SPC handled this situation well too.


You've explained each situation quite well, but in most cases I have a few questions, or actually more so a need to clarify exactly where my complaint is rooted:

Situation #1 (4/4) : Yes I remember the models showed it also the shear and such was favorable but there was NO visible apparent at all. It seemed to me that the models that day were "dreaming storms", since there was so blatantly no focus for them to develop. So I think that unless I was missing some subtle trigger, the SPC was wrong to believe the models that day. It's like someone knowingly doing something harmful and then giving the excuse, "someone told me to do this".

Situation #2 (4/5) : Explainable, assuming the models were showing something the risk was warranted AND it was dropped at 01Z after sunset (this becomes a big part of where my arguments are rooted in the last two situations).

Situations #3 (9/23) : You say it's the lack of sufficient heating that caused this threat not to pan out, which is likely the case - I never was trying to argue the potential wasn't there. However, my performance complaint here dealt with ONLY the 01Z outlook, NOT any previous outlooks. So the potential for the necessary daytime heating had already failed in those areas, yet SPC maintained the 5% probs anyways.

Situation #4 (10/26) : The massive and powerful squall line had diminished to essentially nothing but a big glop of rain by then for areas that far north, and like in #3 I'm only focused on the 01Z outlook, so there would be no heating to help restrengthen anything.

So I definitely understand things more now, but maybe I didn't point out clear enough where my primary complaint was rooted in #'s 1,3, and 4. Now that I should have clearly explained precisely where my complaint lies, on an appropriate thread (thanks for moving this to questions), and with clear background knowledge of the situation each day, could you please reply with your thoughts on whether or not you agree with my argument?

(Note: Unless you want to further comment on it, Situation #2 can be considered to be closed, as in that case the risk was certainly warranted in the outlook(s) I'm referencing per what you said, and I had only included it in the first place because I was listing anything that was conditional that I remembered.)

Also I thought I'd throw in my say with April 27 and May 31 this year, because in both cases, my argument can be explained quite simply - it is simply the fact the SPC upped the risk for tornadoes at 20Z versus what they had at 1630Z, and for no real apparent reason from what I can tell - as I can't see how they would have thought the threat was higher at 20Z than they did at 1630Z. Although, as a "compliment", the higher risks were terminated at 01Z in both cases, which means the type of arguments I made on Situations #3 and #4 above does not apply to either of these. (I know on April 27 it was still a 5% risk at 01Z but with what happened in the south that day and the strength of that system, I never would have expected less, plus there was an active tornado watch just to my south at that point, and to me a tornado watch implies at least 5% probs on the map.) So in summary, my argument in both of these cases is related to changes in the 20Z outlook versus the 1630Z outlook - and a mysterious fact I'm aware of - the 20Z outlook was done by the same forecaster, Kerr, in both cases.

This post has been edited by Hertz: Jun 1 2011, 02:20 PM


--------------------
Let's hope this winter actually happens!

Severe Wx 2013 Cuyahoga Cty


Severe thunderstorm watches: 6/12-6/13 (night), 6/25, 7/10, 7/23, 10/31-11/1 (night)
Tornado watches: 11/17
Tornado warnings: 6/12, 7/10
Slight Risk days: 4/10, 5/21, 5/22, 5/28, 6/1, 6/12, 6/24, 6/25, 6/26, 7/10, 7/19, 7/23, 8/7, 8/27, 9/11, 9/20, 10/6, 10/31
Moderate Risk days: 11/17
High Risk days:
Strongest thunderstorm to date (at CLE airport): 57 mph on 6/25 & 11/17 (thunderless convection on 11/17)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
locomusic01
post Jun 1 2011, 02:53 PM
Post #6




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,118
Joined: 4-September 10
From: Honesdale, PA
Member No.: 23,585





I've not read all of this thread, so my bad if you've covered it already, but what's your point? I understand you have an issue with the outlooks, but why make such a huge deal of it? Is a 3% difference in tornado chances really that upsetting to you? These forecasts are issued with the goal of increasing public awareness and safety in any case where parameters indicate severe weather may happen. If they were issuing moderate or high risks when there are no parameters to back it up I could certainly understand being upset, but.. a 3 or 5% difference? Really? What would your thoughts be if they didn't mention the chance of tornadoes at all and one ended up forming?

Predicting tornadoes is maddening, as an example today in the NE/Mid Atl. we had excellent parameters, CAPE through the roof, huge LI, etc.. and thus far we've ended up with very little activity. And likewise there are plenty of cases where the environment did not seem overly favorable for tornadic activity, and one or several ultimately formed. I honestly cannot for the life of me figure out what you imagine the issue to be. Are you just scared of tornadoes? Do you not realize how complex a task this is? Are you grossly overestimating our ability to predict such events? I honestly have no idea.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hertz
post Jun 1 2011, 02:56 PM
Post #7




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,107
Joined: 14-May 10
From: Cleveland, OH
Member No.: 22,778





QUOTE(locomusic01 @ Jun 1 2011, 03:53 PM) *
I've not read all of this thread, so my bad if you've covered it already, but what's your point? I understand you have an issue with the outlooks, but why make such a huge deal of it? Is a 3% difference in tornado chances really that upsetting to you? These forecasts are issued with the goal of increasing public awareness and safety in any case where parameters indicate severe weather may happen. If they were issuing moderate or high risks when there are no parameters to back it up I could certainly understand being upset, but.. a 3 or 5% difference? Really? What would your thoughts be if they didn't mention the chance of tornadoes at all and one ended up forming?

Predicting tornadoes is maddening, as an example today in the NE/Mid Atl. we had excellent parameters, CAPE through the roof, huge LI, etc.. and thus far we've ended up with very little activity. And likewise there are plenty of cases where the environment did not seem overly favorable for tornadic activity, and one or several ultimately formed. I honestly cannot for the life of me figure out what you imagine the issue to be. Are you just scared of tornadoes? Do you not realize how complex a task this is? Are you grossly overestimating our ability to predict such events? I honestly have no idea.


Scared of tornadoes. I want the outlook to only include probabilities that are relatively certain.


--------------------
Let's hope this winter actually happens!

Severe Wx 2013 Cuyahoga Cty


Severe thunderstorm watches: 6/12-6/13 (night), 6/25, 7/10, 7/23, 10/31-11/1 (night)
Tornado watches: 11/17
Tornado warnings: 6/12, 7/10
Slight Risk days: 4/10, 5/21, 5/22, 5/28, 6/1, 6/12, 6/24, 6/25, 6/26, 7/10, 7/19, 7/23, 8/7, 8/27, 9/11, 9/20, 10/6, 10/31
Moderate Risk days: 11/17
High Risk days:
Strongest thunderstorm to date (at CLE airport): 57 mph on 6/25 & 11/17 (thunderless convection on 11/17)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
locomusic01
post Jun 1 2011, 03:05 PM
Post #8




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,118
Joined: 4-September 10
From: Honesdale, PA
Member No.: 23,585





QUOTE(Hertz @ Jun 1 2011, 03:56 PM) *
Scared of tornadoes. I want the outlook to only include probabilities that are relatively certain.


I can understand being afraid, but probabilities are ultimately not nearly as important as you seem to think. If you're that scared, just learn as much as you can about them. People tend to fear things they don't understand, not to mention the fact that most tornadoes are absolutely nothing like what people see on TV/movies/news, etc. The average tornado is on the ground very briefly, just a few miles, and is only a couple hundred yards wide. Monster EF3 - EF5 tornadoes are VERY rare, it's just that they're covered so often that it causes people a lot of unnecessary fear.

I used to fear tornadoes too, and then I started learning about them, became a SKYWARN spotter, etc.. and I'm no longer afraid. Anyway, the point is obsessing over probabilities does nothing but anger everyone. Probabilities are not nearly certain and will NEVER be with our current technology - you could have a tornado with a 2% probability, or you could have no tornado with an 80% probability. Even if there's a tornado warning directly over your area, that still doesn't mean you're going to get one. I've had probably 15-20 warnings, and the closest a tornado has ever come to my house is 5-10 miles. As long as you're well-informed, and you have a solid plan of action in case of emergency, there's nothing to fear and there's nothing else you can do. It's not worth stressing yourself and others out.

This post has been edited by locomusic01: Jun 1 2011, 03:06 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hertz
post Jun 1 2011, 03:16 PM
Post #9




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,107
Joined: 14-May 10
From: Cleveland, OH
Member No.: 22,778





QUOTE(locomusic01 @ Jun 1 2011, 04:05 PM) *
I can understand being afraid, but probabilities are ultimately not nearly as important as you seem to think. If you're that scared, just learn as much as you can about them. People tend to fear things they don't understand, not to mention the fact that most tornadoes are absolutely nothing like what people see on TV/movies/news, etc. The average tornado is on the ground very briefly, just a few miles, and is only a couple hundred yards wide. Monster EF3 - EF5 tornadoes are VERY rare, it's just that they're covered so often that it causes people a lot of unnecessary fear.

I used to fear tornadoes too, and then I started learning about them, became a SKYWARN spotter, etc.. and I'm no longer afraid. Anyway, the point is obsessing over probabilities does nothing but anger everyone. Probabilities are not nearly certain and will NEVER be with our current technology - you could have a tornado with a 2% probability, or you could have no tornado with an 80% probability. Even if there's a tornado warning directly over your area, that still doesn't mean you're going to get one. I've had probably 15-20 warnings, and the closest a tornado has ever come to my house is 5-10 miles. As long as you're well-informed, and you have a solid plan of action in case of emergency, there's nothing to fear and there's nothing else you can do. It's not worth stressing yourself and others out.


I should have added (now will add) that furthermore, tornado probabilities really only worry me when they are at night, during my sleeping hours. Any probability that could be effective between the hours of 11PM and 6AM.

I actually have a plan with my family that takes effect on a night where the tornado probability is 5% or greater. I start by staying up myself until about 2:30 in the morning or when the tornado threat looks to have very clearly diminished. If at 2:30 it still looks as if there's a 5% or greater risk of tornadoes, I will call one of my parents to get up and look at the weather for the remainder of the night or until the threat is passed so I can get at least 4-5 hours of sleep. (This splits sleep time, as my parents go to bed at 10PM, giving them also 4-5 hours of sleep.) However, while this plan does reduce my anxiety over tornadoes to notably less that it would be without the plan, it does come with the inconvenience of both me and a family member potentially getting short sleep on a night where tornado probabilities persist well into the night. And I like the night to be "personal time" for me, time in which I can just relax, sleep, and/or do whatever else I want - not be constantly monitoring for severe weather.

Maybe is there a better plan I could have that would stilll keep me safe from my ultimate fear - having everyone in the house be asleep when a potentially tornadic thunderstorm rolls in?

This post has been edited by Hertz: Jun 1 2011, 03:20 PM


--------------------
Let's hope this winter actually happens!

Severe Wx 2013 Cuyahoga Cty


Severe thunderstorm watches: 6/12-6/13 (night), 6/25, 7/10, 7/23, 10/31-11/1 (night)
Tornado watches: 11/17
Tornado warnings: 6/12, 7/10
Slight Risk days: 4/10, 5/21, 5/22, 5/28, 6/1, 6/12, 6/24, 6/25, 6/26, 7/10, 7/19, 7/23, 8/7, 8/27, 9/11, 9/20, 10/6, 10/31
Moderate Risk days: 11/17
High Risk days:
Strongest thunderstorm to date (at CLE airport): 57 mph on 6/25 & 11/17 (thunderless convection on 11/17)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
locomusic01
post Jun 1 2011, 03:29 PM
Post #10




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,118
Joined: 4-September 10
From: Honesdale, PA
Member No.: 23,585





QUOTE(Hertz @ Jun 1 2011, 04:16 PM) *
I should have added (now will add) that furthermore, tornado probabilities really only worry me when they are at night, during my sleeping hours. Any probability that could be effective between the hours of 11PM and 6AM.

I actually have a plan with my family that takes effect on a night where the tornado probability is 5% or greater. I start by staying up myself until about 2:30 in the morning or when the tornado threat looks to have very clearly diminished. If at 2:30 it still looks as if there's a 5% or greater risk of tornadoes, I will call one of my parents to get up and look at the weather for the remainder of the night or until the threat is passed so I can get at least 4-5 hours of sleep. (This splits sleep time, as my parents go to bed at 10PM, giving them also 4-5 hours of sleep.) However, while this plan does reduce my anxiety over tornadoes to notably less that it would be without the plan, it does come with the inconvenience of both me and a family member potentially getting short sleep on a night where tornado probabilities persist well into the night. And I like the night to be "personal time" for me, time in which I can just relax, sleep, and/or do whatever else I want - not be constantly monitoring for severe weather.

Maybe is there a better plan I could have that would stilll keep me safe from my ultimate fear - having everyone in the house be asleep when a potentially tornadic thunderstorm rolls in?


Do you have a cell phone? There are a number of apps/programs that will notify you any time there is a tornado warning issued (or any other warnings of your choosing). I know some people still worry that tornado warnings aren't always sufficient, but they've increased in accuracy and lead time greatly in recent years. Also there are programs for the PC that include visual and audio alarms any time a warning is issued for the area you choose. Like this, for example:

http://www.interwarn.com/iwdesc.html

I'm not familiar with what options are out there, exactly, but I know there are many ways to receive alerts when necessary. A NOAA weather radio is also a very good, cheap option. That way you can relax (hopefully) and not have to worry about keeping an eye on things. You'll be notified any time there is cause for concern.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hertz
post Jun 1 2011, 03:35 PM
Post #11




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,107
Joined: 14-May 10
From: Cleveland, OH
Member No.: 22,778





QUOTE(locomusic01 @ Jun 1 2011, 04:29 PM) *
Do you have a cell phone? There are a number of apps/programs that will notify you any time there is a tornado warning issued (or any other warnings of your choosing). I know some people still worry that tornado warnings aren't always sufficient, but they've increased in accuracy and lead time greatly in recent years. Also there are programs for the PC that include visual and audio alarms any time a warning is issued for the area you choose. Like this, for example:

http://www.interwarn.com/iwdesc.html

I'm not familiar with what options are out there, exactly, but I know there are many ways to receive alerts when necessary. A NOAA weather radio is also a very good, cheap option. That way you can relax (hopefully) and not have to worry about keeping an eye on things. You'll be notified any time there is cause for concern.


Potentially a good idea!, except whatever I get needs to be VERY loud, so it will wake the whole house up immediately. Would one of the computer or cell phone apps work for this?

Also is there any free software you know of that will do this?

Everything I'm finding is only allowing me trials - even what you linked to is just a trial for download.

This post has been edited by Hertz: Jun 1 2011, 03:45 PM


--------------------
Let's hope this winter actually happens!

Severe Wx 2013 Cuyahoga Cty


Severe thunderstorm watches: 6/12-6/13 (night), 6/25, 7/10, 7/23, 10/31-11/1 (night)
Tornado watches: 11/17
Tornado warnings: 6/12, 7/10
Slight Risk days: 4/10, 5/21, 5/22, 5/28, 6/1, 6/12, 6/24, 6/25, 6/26, 7/10, 7/19, 7/23, 8/7, 8/27, 9/11, 9/20, 10/6, 10/31
Moderate Risk days: 11/17
High Risk days:
Strongest thunderstorm to date (at CLE airport): 57 mph on 6/25 & 11/17 (thunderless convection on 11/17)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
locomusic01
post Jun 1 2011, 03:47 PM
Post #12




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,118
Joined: 4-September 10
From: Honesdale, PA
Member No.: 23,585





I'm not sure, I've never used them but I know several people who have. I would imagine programs for the computer would fit the bill since you can adjust the volume as loudly as you need. Anyway, couldn't you just use something to wake you up so that you could wake everyone else?

I'm sure there are solutions out there that will work for you, just might have to do some digging to find them. I know several people here have weather radios as well, may want to ask around about that. I'd like to be more helpful but I'm not really familiar with the options that are out there. It's something to really look into though, it'll save you a lot of anxiety.

Have you ever gone to a SKYWARN program? That may be very helpful for you as well.

Yeah, I'm sure most of them aren't free. There may be some free programs, but even if you have to pay it sounds as if it'd be worth it for you.

This post has been edited by locomusic01: Jun 1 2011, 03:48 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hertz
post Jun 1 2011, 03:51 PM
Post #13




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,107
Joined: 14-May 10
From: Cleveland, OH
Member No.: 22,778





QUOTE(locomusic01 @ Jun 1 2011, 04:47 PM) *
I'm not sure, I've never used them but I know several people who have. I would imagine programs for the computer would fit the bill since you can adjust the volume as loudly as you need. Anyway, couldn't you just use something to wake you up so that you could wake everyone else?

I'm sure there are solutions out there that will work for you, just might have to do some digging to find them. I know several people here have weather radios as well, may want to ask around about that. I'd like to be more helpful but I'm not really familiar with the options that are out there. It's something to really look into though, it'll save you a lot of anxiety.

Have you ever gone to a SKYWARN program? That may be very helpful for you as well.

Yeah, I'm sure most of them aren't free. There may be some free programs, but even if you have to pay it sounds as if it'd be worth it for you.


If it's not loud enoguh to wake the whole house up I don't consider it long enough to wake me up.

I'm looking, but I really think there should be at least ONE free program, would you mind helping me see if you can find one?

ps Also do you have any information regarding my question about summertime NAO effects?:
http://forums.accuweather.com/index.php?showtopic=26480


--------------------
Let's hope this winter actually happens!

Severe Wx 2013 Cuyahoga Cty


Severe thunderstorm watches: 6/12-6/13 (night), 6/25, 7/10, 7/23, 10/31-11/1 (night)
Tornado watches: 11/17
Tornado warnings: 6/12, 7/10
Slight Risk days: 4/10, 5/21, 5/22, 5/28, 6/1, 6/12, 6/24, 6/25, 6/26, 7/10, 7/19, 7/23, 8/7, 8/27, 9/11, 9/20, 10/6, 10/31
Moderate Risk days: 11/17
High Risk days:
Strongest thunderstorm to date (at CLE airport): 57 mph on 6/25 & 11/17 (thunderless convection on 11/17)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
futureweatherman...
post Jun 1 2011, 06:06 PM
Post #14




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 11,919
Joined: 27-August 08
From: NW OH
Member No.: 15,447





QUOTE(Hertz @ Jun 1 2011, 04:16 PM) *
I should have added (now will add) that furthermore, tornado probabilities really only worry me when they are at night, during my sleeping hours. Any probability that could be effective between the hours of 11PM and 6AM.

I actually have a plan with my family that takes effect on a night where the tornado probability is 5% or greater. I start by staying up myself until about 2:30 in the morning or when the tornado threat looks to have very clearly diminished. If at 2:30 it still looks as if there's a 5% or greater risk of tornadoes, I will call one of my parents to get up and look at the weather for the remainder of the night or until the threat is passed so I can get at least 4-5 hours of sleep. (This splits sleep time, as my parents go to bed at 10PM, giving them also 4-5 hours of sleep.) However, while this plan does reduce my anxiety over tornadoes to notably less that it would be without the plan, it does come with the inconvenience of both me and a family member potentially getting short sleep on a night where tornado probabilities persist well into the night. And I like the night to be "personal time" for me, time in which I can just relax, sleep, and/or do whatever else I want - not be constantly monitoring for severe weather.

Maybe is there a better plan I could have that would stilll keep me safe from my ultimate fear - having everyone in the house be asleep when a potentially tornadic thunderstorm rolls in?



QUOTE(Hertz @ Jun 1 2011, 04:35 PM) *
Potentially a good idea!, except whatever I get needs to be VERY loud, so it will wake the whole house up immediately. Would one of the computer or cell phone apps work for this?

Also is there any free software you know of that will do this?

Everything I'm finding is only allowing me trials - even what you linked to is just a trial for download.

Just buy a weather radio.

I understand that you would be concerned about a nighttime tornado risk, but I encourage you to learn more about it rather than freak out over what is realistically a very small difference in percentage. Besides, a 2% risk of a tornado is within a 25 mile radius of you- and a tornado is typically 100 yards wide or less. The probability of hitting one exact point (such as your house) is statistically incredibly minuscule.

By the way- as far as the October 26th event- There were several uncertainties that led to the eventual downgrade of the severe weather threat. Convective debris/Cloud cover ahead of the front kept the amount of destabilization down quite a bit, which limited the strengthening over IN/OH throughout the day.

Also- you seem to have an issue with the forecast Kerr. Why is that?


--------------------


QUOTE(SEMIweather @ Oct 17 2010, 02:10 AM) *
i was lclicking on it going pelasejk not nicki minaj m-please not micni minaj hughhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hertz
post Jun 1 2011, 06:39 PM
Post #15




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,107
Joined: 14-May 10
From: Cleveland, OH
Member No.: 22,778





QUOTE(futureweatherman12 @ Jun 1 2011, 07:06 PM) *
By the way- as far as the October 26th event- There were several uncertainties that led to the eventual downgrade of the severe weather threat. Convective debris/Cloud cover ahead of the front kept the amount of destabilization down quite a bit, which limited the strengthening over IN/OH throughout the day.

Also- you seem to have an issue with the forecast Kerr. Why is that?


Firstly, SPC did not downgrade the outlooks on October 26th until the storms were through the respective outlook areas - i.e. it kept a High Risk until the storms had cleared the entire High Risk area, and a Moderate Risk until the squall line had cleared the entire Moderate Risk area. My question here regards to the maintenance of the slight risk and 5% tornado probabilities over PA and NJ in the 27/0100Z issuance, at which point daytime heating had ceased and the former squall line was basically a large glop of rain (i.e. no severe).

On the Kerr subject, I have a problem with him because he seems to like to increase my tornado probabilities when he issues the 20Z outlooks, when there is no clear reason they should have been increased from the preceeding 1630Z outlook.

ps Also if you have any thoughts to add to my question in this thread, it would be appreciated:
http://forums.accuweather.com/index.php?showtopic=26480


--------------------
Let's hope this winter actually happens!

Severe Wx 2013 Cuyahoga Cty


Severe thunderstorm watches: 6/12-6/13 (night), 6/25, 7/10, 7/23, 10/31-11/1 (night)
Tornado watches: 11/17
Tornado warnings: 6/12, 7/10
Slight Risk days: 4/10, 5/21, 5/22, 5/28, 6/1, 6/12, 6/24, 6/25, 6/26, 7/10, 7/19, 7/23, 8/7, 8/27, 9/11, 9/20, 10/6, 10/31
Moderate Risk days: 11/17
High Risk days:
Strongest thunderstorm to date (at CLE airport): 57 mph on 6/25 & 11/17 (thunderless convection on 11/17)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Chicago Storm
post Jun 1 2011, 09:48 PM
Post #16




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 34,724
Joined: 14-February 08
From: The 630
Member No.: 13,697





QUOTE(Hertz @ Jun 1 2011, 02:06 PM) *
You've explained each situation quite well, but in most cases I have a few questions, or actually more so a need to clarify exactly where my complaint is rooted:

Situation #1 (4/4) : Yes I remember the models showed it also the shear and such was favorable but there was NO visible apparent at all. It seemed to me that the models that day were "dreaming storms", since there was so blatantly no focus for them to develop. So I think that unless I was missing some subtle trigger, the SPC was wrong to believe the models that day. It's like someone knowingly doing something harmful and then giving the excuse, "someone told me to do this".

Situation #2 (4/5) : Explainable, assuming the models were showing something the risk was warranted AND it was dropped at 01Z after sunset (this becomes a big part of where my arguments are rooted in the last two situations).

Situations #3 (9/23) : You say it's the lack of sufficient heating that caused this threat not to pan out, which is likely the case - I never was trying to argue the potential wasn't there. However, my performance complaint here dealt with ONLY the 01Z outlook, NOT any previous outlooks. So the potential for the necessary daytime heating had already failed in those areas, yet SPC maintained the 5% probs anyways.

Situation #4 (10/26) : The massive and powerful squall line had diminished to essentially nothing but a big glop of rain by then for areas that far north, and like in #3 I'm only focused on the 01Z outlook, so there would be no heating to help restrengthen anything.

So I definitely understand things more now, but maybe I didn't point out clear enough where my primary complaint was rooted in #'s 1,3, and 4. Now that I should have clearly explained precisely where my complaint lies, on an appropriate thread (thanks for moving this to questions), and with clear background knowledge of the situation each day, could you please reply with your thoughts on whether or not you agree with my argument?

(Note: Unless you want to further comment on it, Situation #2 can be considered to be closed, as in that case the risk was certainly warranted in the outlook(s) I'm referencing per what you said, and I had only included it in the first place because I was listing anything that was conditional that I remembered.)

#1 - 4/4/10: You do realize the SPC outlooks are mostly based off of model forecasts, don't you? If the models show development you have to go with it, though if a few things may not be sufficient enough there has to be some uncertainty. As for that day there was weak forcing in the area, but in the end it was not enough and the cap held even though the models showed development until the end. In the SPC outlooks they hit hard that the models showed development, but forcing was hard to find, and they in fact mentioned the threat was conditional due to that issue. They handled things quite well.

#2 - 4/5/10: Case closed.

#3 - 9/23/10: There were enough large pockets of instability along with the strong dynamics, to keep the threat alive past the 0100z outlook. A line of storms did end up developing, but the amount of convective debris actually grew in aerial coverage and became just too overwhelming. There was a potential though.

#4 - 10/26/10: When the 0100z outlook was issued, there was still a broken forced squall line occuring. With this even no daytime heating was needed. This was an event that was working with limited instibiliy and was being driven by strong dynamics. The environment that the storms were moving into was fairly similar to the environment that had previously moved through. In fact in the outlook they mention that weakening of he line had occured, but that intensification was possible due to the environment. So the threat was still there.

This post has been edited by Chicago Storm: Jun 1 2011, 09:50 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Chicago Storm
post Jun 1 2011, 09:55 PM
Post #17




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 34,724
Joined: 14-February 08
From: The 630
Member No.: 13,697





QUOTE(Hertz @ Jun 1 2011, 02:56 PM) *
Scared of tornadoes. I want the outlook to only include probabilities that are relatively certain.

Well, that's not how it works.

Forecasts are based off of models, which are not always correct... So there will always be uncertainty.

What's great these days, is that we have real time data (like soundings) which can help in revising forecasts on the fly and also increases the quality of model output.

This post has been edited by Chicago Storm: Jun 1 2011, 09:56 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
futureweatherman...
post Jun 1 2011, 10:09 PM
Post #18




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 11,919
Joined: 27-August 08
From: NW OH
Member No.: 15,447





QUOTE(Hertz @ Jun 1 2011, 07:39 PM) *
Firstly, SPC did not downgrade the outlooks on October 26th until the storms were through the respective outlook areas - i.e. it kept a High Risk until the storms had cleared the entire High Risk area, and a Moderate Risk until the squall line had cleared the entire Moderate Risk area. My question here regards to the maintenance of the slight risk and 5% tornado probabilities over PA and NJ in the 27/0100Z issuance, at which point daytime heating had ceased and the former squall line was basically a large glop of rain (i.e. no severe).

On the Kerr subject, I have a problem with him because he seems to like to increase my tornado probabilities when he issues the 20Z outlooks, when there is no clear reason they should have been increased from the preceeding 1630Z outlook.

ps Also if you have any thoughts to add to my question in this thread, it would be appreciated:
http://forums.accuweather.com/index.php?showtopic=26480

Here is their discussion from the 01z outlook that day (Oct. 27)
QUOTE
...NY/PA/NJ...
A WEAKENING LINE OF CONVECTION ASSOCIATED WITH THE PRIMARY COLD
FRONT SURGE WILL CONTINUE EWD ACROSS SRN NY AND PA THIS EVENING.
COOL SURFACE TEMPERATURES COMBINED WITH RELATIVELY WARM AIR ALOFT
HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THE WEAKENING...WITH NO LIGHTNING OBSERVED
RECENTLY. HOWEVER...SURFACE ANALYSIS INDICATES STRONG PRESSURE RISES
ON THE ORDER OF 4 TO 5 MB/2HR...AND THERE IS A DIFFUSE WARM FRONT
EXTENDING EWD ACROSS SRN PA/MD AND NJ. A PERSISTENT AND STRONG SWLY
LOW LEVEL JET MAY ALLOW FOR SOME INTENSIFICATION
...WITH A FEW SEVERE
WIND GUSTS POSSIBLE. THE MOST LIKELY AREA FOR THIS TO OCCUR WILL BE
ACROSS ERN PA AND NJ.

..JEWELL.. 10/27/2010

With such a strong LLJ and upper level winds, an isolated tornado or two couldn't be ruled out... which is why there is a 5% risk. Not that big of an issue.

Bolded:
I don't see what the big issue is to be honest. I'm sure if you've looked back at several other days forecasters besides Kerr have raised Tornado Probs before, and when the difference is only 3% or so, it statistically is insignificant.
If you work the math for tornado probs... a 5% actually verified almost perfectly. The entire state of MI is 97990sq.miles. The 5% tornado probs covered the LP and some of NE IN/Northern OH... which is slightly smaller than the UP of Michigan. So we'll assume its about 85,000 sq. miles or so. Now, the % probabilities are all based on a 25 mile radius- so if you find the area of that circle (3.1415* radius^2), the area ends up being 1963.495 sq. mi. To find the approximate area for a 100% chance of a tornado in (x) miles of a point, set up a proportion, which gives you the area of 39270 sq. mi. Since there were officially two tornado reports in the 5% area (along with several funnel cloud reports), multiply by 2, for a final area of approximately 80,000 sq. mi. Technically the 5% risk was very appropriate based on the reports given.



--------------------


QUOTE(SEMIweather @ Oct 17 2010, 02:10 AM) *
i was lclicking on it going pelasejk not nicki minaj m-please not micni minaj hughhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hertz
post Jun 1 2011, 10:23 PM
Post #19




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,107
Joined: 14-May 10
From: Cleveland, OH
Member No.: 22,778





QUOTE(Chicago Storm @ Jun 1 2011, 10:48 PM) *
#1 - 4/4/10: You do realize the SPC outlooks are mostly based off of model forecasts, don't you? If the models show development you have to go with it, though if a few things may not be sufficient enough there has to be some uncertainty. As for that day there was weak forcing in the area, but in the end it was not enough and the cap held even though the models showed development until the end. In the SPC outlooks they hit hard that the models showed development, but forcing was hard to find, and they in fact mentioned the threat was conditional due to that issue. They handled things quite well.

#2 - 4/5/10: Case closed.

#3 - 9/23/10: There were enough large pockets of instability along with the strong dynamics, to keep the threat alive past the 0100z outlook. A line of storms did end up developing, but the amount of convective debris actually grew in aerial coverage and became just too overwhelming. There was a potential though.

#4 - 10/26/10: When the 0100z outlook was issued, there was still a broken forced squall line occuring. With this even no daytime heating was needed. This was an event that was working with limited instibiliy and was being driven by strong dynamics. The environment that the storms were moving into was fairly similar to the environment that had previously moved through. In fact in the outlook they mention that weakening of he line had occured, but that intensification was possible due to the environment. So the threat was still there.


#1 - If you say there was ANY forcing, even weak, case is closed. I'd only left that open because I had thought that was like a case where SPC jumped off a bridge for now reason other than the models ttelling them to. (All thunderstomrs require SOME type of forcing, so my point would have been that if there's no forcing at all, there will be no storms, regardless of the models. But if there's even a tiny bit of forcing for lift then the statement I made will no longer hold.)

#3 - My argument remaining is that I think it's a safe assumption to assume thunderstorms will not continue to increase in intensity, or initiate, along a system after dark unless that system is intensifying. I think this low had already hit peak intensity (though I may be wrong).

#4 - I'm fairly certain there were no squall line elemtns left in PA or heading into NJ. Again I would have ruled out intensification for the same reason as explained in #3, and in this case I know for a fact the low had already bottomed out pressure-wise.

So my main (remaining) point deals with, when is/isn't it safe to (at least to the level of slight risk [or any higher risk] removal) assume that storm intensification or severe development will not occur after dark? I've seen this type of threat lingered in the 01Z outlook on more than just the days I mentioned in 2010 when I felt it shouldn't have been. So obviously I must not be taking enough into account when considering prospsects for post-sunset development.


--------------------
Let's hope this winter actually happens!

Severe Wx 2013 Cuyahoga Cty


Severe thunderstorm watches: 6/12-6/13 (night), 6/25, 7/10, 7/23, 10/31-11/1 (night)
Tornado watches: 11/17
Tornado warnings: 6/12, 7/10
Slight Risk days: 4/10, 5/21, 5/22, 5/28, 6/1, 6/12, 6/24, 6/25, 6/26, 7/10, 7/19, 7/23, 8/7, 8/27, 9/11, 9/20, 10/6, 10/31
Moderate Risk days: 11/17
High Risk days:
Strongest thunderstorm to date (at CLE airport): 57 mph on 6/25 & 11/17 (thunderless convection on 11/17)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
futureweatherman...
post Jun 1 2011, 10:57 PM
Post #20




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 11,919
Joined: 27-August 08
From: NW OH
Member No.: 15,447





QUOTE(Hertz @ Jun 1 2011, 11:23 PM) *
#1 - If you say there was ANY forcing, even weak, case is closed. I'd only left that open because I had thought that was like a case where SPC jumped off a bridge for now reason other than the models ttelling them to. (All thunderstomrs require SOME type of forcing, so my point would have been that if there's no forcing at all, there will be no storms, regardless of the models. But if there's even a tiny bit of forcing for lift then the statement I made will no longer hold.)

#3 - My argument remaining is that I think it's a safe assumption to assume thunderstorms will not continue to increase in intensity, or initiate, along a system after dark unless that system is intensifying. I think this low had already hit peak intensity (though I may be wrong).

#4 - I'm fairly certain there were no squall line elemtns left in PA or heading into NJ. Again I would have ruled out intensification for the same reason as explained in #3, and in this case I know for a fact the low had already bottomed out pressure-wise.

Not according to the SPC:
A WEAKENING LINE OF CONVECTION ASSOCIATED WITH THE PRIMARY COLD
FRONT SURGE WILL CONTINUE EWD ACROSS SRN NY AND PA THIS EVENING.
http://spc.noaa.gov/products/outlook/archi...01027_0100.html

QUOTE
So my main (remaining) point deals with, when is/isn't it safe to (at least to the level of slight risk [or any higher risk] removal) assume that storm intensification or severe development will not occur after dark? I've seen this type of threat lingered in the 01Z outlook on more than just the days I mentioned in 2010 when I felt it shouldn't have been. So obviously I must not be taking enough into account when considering prospsects for post-sunset development.


June 5-6, 2010. 2 distinct cells developed in NWOH around 2:30z the night of June 5th, and quickly became tornado warned, with shear in excess of 60kts, along with MUCAPE of 2000J/kg. Both cells went tornado warned within 20 minutes of developing, and eventually the southern cell went on to produce the EF-4 tornado that hit Millbury. A large line of tornado warned supercells developed in southern Michigan, due to SR Helicity up to 600m2/s2 by 4z (Midnight). By the way, Kerr also issued the 1630z outlook that day... which only had 10% tornado probs for the moderate risk area. This outbreak went on to produce 67 tornadoes, 59 of them after 0z that day.


--------------------


QUOTE(SEMIweather @ Oct 17 2010, 02:10 AM) *
i was lclicking on it going pelasejk not nicki minaj m-please not micni minaj hughhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Closed TopicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 16th October 2018 - 09:33 AM