3/25/2007 DISC:MN/IA/WI

[afischer]

This is due to the lower dewpoints which in turn leads to much higher LCL's as RDale points out above. LCL's of 3.5 kFT still don't excite me all that much.

Here's a good refresher from Jon Davies on MLLCL heights & tornadic supercell potential. http://members.cox.net/jondavies1/tornado_fcsting/attributes_tbl_explain.gif

[Sean McMullen]

I don't care if I offend anyone, it's freakin March and you're wondering why there aren't any tornadoes up in Wisconsin and Minnesota, while on the same day there was a tornado in Texas which should have give you a very good clue as to why you're not seeing any tornadoes in Wisconsin. I know, I was there for March 12th as well but that is THE exception. You're probably looking at this Wednasday as well thinking South Dakota looks pretty good too but you would probably have to be a few hundred miles south to get the good stuff. Keep focused guys and practice patience, I know it sucks, we're not there yet but we're close.

[rdale]

How does a landspout in Texas affect the tornado threat in WI/MN? SD is not in the Wednesday outlook, so to be honest I really don't understand what your post is supposed to be saying...

[Mike Hollingshead]

I don't care if I offend anyone, it's freakin March and you're wondering why there aren't any tornadoes up in Wisconsin and Minnesota, while on the same day there was a tornado in Texas which should have give you a very good clue as to why you're not seeing any tornadoes in Wisconsin. I know, I was there for March 12th as well but that is THE exception. You're probably looking at this Wednasday as well thinking South Dakota looks pretty good too but you would probably have to be a few hundred miles south to get the good stuff. Keep focused guys and practice patience, I know it sucks, we're not there yet but we're close.

Well that is insightful. If you're willing to "offend" perhaps try that out before the day is over. Using the climo excuse rather than simply saying what wasn't right is pretty weak, imo. I guess it is easier reasoning. I'm guessing all that chased today knew what month it was and what state they were in.

[Robert Dewey]

Time of year has no bearing on what's occuring now. Low CAPE in January is just as ineffective as low CAPE in July. Same applies to shear... So, I'm not buying the argument that "...it's freakin March" -- if the thermodynamics and kinematics are there, it will tornado. In the case of tonights show, the conditions do not appear to be favorable for tornadoes (and not because of the name of the month on the calendar).

March Tornadoes --

WI: http://www.tornadohistoryproject.com/tornadomap.php?yr=%25&mo=3&day=%25&st=Wisconsin&fu=%25&co=&l=500&submit=Search&format=basic&p=1&s=1
MN: http://www.tornadohistoryproject.com/tornadomap.php?yr=%25&mo=3&day=%25&st=Minnesota&fu=%25&co=&l=500&submit=Search&format=basic&p=1&s=1
MI: http://www.tornadohistoryproject.com/tornadomap.php?yr=%25&mo=3&day=%25&st=Michigan&fu=%25&co=&l=500&submit=Search&format=basic&p=1&s=1

[Dustin Wilcox]

the conditions do not appear to be favorable for tornadoes (and not because of the name of the month on the calendar).

What conditions dont appear favorable, and if those unfavorable conditions are not the result of the climatological clock then what is the cause. I'd say if the same system of the same strength moves through two months from now you have yourself a pretty good show.

[rdale]

That makes no sense... The weather has no idea what month it is.

[Dustin Wilcox]

That makes no sense... The weather has no idea what month it is.

Yeah I forget thats why I always see 70 degree dewpoints and 90 degree temps in Wisconsin in March but not in June its not a matter of the weather knowing what month it is its a matter of available parameters given the season

I would like to hear an educated explanation or a Collaboration of reasons as to why today was a bust, if it wasn't due to the lack of parameters due to the season then why did today bust?

[Sean McMullen]

How does a landspout in Texas affect the tornado threat in WI/MN? SD is not in the Wednesday outlook, so to be honest I really don't understand what your post is supposed to be saying...

Yeah whatever, you know what the hell I'm saying so don't play dumb. You know, I'm sorry I was able to look at todays set up early this morning and realize whats going on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean McMullen http://www.stormtrack.org/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.stormtrack.org/forum/showthread.php?p=128082#post128082)
I don't care if I offend anyone, it's freakin March and you're wondering why there aren't any tornadoes up in Wisconsin and Minnesota, while on the same day there was a tornado in Texas which should have give you a very good clue as to why you're not seeing any tornadoes in Wisconsin. I know, I was there for March 12th as well but that is THE exception. You're probably looking at this Wednasday as well thinking South Dakota looks pretty good too but you would probably have to be a few hundred miles south to get the good stuff. Keep focused guys and practice patience, I know it sucks, we're not there yet but we're close.

Well that is insightful. If you're willing to "offend" perhaps try that out before the day is over. Using the climo excuse rather than simply saying what wasn't right is pretty weak, imo. I guess it is easier reasoning. I'm guessing all that chased today knew what month it was and what state they were in. Today 12:12 AM

There wasn't anyting wrong with today, what wasn't right was your forecast, period point blank. Believe me, I wanted today to pan out just like everyone else but I just had to say to myself, "Its freakin March just be patient." Beleive me, I was ready to tear ass out to NC Iowa and I had to talk myself out of it. I'm just saying remember what time of year it is.

[rdale]

You said if THIS same system was in June it would be a show... THIS system had 70 temps with 55 dews, so 70/55 in June would be just as marginal.

[APritchard]

You are telling me that if we had the exact same weather as today, but the calender said June, we would have had a tornado outbreak? Why didn't we all just change our calenders then? Shoot, if I knew that's all it took I would just eliminate October-March on all my calenders so that all storm systems would produce tornadoes, regardless of the weather conditions!

[rdale]

Yeah whatever, you know what the hell I'm saying so don't play dumb. You know, I'm sorry I was able to look at todays set up early this morning and realize whats going on.

Honestly, I don't get the connection.

And if you did post earlier today that this would be a non-event, good hit! But that's not my point...

[Dustin Wilcox]

You said if THIS same system was in June it would be a show... THIS system had 70 temps with 55 dews, so 70/55 in June would be just as marginal.

I think your overlooking my point, what I am trying to say (and thought I did efficently enough but I guess not) is if you had this same system meaning same trough, associated wind profiles and low pressure in June you wouldn't be at 70/55 as was the case; in June you would be sitting 80/65-70

You are telling me that if we had the exact same weather as today, but the calender said June, we would have had a tornado outbreak?

not the same exact weather but the same exact system with axccess to 65+ DP and warmer temps then yeah we would surely have at least a lot better shot at a tornado outbreak

[APritchard]

not the same exact weather but the same exact system with axccess to 65+ DP and warmer temps then yeah we would surely have at least a lot better shot at a tornado outbreak

That is NOT the exact same system!! Different weather, different system... how does that not make sense?

[Dustin Wilcox]

That is NOT the exact same system!! Different weather, different system... how does that not make sense?

I think your overlooking my point, what I am trying to say (and thought I did efficently enough but I guess not) is if you had this same system meaning same trough, associated wind profiles and low pressure in June you wouldn't be at 70/55 as was the case; in June you would be sitting 80/65-70

I'll answer your question with a quote from above cause it think it answers your question. I guess I dont consider mositure availability part of the system its self. So once agian I will try to simplify my statement for you, take a 985mb low put it in MN in March you might get 60 dp's in WI, but with a low of the same strength in the same location in June you might see 70dp's I guess if you consider the mositure source the system itself instead of the gulf then it wouldnt make sense. If you have anymore comments regarding my opinion please just PM me.

[APritchard]

I'll answer your question with a quote from above cause it think it answers your question. I guess I dont consider mositure availability part of the system its self. So once agian I will try to simplify my statement for you, take a 985mb low put it in MN in March you might get 60 dp's in WI, but with a low of the same strength in the same location in June you might see 70dp's I guess if you consider the mositure source the system itself instead of the gulf then it wouldnt make sense. If you have anymore comments regarding my opinion please just PM me.

Okay, I see what you're saying, but I guess I don't see the point. Slightly higher dew points (60s would have been sufficient) and there could have been a tornado event today. You don't need 70F td's and the calender to say June for a tornado outbreak.

It reminds me of when people say things like "if he had made that shot, we would have won the game" Sure, if this and that was different it may have been different but it wasn't.

[Robert Dewey]

Sean;

I don't get the connection either - please clarify.

As for the "system in the summer", I again agree with Andrew and Rob Dale. Obviously if you change a parameter to be more favorable, you'll have a higher probability of tornadoes. I could also say that if this system had occured with lower LCL's, we'd be looking at more tornadoes. The main argument that was being made is that 75/65 T/Td with the same kinematic field in March would yield less tornadoes than an identical setup in July. The point is, 1500J/KG in March is the same as 1500J/KG in July (which isn't unheard of).

Also, the amount of shear today wasn't something that can't be achieved in the summer (or any other season). Thermodynamics are just as much a part of the system as the pressure depth and wind profiles.

[Dustin Wilcox]

Okay, I see what you're saying, but I guess I don't see the point. Slightly higher dew points (60s would have been sufficient) and there could have been a tornado event today. You don't need 70F td's and the calender to say June for a tornado outbreak.


I realize this I have seen a couple tornadoes on sub 60 dp days, I know there is a lot more besides moisture that goes into makeing a day a outbreak or a bust and I would like to hear some educated opinions on what besides moisture made today a bust.

Sure, if this and that was different it may have been different but it wasn't.

While this should probably be moved to DISC thread what is this and that in this case, beings tornadoes can and have occurred on sub 60dp days what other factors doomed today?

[Dustin Wilcox]

I opted not to chase today but long about noon or so I was thinking maybe I would be regretting that decision as the Satellite showed better clearing then earlier forecast, the RUC runs from this morning were pretty aggressive with precip over much of NE IA and CAPEs were already approaching 1000j/kg over much of central IA and that was beginning to surge North. Obviously veering winds didn't help the already marginal dp's, but even the SPC increased the tornado threat based on what they were seeing as of Mid-late morning. I was not around to monitor the situation this afternoon so I am not sure what went down after noon but I am curious as to what else made this event a non-event. Based on what I saw around noon with weakening cap and increasing instability I thought that NE IA into S WI would see a decent squall line.

[rdale]

The NOW thread pretty much describes the progression... Minimal surface moisture and high bases hurt.

RUC precip is pretty close to useless, far and away the worst of all available models. Better to use its diagnostic fields.

[afischer]

Obviously veering winds didn't help the already marginal dp's, but even the SPC increased the tornado threat based on what they were seeing as of Mid-late morning. I was not around to monitor the situation this afternoon so I am not sure what went down after noon but I am curious as to what else made this event a non-event. Based on what I saw around noon with weakening cap and increasing instability I thought that NE IA into S WI would see a decent squall line.

I think ultimately one would want to assess why the surface winds near/just ahead of the primary convective band ended up veering as much as they did... & then maybe watch for similar set-ups in the future for "pattern recognition." (FWIW, the initial Day 1 outlook for this event indicated there were in fact model discrepances with respect to how much surface veering would occur. I didn't personally look at any model data for this event though).

The compact shortwave trough itself appears to have had a definitively "positive" tilt, which in my experience doesn't bode as well for increased ageostrophy & backed surface flow via pressure falls. Like you say, the veered surface flow in the main action area probably hurt tornadic supercell potential via increased ML LCLs and decreased low-level SRH. These are the types of mesoscale details it would be nice to know of beforehand, but alas... it's not always that simple.

A SPC MCD hit well on the increased tornadic threat over central and eastern WI (obvious on 00Z GRB sounding) associated with a few rogue cells that fired ahead of the primary DPVA-induced convective band. I don't believe these storms were able to capitalize on this better environment (surface flow remaining backed & relatively rich BL moisture) due to the lack of mesoscale focus/synoptic scale vertical motion that far downstream of the shortwave trough. Regardless, by 03Z or so the cells were toast due to boundary layer cooling.

As for the lack of storms farther south trailing into northeast Iowa... probably can be attributed to a lack of vertical motion (or even large-scale subsidence... I've seen this before) immediately south of the compact shortwave trough moving ENE through the upper MS river valley.

[Beau.Gjerdingen]

I would just add that the mixing out of the moisture had a ton to do with the lack of instability present. 12z morning soundings had a huge dry surge just above the surface flying up towards northern IA and southern MN, these areas showed forecast 850 dewpoints of 6 and under by the early to mid afternoon. Strong winds allowed for plenty of mixing and if you watch the surface obs over southern MN as well as northern IA during the mid afternoon you will see a steady decline in dewpoints, even drying out into the mid 40's into north central IA.

The surface based instability forecasted was completely reliant on inflated low level moisture. The RUC didn't pick up on this until its afternoon runs which finally started spitting out almost NIL on the cape situation. Also the morning sounding from MPX had a fairly worked over almost moist adiabatic look to it, very poor lapse rates to work with and try to make big instability out of. Hindsight is 20/20 though. I was sitting down in Albert Lea, MN wasting away my Sunday as well. Good day to get all the equipment back in order though.

[Mike Hollingshead]

There wasn't anyting wrong with today, what wasn't right was your forecast, period point blank. Believe me, I wanted today to pan out just like everyone else but I just had to say to myself, "Its freakin March just be patient." Beleive me, I was ready to tear ass out to NC Iowa and I had to talk myself out of it. I'm just saying remember what time of year it is.

At least my period point blank wrong forecast was after more than just the fact it was March outside when I left. For what it is worth, I thought it was "wrong"(right) when I left to begin with, but thanks for letting me know all about my unposted thoughts...after the fact...and for the reason it's March. I guess some of us are more willing to try, regardless of the month(or distance in some cases). Wasn't it March out when you chased/busted in southern NE the day before?

[Damon Scott Hynes]

Wasn't it March out when you chased/busted in southern NE the day before?

Only March and SDS is epidemic, LOL...:eek:

[Rich Thompson]

I tend to agree with the folks "blaming" the moisture for the chase let down. It sure would have helped to have a sounding in central IA along about early afternoon. The DVN sounding revealed a rather deep moist layer at 18z, but it was tough to say how far west that profile extended. In retrospect, it obviously didn't extend far enough west as the moisture mixed pretty badly from the DSM area newd into WI - just ahead of the primary convective band.

We did get a few discrete storms with some supercell structure, and who knows how close we were to seeing more robust storms. A few degrees on the Tds through the boundary layer would substantially increase CAPE, and perhaps change the whole situation from a "bust" to a few solid supercells and perhaps a couple of tornadoes.

Forecasts are incorrect at times, and it's not always because the forecaster is a moron. We suspected the moisture was marginal, but SPC forecasts include the influence of other forecasters and previous outlooks. In this case, those influences didn't happen to help. Sometimes they do help. For those of you that thrive on criticizing public forecasts, do us all a favor and broadcast every detail of your erroneous forecasts. For those of you that have the guts to admit in public that you messed up, you have my utmost respect.

Rich T.

[Stuart Robinson]

Rich,
Working out why the forecast did not verify as planed is just as important (more so I would say) than scoring a successful forecast. Here I am talking from the stand point of a chaser who only has a busted day to loose and not official government output that will have people cancelling expensive events etc – that is a lot of pressure.
It troubles me when people slate the Government bodies for a poor forecast – you can only go on the information that that you to had right then and now.
It seems that when the SPC get it right – there is little credit given – get it wrong and you are slated.
As an aside this is just a US thing – Our own UK Metoffice gets the same treatment !!! which IMO is unfair.

[Brett Adair]

I tend to agree with the folks "blaming" the moisture for the chase let down. It sure would have helped to have a sounding in central IA along about early afternoon. The DVN sounding revealed a rather deep moist layer at 18z, but it was tough to say how far west that profile extended. In retrospect, it obviously didn't extend far enough west as the moisture mixed pretty badly from the DSM area newd into WI - just ahead of the primary convective band.

We did get a few discrete storms with some supercell structure, and who knows how close we were to seeing more robust storms. A few degrees on the Tds through the boundary layer would substantially increase CAPE, and perhaps change the whole situation from a "bust" to a few solid supercells and perhaps a couple of tornadoes.

Forecasts are incorrect at times, and it's not always because the forecaster is a moron. We suspected the moisture was marginal, but SPC forecasts include the influence of other forecasters and previous outlooks. In this case, those influences didn't happen to help. Sometimes they do help. For those of you that thrive on criticizing public forecasts, do us all a favor and broadcast every detail of your erroneous forecasts. For those of you that have the guts to admit in public that you messed up, you have my utmost respect.

Rich T.

Great post, Rich. There are always many factors in putting together the "perfect" forecast. Things happen.....and I can't count how many tomes that a tornado event has busted due to stout mixing across my region of the country (Southeast). It's just something that happens and there is really excellent way to forecast how much mixing will occur. So, I can understand why the SPC guys went MDT yesterday given the potential had mixing not been as strong in this area.

[Daniel Christianson]

Ok im not going to be bad guy here, i can see everyones opinion , im going to be OT.. i chase because i love it, its much like fishing to me, getting away and enjoying whats offered and sure we all bit** about busting , for me whether its December or a slight risk for something miles and miles away i go,( Chased in NE on WED, Chased in Southwestern NE the next day, and Chased in MN to WN on sunday) i will say yeah im impatient, i want things to happen now and not hrs later i think we all want stuff to happen right away just to please us all..

[rdale]

SPC forecasts include the influence of other forecasters and previous outlooks. In this case, those influences didn't happen to help. Sometimes they do help. For those of you that thrive on criticizing public forecasts

What sort of "pressure" is there to "conform" to earlier outlook? For example if you sat down yesterday to write the 4pm DY1 and concluded that this no longer was worthy of a PWO, after a few days of broadcasting this to be a big event, is there a rule (written or unwritten) that would make you reluctant to downgreade the MDT for whatever reason?

We have this debate in the TV side frequently - where some feel that you shouldn't change the forecast much from the previous met's to remain consistant, but others say you always give out your best (since the public forgets within 5 minutes of hearing in the first place ;> ) I guess my experience seeing mets give a forecast they don't agree with but "flows" better with preceeding outlooks is more bad than not.

And telling whiners to show their own forecast is a lost cause... The reason they rely so heavily on SPC usually has to do with their lack of ability, and regardless of how it happens - if a busted forecast impacts somebody, the American Way is to complain about the forecaster ;>

- Rob

[Melanie Metz]

I would just like to comment that we were concerned about the T/Td spread and lack of backed surface winds and didn't expect to see tornadoes. However, always the optimist, on days like that I just say "well, if the near storm environment is modified just enough and parameters unexpectedly come together for a tornado at least it will be highly visible and photogenic coming out of that elevated base!"

But March 55 dewpoints don't always equate to bust.

March 29, 1998 we had a large tornado in MN (St. Peter). Of course, the surface features were more conducive...nice backed winds with a surface Low and warm front. While dewpoints near St. Peter were only in the 50s, the Temperature wasn't much warmer thus LCLs were favorable.

And we have all been out on days later in the season with high instability, dewpoints in the 80's, nice backed winds, strong Low approaching..... but the shortwave just doesn't quite make it in time and the cap never breaks.

In the end, I just chase when there is a possibility. There are never guarantees. Just enjoy whatever the day brings! And sometimes it's a large wedge tornado with dewpoints at 55.

Melanie

[Mike Hollingshead]

I'm betting most places in se MN with mid-50 dews yesterday afternoon were very shallow by then, as they were scoured out from the top down. Not that no one doesn't already know that, but just saying what was there wasn't the "good" 55 sfc TDs. I'm not sure I even looked at the se MN obs that hard. I saw the 81/46 or whatever it was south of me and knew it was over.

[afischer]

To touch on what Beau, Rich, and Mike H. have mentioned with respect to the dry surge coming northeastward out of Iowa, I was able to dig up two TAMDAR (aircraft) soundings from Waterloo. They are remarkable in showing 850 dewpoints dropping from 9.5C at 1930Z (similar to the 18Z DVN RAOB) to just 4C by 2015Z... ouch. I assume this very rapid dry surge ultimately impacted points farther northeast per the METAR evolution.

[Simon Brewer]

I tend to agree with the folks "blaming" the moisture for the chase let down. It sure would have helped to have a sounding in central IA along about early afternoon. The DVN sounding revealed a rather deep moist layer at 18z, but it was tough to say how far west that profile extended. In retrospect, it obviously didn't extend far enough west as the moisture mixed pretty badly from the DSM area newd into WI - just ahead of the primary convective band.

We did get a few discrete storms with some supercell structure, and who knows how close we were to seeing more robust storms. A few degrees on the Tds through the boundary layer would substantially increase CAPE, and perhaps change the whole situation from a "bust" to a few solid supercells and perhaps a couple of tornadoes.

Forecasts are incorrect at times, and it's not always because the forecaster is a moron. We suspected the moisture was marginal, but SPC forecasts include the influence of other forecasters and previous outlooks. In this case, those influences didn't happen to help. Sometimes they do help. For those of you that thrive on criticizing public forecasts, do us all a favor and broadcast every detail of your erroneous forecasts. For those of you that have the guts to admit in public that you messed up, you have my utmost respect.

Rich T.

First: Good Job to the SPC and any other forecasters who kept their eyes on IA/MN/WI on Sunday and gave warning to the public and kept spotters on gaurd.

Second: No one really forecasts tornadoes, they forecast environments in which tornadoes form. I could care less if the SPC threw up a watch box and it resulted in no severe reports; only problem I would have is if severe reports came flooding in and no watch box was issued.

The Sunday forecaster/forecasters at the SPC did a great job in my opinion, because whatever doubts they had with the 'setup' in IA/MN/WI still resulted in a watch box.

"For those of you that have the guts to admit in public that you messed up, you have my utmost respect." Rich T.

Rich and I had a discussion in the fall regarding a quote similiar to the one above, because I had a problem with a few previous SPC forecasts; basically I had beef with the SPC for not issuing watches on a few occasions. Rich IMed me some reasons and that was that.
But some people need to realize the SPC and individual NWS offices are not forecasting for storm chasers; they are forecasting severe weather environments, which may produce severe weather for the public, so don't blame another person's forecast for your bust!

[Mike Hollingshead]

At least in this case I don't see one person who was blaming the spc for their bust. I see people disagreeing with the spc, many as it was happening and pretty much all of them weren't chasing(so no real blame to be bothered with). Nothing wrong with that.

[Rich Thompson]

At least in this case I don't see one person who was blaming the spc for their bust. I see people disagreeing with the spc, many as it was happening and pretty much all of them weren't chasing(so no real blame to be bothered with). Nothing wrong with that.

Mike,

I should have qualified my last statement as being more general and not particular to Monday's MDT risk. I agree with you - there's nothing wrong with making a forecast that's different than something from the SPC. We're not the end-all in severe weather forecasting, we simply provide our best (collective) guess at the same time each day.

Rich T.

[Rich Thompson]

What sort of "pressure" is there to "conform" to earlier outlook? For example if you sat down yesterday to write the 4pm DY1 and concluded that this no longer was worthy of a PWO, after a few days of broadcasting this to be a big event, is there a rule (written or unwritten) that would make you reluctant to downgreade the MDT for whatever reason?

We have this debate in the TV side frequently - where some feel that you shouldn't change the forecast much from the previous met's to remain consistant, but others say you always give out your best (since the public forgets within 5 minutes of hearing in the first place ;> ) I guess my experience seeing mets give a forecast they don't agree with but "flows" better with preceeding outlooks is more bad than not.

And telling whiners to show their own forecast is a lost cause... The reason they rely so heavily on SPC usually has to do with their lack of ability, and regardless of how it happens - if a busted forecast impacts somebody, the American Way is to complain about the forecaster ;>

- Rob

Rob,

We have the same internal debates about forecast consistency versus accuracy. If we're absolutely certain that the forecast needs to be changed, we'll upgrade or downgrade as necessary. However, the "penalty function" within the NWS seems to be quite asymmetric, with much more emphasis placed on POD compared to FAR. That approach creeps into the SPC outlooks because the burden of proof is on the person proposing the downgrade. All it takes is one aggressive forecaster in the outlook sequence to introduce an upgrade, but it takes many people in agreement to ensure that a downgrade will remain a downgrade and not result in the dreaded "yo-yo" forecasting. For example, the 20z outlook forecaster on Monday did want to downgrade to SLGT, but I was already on the conference call dealing with the potential watch. How will folks view the SPC products when they see a tornado watch at 1955z (agreed upon by several WFOs) followed 5 minutes later by an outlook downgrade? We decided to half-heartedly stay with the MDT so that we weren't seen as sending mixed signals. Was that the right approach? I don't really know...

The toughest outlooks to downgrade are HIGH risks given everything that's been set in motion, while downgrading a SLGT is not too big of a deal. We also end up talking to many WFOs during the MDT and HIGH risk days, so they also have an influence. I'm convinced that forecast consistency versus accuracy is one of the bigger challenges I face each day. It's easier to talk about downgrades when you don't have to answer to anyone but yourself :)

Rich T.

p.s. I haven't heard a peep about the MDT risk from anyone outside of this thread.

Rich T.

[Jesse Risley]

I think the SPC and the NWS did a good job given the forecasting tools available and also taking into consideration what was known (atmospherically speaking) at that time.

Let's not forget the simplicity of a rather complex situation - we're dealing with nature here, and computer models and forecast soundings still can't paint at wholistic picture of every atmospheric condition on a minute-by-minute basis.

Like all members of the public sector, I guess you're damned if you do and damned if you don't in the eyes of some.

[Brandon Sullivan]

As someone said earlier, I think it would be better to have a watch with no weather, than have nothing and get hammered.. There is a lot of time between soundings, assuming no special sounding is done.. And areas in between WFO's are somtimes left in the dust. I think they did a good job. Lots of thought and discipline would have to go into making a forecast that you know tons of people look at! Kudos Guys!:D

[Jim Bishop]

I don't care if I offend anyone, it's freakin March and you're wondering why there aren't any tornadoes up in Wisconsin and Minnesota, while on the same day there was a tornado in Texas which should have give you a very good clue as to why you're not seeing any tornadoes in Wisconsin. I know, I was there for March 12th as well but that is THE exception. You're probably looking at this Wednasday as well thinking South Dakota looks pretty good too but you would probably have to be a few hundred miles south to get the good stuff. Keep focused guys and practice patience, I know it sucks, we're not there yet but we're close.

It's posts like this that make me want to scream. Are you KIDDING me with this post? You think the time of year actually matters when it comes down to a dynamic system with deep moisture?? Give me a break. Do you have any idea how many tornado outbreaks have occurred outside of your May/June timeframe outside of the southern plains? Here's a few to study:

November 12, 2005 Iowa
November 10, 2002 Ohio/Tennessee
September 16, 2006 South Dakota

Those are just a few events off the top of my head where tornadoes have occurred outside of the usual May/June tornado season north of the Southern Plains. There are tons more that I cannot think of right now, but try doing a little research before making yourself look like a complete moron.

According to your logic, I guess on November 12, 2005 people in Gilbert Iowa should have been wondering why an F2 tornado hit their house...because it was November and they were too far north for that type of weather!? I don't think so.

I once had someone say to me in March "wait 'till May". No, chase when there's a setup conducive for tornadoes. When the conditions come together, it doesn't matter what month it is or where you are. Sometimes setups don't pan out...it happens.

Wednesday or Thursday there might be tornadoes in South Dakota because the conditions conducive for tornadoes may be present. This is independent of the time of year AND the location. Think before you speak.

[rdale]

TAMDAR soundings are a MAJOR help for convective forecasting, especially in that part of the country through the Great Lakes. Much more useful than ACARS.

[Robert Dewey]

Do you have any idea how many tornado outbreaks have occurred outside of your May/June timeframe outside of the southern plains? Here's a few to study...

I went to the Tornado History Project and mapped out several states for March. There are plenty of cases where strong tornadoes have occured in MN, IA, WI, etc.. The most surprising one was MI, which features several strong tornadoes, and a few violent ones.

Think before you speak.

Good advice.

[Jeremy Lemanski]

The most surprising one was MI, which features several strong tornadoes, and a few violent ones.

I think, correct me if i'm wrong, that most of Michigan's F4 and F5 tornadoes have occured in march and april.

I don't understand your way of thinking Sean. Your trying to show the point that it takes a ton of things to come together to get a big outbreak in the early or late season, correct?
Well, the same can be said for late spring into summer. Cap problems, poor, or complete lack of, dynamics, Death ridges, etc. all can cause days upon days of "calm" during the best time of the year. Why wait for the "prime time" when it could in fact be as bad or worse then the current. The WI/MN setup HAD THE CHANCE to be a big outbreak, people chased, and the storms failed to live up to the hype so to speak. Why is this any different then a threat in the same area in late may that busts?

[Dan Robinson]

Your trying to show the point that it takes a ton of things to come together to get a big outbreak in the early or late season, correct? Well, the same can be said for late spring into summer.

I think the main point is that all of those factors are climatologically more likely to come together in May and June. In March and April, one or more of those ingredients are more likely to be missing than in May and June (particularly moisture/instability). In other words, expect the early setups to be lacking more so than their mid-to-late spring counterparts.

Again, you can't let climatology completely blind you to the rare times that a good setup DOES happen in early spring. None of us are saying "don't ever chase in March". But looking at the stats, year after year, you are more likely to bust (and burn hard-earned chase funds) on a March chase than a May chase.

Yes, not every May and June is going to deliver. But how quickly do years like 2002 and 2006 cloud our perspective. Remember 2003, 2005, 2004, and so on. May and June have always been 'better for the money' for a chaser taking a long-distance trip to chase.

I guess the main point is not that we should/shouldn't chase too early, but when it is early, not to have our expectations as high.

[Joel Wright]

Well I guess hindsight is 20/20. We are all ultimately responsible for our own forecasts, so blaming a bust on anyone but ourselves would be asinine really.

We weren't too happy with busting, but who is? As others have said, some good things did come out of it for us. Got a great chance to check out some new toys.

I don't know about anyone else, but I got my first tan of 2007 on Sunday standing outside for almost three hours lol. So I guess that's a plus.:)