• Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!

Severe March 9-10 Arklatex/Lower MS Valley/Gulf Coast Severe threat

One thing that prevented these storms from producing strong tornadoes was CIN, they were a bit elevated in nature
 
Myfrotho704_ said:
One thing that prevented these storms from producing strong tornadoes was CIN, they were a bit elevated in nature
Click to expand...

I noticed some of the short range models did show the boundary layer decoupling. I wonder if the strong winds mixed down drier air and allowed it to actually occur which would have really hurt low level laspe rates, but I haven't looked at much.

Forcing pulling away northward didn't help either.
 
TXTornado said:
I was looking at the HRRR late last night and this morning, and while it showed good parameters in that area of MS, I just was not a big fan of that wind field. I was thinking that there was some VBV in the soundings from the area. That looked to be what killed the storm, IMO. Now I'm not an expert by any means, so I wanted to see if that was on point.
Click to expand...

I think you are correct, definitely some VBV in some of those modeled soundings last night.
 
PEA_RIDGE said:
HERE IS THE SOUNDING FOR THE CIRCLED SUPERCELLView attachment 17543View attachment 17544
Click to expand...
We all realize it's just a model forecast, but I don't recall ever seeing a sounding with that much lift. That would be a prolific hail producing cell. Look at that omega !!! ... nearly off the charts, not to mention the tornado aspect. This year has that ominous feeling to it.
 
Arcc said:
I think you are correct, definitely some VBV in some of those modeled soundings last night.
Click to expand...

TXTornado said:
I was looking at the HRRR late last night and this morning, and while it showed good parameters in that area of MS, I just was not a big fan of that wind field. I was thinking that there was some VBV in the soundings from the area. That looked to be what killed the storm, IMO. Now I'm not an expert by any means, so I wanted to see if that was on point.
Click to expand...

VBV has been shown by Parker & others to not really be a significant hinderance to supercell development since the backing aloft occurs well above the LFC but environments w/ limited SRH or those w/ parallel flow in the upper troposphere.

I honestly don't know so many people still refer to it as a potential cause for busted forecasts because it's not.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/WAF-D-17-0064.1
 
Webberweather53 said:
VBV has been shown by Parker & others to not really be a significant hinderance to supercell development since the backing aloft occurs well above the LFC but environments w/ limited SRH or those w/ parallel flow in the upper troposphere.

I honestly don't know so many people still refer to it as a potential cause for busted forecasts because it's not.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/WAF-D-17-0064.1
Click to expand...

"In this respect, ‘‘backing aloft’’ appears to be a red herring. Viewed through the lens of storm dynamics, forecasters would likely be better served by directly assessing SRH and the orientation of the upper-level flow (presumably relative to the boundary expected to initiate storms) rather than becoming overly concerned with the presence of a CCW kink or curve in the environmental hodograph."
 
Webberweather53 said:
"In this respect, ‘‘backing aloft’’ appears to be a red herring. Viewed through the lens of storm dynamics, forecasters would likely be better served by directly assessing SRH and the orientation of the upper-level flow (presumably relative to the boundary expected to initiate storms) rather than becoming overly concerned with the presence of a CCW kink or curve in the environmental hodograph."
Click to expand...
This is interesting ive always thought VBV was a killer.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
SD said:
This is interesting ive always thought VBV was a killer.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I interpret VBV more or less as a feature that's typically a bystander in many bad setups rather than a forcing agent. Over really long periods of time (> several hours) its effect may be more pronounced, but there's actually been little work in the community to actually support the longstanding anecdotal evidence in the chaser & met community alike associated w/ VBV.
 
Webberweather53 said:
VBV has been shown by Parker & others to not really be a significant hinderance to supercell development since the backing aloft occurs well above the LFC but environments w/ limited SRH or those w/ parallel flow in the upper troposphere.

I honestly don't know so many people still refer to it as a potential cause for busted forecasts because it's not.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/WAF-D-17-0064.1
Click to expand...

Very interesting. Ive always thought VBV caused issues with low level shear thus hurting the tornado threat even when supercells are present. Ive never thought of it having to do with forcing. To be honest though, Ive heard it talked about but rarely look for it on soundings.
 
SD said:
This is interesting ive always thought VBV was a killer.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I thought the same, that it makes everything messy, guess I was wrong, learning something new everyday ??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top