Dolly - Is that you?

Dolly slammed ashore as a strong Category 1/weak Category 2 hurricane in the northern Gulf of Mexico a few days ago. It's eyewall passed over South Padre Island. All in all, wind reports were not that bad, but Dolly dumped a lot of rain!

So, as we watched this from the midwest, we realized there was going to be minimal impact as we were protected by a strong high pressure between us and the Gulf of Mexico. The same high pressure which steered Dolly to its landing point, was the same high pressure buffering us from direct impact as Dolly came ashore.

So, as the event came and passed, many forgot about Dolly. She just ran out of steam as she came inland and generally became stagnant as she was trapped. Many wanted to stop talking about Dolly as it didn't seem relevant to this area. Afterall, we were caught in no man's land between a NW flow coming from a stronger than normal upper level low in the Great Lakes and that same high pressure referenced above.

This brought quite the forecasting nightmare with huge temperature gradients through the area and MCS potential. So, we forgot about Dolly.

Sheeeeeeee'sssss back! The HPC is still talking about her....

http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/discussions/tcpat4.html

You see, she never left..but has been..well, just hanging out waiting for the high pressure to move. Well, it has allowed Dolly to begin moving now. We caught some of her moisture in the last day or two as it revolved around the parameter of the high pressure and streamed through this area.

Dewpoints in the mid 70s is tropical..and was partially due to Dolly's blowoff. So, on Tuesday, the vorticity that is Dolly will introduce herself to this area. It is quite possible that the remains will come right over KC, and should bring some rain with her.

It took awhile, and most people took their eyes of her, but it is rare for a hurricane to come ashore in the Gulf that does not directly or indirectly affect the weather in Kansas City.

Here is a map showing storm tracks for all those that enter from the Gulf...

LRC food for thought and potential model?

Here is something I was thinking about today in how to better explain the LRC and perhaps how to model it....

I think the most important piece of the LRC is the sequence of events. Intensity and location are driven by the jet, but the pattern continues independently.

I spend a great deal of time describing the sequence...that is the critical piece. Once seen, then by definition, you can begin to accept there is a recurring cycle. I fully agree that intensity and location variables are more difficult analyze. Because of this, it is likely difficult do prove out statistically.

Yet, if I look out the window..and I see a swallow fly by my window every 3 minutes, sometimes closer to the window, sometimes further away, but every three minutes for a defined period of time, I am inclined to call this a pattern. If the swallow flies by sometimes at 2.8 minutes and others at 3.2 minutes, but still happens within a varience. I am inclinded to call this a pattern.

See my point?

Suppose the bird lands on a feeder, flies by and poops on the car, then goes back to the nest. Suppose the bird does this all day - every day for 9 months...in the same sequence. I am inclined to call this a pattern.

See?

Suppose a swallow flies by my window, then three minutes later a hawk flies by, then three minutes later a vulture, then three minutes later a hummingbird? I am inclined to call this a pattern.

Each of the examples shows a different take. One is on location, the next is on duration, and the last is on intensity...all of these I believe show a sequence.

Where it get muddled with the LRC in presenting this is how it is communicated and used. While I believe the LRC exists, trying to combine all these makes it very hard to see. You end up with this...

A swallow flies by every 3 minutes, poops on my car and is followed 2.8 minutes later by a hawk. Then a vulture flies by far away from my window and lands in a nest.

Now, this does not look like a pattern at all, but more chaos. By breaking down the components, it makes it easier to see. The first step was a few weeks ago when we decided to show a sequence in a loop. This allows the different pieces to be seen in relationship in a global view.

Prior to this, it was map to map and trying to combine all attributes to a common theme. That is confusing.

So, lets think of the LRC in a more numerical way..or more of a model.

Ok..so let me take it just one bit further. In my analogies above, would could assume the duration or cycle time to be a constant as defined by one year's LRC.

We can see that intensity and location are variables or functions of the constant. So, if we assign values to the constant, establish values based on ranges of the intensity and do the same for location, we should get a rough mathmatical representation of the LRC.

I am just brainstorming here a bit, so everything may not be perfect here.

Here is my thought process. Since we don't know what resets each cycle, its assume that it is reset at the point where the jet is its weakest and furthest north. The moment that it begins its progression again, lets assume that is the beginning of a cycle.

At that point, an unknown set of sequences are set into motion. The set of these sequences total one cycle of the LRC. The set of sequences is variable. For this discussion, lets say it is three sequences.

To allow for more universal use, describing flow patterns to a specific spot would not be used. Instead, general flow patterns would be used. Western troughing, central ridging, eastern troughing.

Each of these subsets must contain a flow of energy that is evident by the progression of vorticity from west to east. This is where it becomes important to define a location or longwave axis of the flow.

Ok..lets recap real quick. LRC starts as jet begins progression just after weakest jet/northern location. One whole cycle is defined by a set of pattern definitions - trough ridge and general location. Each pattern flows energy around the subset pattern longwaves.

While a bit complicated, this is the constant. The first variable is intensity. What I mean by intensity is a measure of energy flowing through the jetstream. Defined by thermodynamics and controlled by the seasons, this variable expressed by a range defines how the pattern will react to the different jet strength.

We know winter is the strongest jet and summer is the weakest. We can assign general values to this. [greater precision will be needed for model use]

June, July, August, September is a -1 value.

April, May, October, November is a 0 value or that of the mean [ equidistant mean latitudial location between southern average and northern average of the jet ]

December, January, February is assigned a +1 value.

More complex and not quite thought out yet the notion of each of these constant features having a sub intensity level individually. Maybe one of the features is very strong compared to a companion feature. Example, strong ULL as part of a central troughing over the Great Lakes and a weaker High Pressure companion in the western CONUS. Need more thought here.

Ok...so picture North America, and place the constant entities in the mean latitude position. Next entity is location.

Location is simply the output of the relationship between the constant and the variable. It is calculated by assigning a value to an area south of the mean as +1 and north of the mean as -1.

What happens is when the constant is set to mean location, as the intensity increases or decreases, the locations of the subset entities themselves will correct north/south with the season. Very basic relationship.

So, in a very basic description of movement, once the initial locations are charted for each entity in a subset, it goes in motion within that subset. So, if it were a western troughing subset, it would begin cycling vorticity around the trough axis within that regime. When that subset duration is over, it transitions into the next subset and begins flowing around that axis and so on into the remaining subsets of the one cycle.

Here are some wildcards that are accounted for as part of this method. Assume that one part of the cycle extends into a new month with a different variable? The pattern would shift north or south to accomodate the intensity change. This is why one may see a weaker feature turn larger very quickly, but not happen again throughout the entire year. This would be an anomaly defined within this logic.

Here is another wildcard. Each season as some semi permanent features. In the summer, the SW High pressure. In the winter, the strong Aleutian low. Each of these entities could have independent variable as it relates to intensity, thus affecting location of cycle entities.

One the first cycle is recorded via observation, it could be plugged into a sort of model based on this criteria.

It is important to think of the cycle pattern as a constant and intensity and resulting location as the variable and output of the pattern. This is why some things look similar in a broad view but can vary in results and location. It is just factoring in the jet by virtue of a seasonal variable.

Whatcha think?

Are you a weather dummy?

This is a fun blog to write. Most people underestimate their knowledge of weather. Most weather education for the public comes from the media. Due to the varying degree of folks in the media that are truly knowledgable about weather, there are many opportunities for miscommunication or inaccurate information being presented.

This happens both from a local and national perspective. The larger the event, the more people that cover it. The more people covering an event, the more chance they have less knowledge than those that cover it every day or have a background in it.

All that said, the basics of meteorology are known by most folks – believe it or not. The atmosphere is a ever changing stream or areas of air that interact causing weather. Most people get this. In addition, most people are aware of high and low pressure. These are areas of the atmosphere that are sinking or rising in relation to the air around it.

So far, most people get this as well. What becomes magical is when a meteorologist will use a station tool to show something that seems horribly complicated. In reality, most of these things are not complicated at all! Actually, some media meteorologists don’t even fully understand what they are showing to you!

I am going to pick three things we see a lot in severe weather coverage. Each of these are fun little things to show, but are not as complicated as it seems.

The first, and perhaps my favorite aspect is what is called the “Bound Weak Echo Region” or BWER for short. This is what meteorologists are looking for when they go into a cross section scan of the cell in question. The cut the storm in pieces via their tools to look for two things. First they are looking for cell cloud heights and the second is BWER. All BWER is – is the area in a strong/severe storm that shows a weak area of reflectivity between areas of stronger reflectivity. In other words, this is the “vault” or updraft of a strong thunderstorm. Without being bound, or having reflectivity on both sides, then it would just be a weak echo region. So are you ready for what all this mumbo jumbo means?

A BWER is another way for measuring/confirming a strong updraft in a storm that is looks on radar like a “hook echo.” It’s just a hook echo signature that is the classic sign of a tornado.

Here is a bit more on the progression and associated views of the radar image and the evolution of a thunderstorm.

http://weather.cod.edu/sirvatka/lt.html

BWER is the horizontal view of a hook echo. Magical, huh..lol

The second, and misunderstood, aspect is what is called VIL. Vertical Integrated Liquid. Way to complicated sounding! This just means the amount of reflectivity in a column of air. As radar picks up on raindrops to reflect back to show the storm structure, VIL is just the amount of reflectivity in a specific area of the storm.

The BIG misconception is that VIL alone is an indicator of hail, how big, and defines a hail core.

THIS IS WRONG. If I hear Tornado Horner say VIL again in describing hail will be one time too soon. It is ONE indicator. It is not the SOLE indicator of hail. In fact, VIL readings can be very misleading. Here is some information regarding VIL:

“VIL was a "fad" and was most popular when the WSR-88D radar was first installed.”

..” The VIL values correlation to hail size depends on season, synoptic environment, elevation, storm speed, storm structure, hail reflectivity characteristics etc.”

http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/242/

VIL is easy. Just means there is a lot of rain or possible hail in a given column of air. Beyond that, it really doesn’t mean much more.

Sounded much more important before, didn’t it?

The last item to discuss is TVS. Tornado Vortex Signature. You will see these on many media radar systems. This is reflected by a purple triangle, swirling icon, or many other icons. It is to represent circulation in the storm.

This isn’t too complicated either, but there are some things to be aware of. This is an algorithm that looks for adjacent gate to gate sheer recordings. All this means is where wind is moving away from the radar and moving to the radar next to each other.

Here is the kicker…depending on the location of the storm to the radar station and the height of the beam, you could be looking at many different parts of the storm without knowing it. The further away the storm is, the higher in the storm you will be looking.

So, it is possible to see a TVS type signature from a far away storm and really be looking at a storm with some mid level rotation with nothing at the ground.

Here is a bit more info….

http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/242/

For those that are a bit more adventurous, I would recommend tracking a mesocyclone in SRV mode to watch for the inbound/outbound winds and look for gate to gate. It was the most amazing thing I have ever done when tracking the Greensburg tornado seeing the HUGE amounts of gate to gate sheer and the enormous size of the vortex!

If I can find it, I will insert in the SRV image I captured about five minutes after the devastation of Greensburg. Incredible!

So…with all this, we have gone over some seemingly difficult things to see how simple they are and gone over the basics which people probably already knew but didn’t know they knew it. LOL

Next time you see the horizontal scan, just yell at the TV..”Look for the hook echo” or see VIL..well you can generally dismiss it while putting on your bicycle helmet, or see a TVS…wonder if the rotation is at the surface…

Here is a question. Do you want the media to treat you in the same ignorant manner as they do, or would you prefer they explain some of these things when they show you storm structure so that you can become more educated?

Just curious…

Hurricane Garbage

Taking a quick break from my day to day, I ran across this article. As presented, without much knowledge, it seems plausible.

In my opinion, its garbage. In fact, the science is so lacking in this article I struggle even taking it somewhat seriously.

Here is the link to the article...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080714/sc_livescience/hurricaneseasongettinglonger

Here are a few thoughts. Let's start with this quote in the article-

"There has been an increase in the seasonal length over the last century," Jay Gulledge, a senior scientist with the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, told LiveScience. "It's pretty striking."

How would this be measured?

Season length is determined simply as the time from the first named storm and the last in a season. Prior to the 1960s [generous here], there was not an accurate or reliable way to measure intensity, size, scale, or movement of storms over a long period of time. Meteorologists relied on ship/aviation reports for vessels in the area of the storm.

These ships may have been hundereds of miles away! So, saying in the last centry there is an increase is silly. We really don't know. I will go along with any noted increases [kinda] since the technology advances in satellite tracking [60s/70sish], but even that evolves yearly even now in detailing intensity [thus categories/intensity of storms] and subsequent naming based on defined criteria.

Here is an example. 50 years ago, a ship submits a report of a storm with 100 mph winds. Perhaps at that time, the weather organization would wait for another report or go ahead a name a storm. 20 years ago, we would have seen it form on satellite, but may not have known the intensity but named the storm based on visible structure. 10 years ago, we would have seen the satellite presentation and been able to extrapolate the intensity based on microwave scanning.

Three different methods with varying degress of precision would have yield three different times of naming the storm. How can anyone have any certainty that the data we have from the 20s-60s is remotely accurate? If you cannot accurately define when a storm forms and meets criteria to be named, how do we really know how long the seasons really were?

Hurricane season is generally July 1- November 30. 5 months. About 150 days. The quote from the article says - "A study Gulledge co-authored with other climate scientists found a five-day increase in season length per decade since 1915."

150 days roughly in a hurricane season. Increase 5 days per decades, or about 9 increases over the span. Each increase is about 3%. 3%!. Without any precision for half the time period, this small amount noted is minimal variance.

This would also indicate about 45 days more than what was first thought? A month and a half?

With the criteria needed to form/prohibit a storm involving trade winds/sheer, Sea Surface Temperatures[ SST] and other factors such as African Dust and other features, I have no faith in these numbers since there were not accurate and broad based methods of sampling the data.

This is perhaps the most accurate statement in the article..."While this trend hasn't been formally linked to global warming because climate models can't reproduce individual storms"

All in all, yet another article pushing the propaganda or money machine. I have no faith based on the methods and period of time that any of this can be proved for a long enough duration to make this claim.

Maybe..maybe data in the last ten years, but really...is that enough to formulate this type of opinion for a earth span of millions of years?

Puleeze.

Another LRC Observation - cont.

Just a quick one today...

We got rain today because of a rogue 500mb vort. We had a weak cold front in place, but alone would not have gotten us much - if any - rain.

Last entry, I blogged about similarities in the cycle with the same rough jet location.

Here is a few days later....from August 11th. [this would have been equal to yesterday minus one day on the cycle] - the date referenced for the weak cold front below would have been for the events today.

http://community.nbcactionnews.com/blogs/weatherblog/archive/2007/08/11/1881203.aspx

"Front #1: Sunday. This is extremely weak. It will be near I-70 during the afternoon. An isolated T-Storm is possible. The chance of being hit is 2-5%! What this front might do is gather low level moisture, so that our dewpoints may reach 75-80°. This will make it even more steamy than it has been, if that is possible.

Front #2: Next Wednesday or Thursday. This front is stronger, but there is a big issue. Latest data is keeping the front to our north. If this happens our heat wave will go on another 7-10 days! We need this front to get here so not only we have a chance of T-Storms, but we can get a break in the heat wave."

Ok..so we got the weak cold front today...temps were exasperated by the rain, not the cool air behind.

Next front?

About Thurs/Fri.

We will see.

[side note, in August for the "too far north" front - http://community.nbcactionnews.com/blogs/weatherblog/archive/2007/08/16/1895531.aspx]

Another LRC observation - cool!

Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. As I often reflect and study current patterns, I am left sometimes amazed with some of the things I run into. I am going to go into something I noticed yesterday…

Everyone knows I am a strong proponent of a cyclical pattern that recurs in a standard timeframe. This means we will see similar patterns come back time and time again over the course of a year.

That said, finding it, measuring it, and knowing what to do with it is a great challenge. In thinking ahead for the next forecast contest for Labor Day, I got to thinking…

Because of the ever changing jet location, using previous cycles especially nearer to summer becomes problematic with the quick retreat of the jet. So, what makes sense is to compare this cycle to a previous one with a similar jet. Pretty straight forward stuff. So going back many cycles, we get back to August 7th. Perhaps the very first week of this year’s cycle!

July 8th equates to August 7th – 6 cycles back. The below is from August 8th [allowing one day variance over nearly a year’s time]

I like to refer to the KSHB achieved blogs for descriptions of weather that day and for upcoming events.

Here is an excerpt of what was written that day on August 8th.

“…This morning was a fascinating weather morning. Flooding was occurring over parts of northwest Missouri as the day started with very heavy rain for some of you up there. A series of outflow boundaries moved through Kansas City as the past few hours went by. We had a nice easterly breeze blowing for a while. Thunderstorms developed and dumped some very heavy rain at KCI airport, Liberty, the Plaza, Leavenworth, and a few other spots but it didn't last very long…. “

“…We have a heat wave problem for next week. So, hopefully we will get some more rain tonight before the heat builds back in stronger. Let's begin with the weak cold front moving our way. Weak is an understatement, but it could be just enough to bring us some thunderstorms overnight into Thursday morning, somewhat like today. Below, you can see the very weak cold front forecast for early Thursday morning at 7 AM…”

“…Look at the HUGE anticyclone forecast to be over the Kansas/Oklahoma border by Monday. The circle near the KS/OK border is a 600 circle. This does not happen very often. WOW! This is a strong anticyclone and, if it does form, it will have to go above 100 degrees. Hopefully it will break down.”

http://community.nbcactionnews.com/blogs/weatherblog/archive/2007/08/08/1871293.aspx

Any of this sound familiar to what happened yesterday?

Let’s look at each of the above statements and compare it to what happened yesterday and what will happen next week.

Lets start with the first statement [from August 8th] and how it compared to what happened yesterday.

“…This morning was a fascinating weather morning. Flooding was occurring over parts of northwest Missouri as the day started with very heavy rain for some of you up there. A series of outflow boundaries moved through Kansas City as the past few hours went by. We had a nice easterly breeze blowing for a while. Thunderstorms developed and dumped some very heavy rain at KCI airport, Liberty, the Plaza, Leavenworth, and a few other spots but it didn't last very long…. “


From the NWS Summary -

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/product.php?site=eax&product=RWS&issuedby=eax


“HEAVY PRECIPITATION AMOUNTS FROM YESTERDAY WERE MOSTLY ALONG THEMISSOURI RIVER AND TO THE SOUTHWEST WHERE OVER OVER AN INCH OFRAINFALL FELL. THE HIGHEST RAINFALL WAS AT INDEPENDENCE MISSOURI...WITH ONE INCH AND 35 HUNDREDTHS...WHILE HILLSDALE LAKE HAD ONE INCHAND 58 HUNDREDTHS. OTHERWISE RAINFALL TOTALS VARIED FROM A TENTH OF AN INCH”

From the NWS forecast discussion at 3:15 AM yesterday. –

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/product.php?site=NWS&issuedby=EAX&product=AFD&format=CI&version=7&glossary=1

“THIS CONVECTION HAS PLUNGED SEVERAL OUTFLOW BOUNDARIES SOUTHWARD AND INTO THE CENTRAL PORTIONS OF THE CWA. AS OF315 AM CDT...LOOPS OF COMPOSITE RADAR REFLECTIVITY SHOW ONE SUCH BOUNDARY CURRENTLY STALLED FROM NEAR EMPORIA THROUGH NORTH KC AND ON EAST TOWARDS MACON. WHILE THIS BOUNDARY IS LIKELY BECOMING VERY
DIFFUSE IN ITS MATURE STAGE...”

Easterly breeze? Noon-5PM.

http://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?w3=sfcwind&AheadHour=0&Submit=Submit&FcstType=graphical&textField1=39.15920&textField2=-94.48364&site=eax

Dumped but didn’t last long?

http://community.nbcactionnews.com/blogs/weatherblog/archive/2008/07/09/3185337.aspx

“The rainfall rates were close to 4 inches per hour, and if this would have continued for even just one more half hour there would have been a significant flash flood yesterday. “

Freaked out yet?

Let’s go to the second statement [From August 8th looking forward]–

“…We have a heat wave problem for next week. So, hopefully we will get some more rain tonight before the heat builds back in stronger. Let's begin with the weak cold front moving our way. Weak is an understatement, but it could be just enough to bring us some thunderstorms overnight into Thursday morning...”


Heat wave problem – as the jet is not quite as far north as August 7th of last year, it won’t be a heat wave, but we do have a warming trend for next week. I will show more on this in just a bit.

Weak cold front? Some thunderstorms overnight into Wednesday morning?

http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/noaa/noaa_20080708.gif

“THE NORTHERN EDGE OF THE RAIN WILL GRADUALLY SHIFT SOUTHWITH LITTLE IF ANY RAIN EXPECTED NORTH OF THE MO RIVER AFTER MIDNIGHT...AND COMPLETELY OUT OF THE FAR SOUTHERN CWA BY MID
WEDNESDAY MORNING.”

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/product.php?site=NWS&issuedby=EAX&product=AFD&format=CI&version=3&glossary=1

And this… Here is for the third statement –

“…Look at the HUGE anticyclone forecast to be over the Kansas/Oklahoma border by Monday. The circle near the KS/OK border is a 600 circle. This does not happen very often. WOW! This is a strong anticyclone and, if it does form, it will have to go above 100 degrees. Hopefully it will break down.”

So…this would translate to Sunday/Monday coming up. Let’s go to the models….

While not a heat wave, we do see central ridging with some decent heights early next week. The 588 dm line is nudging up into Central Oklahoma. Again, not near as strong as the 600 dm anticyclone mentioned above, still decent ridging for the central CONUS.

Fortunately, this is early July and not early August or this would be happening again. I am happy to take the low 90s!

All this points to much of what I have discussed regarding the patterns as defined by the LRC in previous blogs. It seems that the more I look, the more I research, the more I do loops and the more I look at surface trends there is definitely something there.

Am I the only one that finds this fascinating that within the same LRC that events happen so similarly when taking into account the relative jet location?

This doesn’t prove anything or is it intended to, but I find it so interesting the many different ways the recurring pattern may materialize and show itself.

We just have to open our eyes.

Long range forecast and surface reflections

For those that follow the KSHB blog, you know I was entered in a forecast contest. For those that do not follow - I was entered in a forecast contest.

This contest was to measure the skill of long range forecasting. Not just 8-15 days, but about 45-50 days!

Nine of us submitted a forecast on May 15th for the week of July 4th [June 29-July 5].

Of the field, there were two degreed meteorologists and seven hobbiests/enthusiasts. We were to forecast high/low/PoPs [percent of precipitation], and rain amounts.

Not everyone did PoPs, so they were not counted except for perhaps a tie.

I finished tied for third best. There is still question whether my PoPs will give me third outright, but it doesn't really matter. I did well in my opinion.

Had I not hosed up the first day high temps, I would have had a solid third place showing. So, I think the reason for the contest to start was something to the effect of...

"Put your money where your mouth is". There is much discussion about using the recurring cycle to forecast this, that and something else. I understand the frustration.

This theory is still in its infancy. It has not proven to show high reliability thus far for long term surface forecasting with this level of detail.

One of the participants was Gary Lezak. He is the creator of this theory. He came in 7th place. He is still thinking the cycle this year is at 52 days. Had his forecast been moved out four more days, it likely would have won.

It was too early. As you have seen in the previous entries, I have shown the cycle to be 56 days.

So, I used only the surface trending for my forecast. As the upper air tends to reflect at the surface, it would likely be in sync and give me some sensible hints as what to expect.

Below is the data for the past three cycles in this time frame...

Date	Departure from Norm	Precip	Wind Direction
9-Mar	-3	0	NNE
10-Mar	-9	0	NNW
11-Mar	2	0	SW	Compressional Heating
12-Mar	14	0	SSW
13-Mar	5	T	SSE	Front
14-Mar	3	0.05	NNE
15-Mar	-7	0.29	NNE
4-May	-8	0	SW
5-May	1	0	SW
6-May	5	T	SW	Compressional Heating
7-May	1	0.02	W	Front
8-May	-1	0	NNE
9-May	-4	0.32	NE
10-May	-8	0.36	NNW
29-Jun	-3	0	NNE
30-Jun	-6	0	N
1-Jul	-5	0	SSW	Compressional Heating
2-Jul	-1	2.62	S
3-Jul	-6	0.4	N	Front
4-Jul	-7	0	ENE
5-Jul		0

As you can see, there several themes going here. Let's create a feeling of movement based on the data.

The week starts of cooler in each three cycles with northernly flow turning to a southernly flow.

[The days prior in the May cycle also reflect this.]

So...cooler N, warming up [compressional] with yikes...what? A front. In the same part each cycle. Rain ensues, and the front passes, leaving a cooler day or two.

Same motion to every one of these cycles.

Here are the maps to prove it. Notice the locations of the lows and the frontal boundaries as they relate to KC.

March/May/July





For the sake of this blog, I am not going to show the upper levels, as this is more surface related. If there is request, I will try to make some movies showing how similar it is!

Ok...so here is what my forecast was...

June 29th High Temp – 91 Low Temp – 69 PoP: 0% Precip – NONE
June 30th High Temp – 88 Low Temp – 68 PoP: 0% Precip – NONE
July 1st High Temp – 86 Low Temp – 68 PoP: 0% Precip – NONE
July 2nd High Temp – 84 Low Temp – 67 PoP: 30% Precip – NONE
July 3rd High Temp – 83 Low Temp – 69 PoP: 60% Precip - .60 in.
July 4th High Temp - 82 Low Temp – 62 PoP: 40% Precip - .23 in.
July 5th High Temp - 89 Low Temp – 68 PoP: 0% Precip – NONE

First thing you can see is I flubbed up the first two days on temp. By what I explained above, it should have been cooler.

Aside from that, you can see I just about timed the front right. It passed through about 8PM on July 2nd. I was 4 hours late!

Also, based on the trending, I had rain for the 4th that did not pan out. But from overall, had I got the first two days right for cooler, it would have shown cool, warming up [compressional heating], with the frontal passage, then cooler through the 4th/5th.

I nearly hit the pattern exactly based on surface analysis. Almost. I am not real sure how I screwed up the first two days, but I have learned to be more careful.

45-50 days ahead of time...based on surface trending, I nailed 70% of the weekly activity. Did I get the rainfall amounts perfect? No.

Did I get the temps perfect? No. [Well..looking closer, my .60 for precip was very close and I did nail one or two high temps]

Anyway, what I want this to show is two things. First, the surface trending as a companion to the upper level trending is a valuable tool. Combined, it can be VERY effective.

Second, its not perfect. It will take both, upper and lower level analysis, SOME consideration of seasonal norms, and consideration to the season as it relates to convective potential.

All in all, for the first stab, I am VERY pleased with this attempt. I think this approach is most effective in longer stretches. Here is why I believe this.

This contest was one week. I am not sure how everyone did their forecast, but I know that I tied with the approach in taking seasonal norms, applying a bit cooler/wetter totals, and throwing in a front for good luck. Basically, an educated guess.

In taking this at face value, it would show my approach to be just as good as an educated guess. I agree based on the results.

This is where I contend my approach to be better over a long stretch of time. I think having more days to factor, this approach will clearly outperform an educated guess.

More work to do on this...for sure, but this is quite interesting!