2005 #stormtalk "Guest" chat schedule (AS OF 3-18)

[Jeff Snyder]

MODERATOR: This thread is ONLY intended to let everyone know the dates and times for guest talks... The discussions will occur in #stormtalk (note the change). It will be updated as necessary. All credit goes to George Tincher for setting up these guest talks, and his schedule is listed below.


Since the chat with Dr. Rasmussen went so well and since so many liked it, we will attempt to do more of these over the course of the year. I am in the process now of scheduling new guests. I have emails sent to a number of noted chasers, meteorologists and researchers, who are IMO anyway, experts in certain areas. Because I don't yet have replies from all of them, I will not post their names, that way they will not feel obligated to make an appearance. But as they reply and if they agree, I will add them to this thread, as well as the date/time/subject of each chat . Here is where we stand right now:

Dr. Josh Wurman
Thursday March 17 @ 8 PM CST
Subject: Subvortex, Doppler On Wheels, etc
For background see: http://www.cswr.org/
Chat completed.....log below

Dr. John Scala (former TWC severe wx expert)
Thursday March 31 @ 8 PM Central
Subject: warning leadtime, F-scale, building construction
Background: www.atmos.millersville.edu/metall/html/scala2003.htm

Tim Samaras
Thursday July 7 @ 8 PM Central
Subject: instrumented probes
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/emerging...timSamaras.html

Gene Moore (date and topic TBA)
www.chaseday.com

Tim Marshall (date and topic TBA)

Gary England (date and topic TBA)
www.newsok.com

The Twister Sisters (date and topic TBA)
www.twistersisters.com

I have also received replies from Chuck Doswell, Howie Bluestein, Jim Leonard and Paul Markowski. They have indicated they are too busy with various things attm to do a chat, however they may be able to do so later in the Summer or in the Fall. I'll provide an update on these 4 people when I get something.

Others pending. Please check back later for details.

Chat location:

For IRC users: irc.slashnet.org (room name #stormtalk)

Java users: www.slashnet.org/java.php (room #stormtalk)

The #stormtalk room will be used specifically for hosting guest chats. It will be strictly moderated so no foul language, foolishness or off topic discussion interferes with, disrupts or offends anyone.

A general chat (which may include off topic subjects or even crude language) will be ongoing in #stormchase. This is the nightly chat most of our group uses. Enter this one at your own risk.

If you have any questions about these chats, feel free to PM me.

-George

 

[Jeff Snyder]

Date: March 9th
Guest: Dr. Erik Rasmussen, Research Meteorologist, CIMMS (OU)
Chat log below or at http://www.midwestchase.com/razchat.html

[20:04] <ErikR> The blob...
[20:04] <Aaron_Kennedy> Ask and I do
[20:05] <ErikR> When we analyzed the Dimmitt (1995) storm, we saw a column of precip dangling down the back in the radar data.
[20:05] <ErikR> This hangs down from the echo overhang which caps the updraft.
[20:05] <ErikR> So basically it is coming down the back of the updraft
[20:05] <ErikR> But we don't know if it's in cloud, or outside
[20:05] <ErikR> Hard to say.
[20:05] <ErikR> Sometimes when you look at the backsheared anvil, you see streamers of graupel/snow there taking aim on the updraft
[20:06] <ErikR> Anyway... that was unusual in itself... never before documented as far as i know.
[20:06] <ErikR> Well... Forbes saw a "dot" echo in the WSR-57 reflectivity before the xenia tornado... same thing, prolly
[20:07] <ErikR> That's how it looks often in 88D base scan data... a dot off to the right rear where you might expect a hook to form
20:07] <ErikR> This was pretty interesting... we called it a "blob echo", but "officially" it will prolly get called a Descending Reflectivity Core
[20:07] <ErikR> But that's not the whole story
[20:08] <ErikR> When you see these things show up in the base scan data, you VERY OFTEN see a little jetlet... locally strong outflow... right on the leading edge of the blob
[20:08] <ErikR> And since the air either side of the jetlet is usually moving like inflow air, you end up with counter-rotating vortices straddling the blob.
20:08] <ErikR> Some of you showed BEAUTIFUL time lapse footage at the chaser convention, and if you look at this carefully, you will often
[20:08] <ErikR> be able to pick out the A-C rotation on the south of the cyclonic
[20:09] <ErikR> So what's going on here?
[20:09] *** weathernet has joined #stormchase
[20:09] <Aaron_Kennedy> Well basically when you're done with the initial talk
[20:09] <Aaron_Kennedy> we'll start presenting user's questions
[20:09] <Aaron_Kennedy> and you get to answer them
[20:09] <ErikR> It LOOKS like we form rings of horizontal vorticity around a locally strong part of the RFD that is associated with the blob
20:10] <ErikR> And it LOOKS like the forward side of these rings, finding themselves below the updraft, get tugged violently upward, forming the
[20:10] <ErikR> cyclonic AND anticyclonic vortices.... while the back side gets pressed toward the ground by the RFD.
[20:10] <ErikR> So this means the rotating that forms the tornado is PARTLY derived from the sinking vs. rising that is going on in the back of the storm, then tilted into the vertical
[20:11] <ErikR> Why don't we see more anticyclonic tornadoes?
[20:11] <Aaron_Kennedy> Ok quick question to clarify
[20:11] <ErikR> A bunch of the circulation that ends up being a tornado is due to the tilting of very large (streamwise) vorticity...SRH... from the inflow.
[20:11] <ErikR> This favors the cyclonic vortex.
[20:11] <ErikR> (My aching fingers and wrists)
[20:11] <Aaron_Kennedy> Where are blobs occuring in relation to the sfc
20:11] <ErikR> OK... so that's it in a nutshell.... I see a question
[20:12] <ErikR> The blob is right in the notch in the back of the updraft.... the indented part of the horseshoe
[20:12] <Aaron_Kennedy> <LauraD> What do blobs visually look like in appearance?
[20:12] <ErikR> You will have a tough time making it out visually often... it's small... about a mile across... and maybe just a few more large drops than normal
20:13] <ErikR> Laura, did that answer it... you might see a bit of a rain shaft there in some cases
[20:13] <Aaron_Kennedy> Jeff Wear posted some timelapse
[20:13] <Aaron_Kennedy> of the Mulvane tornado
[20:13] <ErikR> What you are more likely to notice is an abrupt advance of the clearing, and the counter-rotating cloud base vortices
[20:13] <Aaron_Kennedy> you acn see a small rain shaft south of the developing rotation
[20:14] <Aaron_Kennedy> cyclonic rotation that is...
[20:14] <ErikR> You all are a better judge of how often this shows up visually
20:14] <Aaron_Kennedy> <GGarf> Is "the blob" different from a "surging" RFD? If so, how are they related?
[20:14] <ErikR> We sure would like to know what it looks like from the back side... to find out if it's in or out of cloud.
[20:15] <ErikR> Prolly the blob is first... leading to the vortex rings aloft... then tilting happens... and the tilting of a vortex ring is a fancy way of saying that the air is starting to surge eastward behind the GF
20:15] <Aaron_Kennedy> <Chief`Skyreader> "In relation to RFD core, where would the blob be? Centered in RFD max? that is to say center of clear slot push? or on some side of clear slot/RFD?
[20:15] <ErikR> In a computer simulation we ran, that's exactly what happened. It's kind of neat... there was NO SHEAR
[20:16] <ErikR> in the environment of this experiment... calm air.... all we did was let rain descend at the back of an updraft.
[20:16] <ErikR> in the environment of this experiment... calm air.... all we did was let rain descend at the back of an updraft.
[20:16] <ErikR> And quickly the updraft turned horseshoe-shaped, and the gust front surged, and counter-rotating vortices formed
[20:17] <ErikR> Good question, Chief... In the ONE case that we have good enuf data for and have analyzed, the blob is near ZERO updraft...
[20:17] <Aaron_Kennedy> <LauraD> Do blobs occur only in certain types of supercells?
[20:17] <ErikR> centered right between updraft and rFD, with the strongest RFD right in the back edge of the blob.
[20:17] <ErikR> We have found blobbing behavior in what you might call CL and HP supercells. We have examined a few LPs, and found no blobbing
20:18] <ErikR> I might add that the blob may just be telling us that we have a small-scale, locally intense downdraft.
[20:18] <ErikR> This is the sort of thing you would expect with a local column of precip... enhanced water loading, melting, evap, etc.
[20:19] <ErikR> BUT/..... There are some CL tornadic supercells that produce the counter-rotating vortices without a typical blob... always some local precip back there, but not always a column
[20:19] <Aaron_Kennedy> AmosM>Dr. R, do you have any preliminary sense of what factors in the larger environment might be more strongly associated with DCRs? For instance the way low-level RH values may be associated with the presence of more buoyant RFD.
20:19] <Aaron_Kennedy> And we'll add: <AmosM> Question: Any possible relationship between DRC and the occlusion downdraft, or not enough data to know?
[20:20] <ErikR> Not yet... I want to toss this to Aaron who may have looked at it more than I... I think the blob may be more EFFECTIVE at producing a tornado when it's humid, and I can elaborate on that further, but first Aaron... do you have any sense of the environment for blobs?
[20:20] <Aaron_Kennedy> Not yet
[20:20] <Aaron_Kennedy> we still need to build a larger case database
[20:21] <ErikR> OK... let me comment on the DRC and occlusion downdraft.
[20:21] <Aaron_Kennedy> of storms that do have blobage
[20:21] <ErikR> Wow... I have always been troubled by the occlusion downdraft concept, to be honest. It may be quite viable, it just doesn't satisfy this soul.
[20:22] <ErikR> Something VERY fascinating happened in the simulations.
[20:22] <ErikR> RIght behind the vortex ring, as it got tugged east and up into the updraft, the vorticity in the ring got intensified through stretching, right?
[20:22] <ErikR> That's basically the process that leads to a tornado, but it can happen horizontally as well as vertically.
[20:23] <ErikR> And as the horizontal part, between the updraft and downdraft, got stretched, a locally strong downdraft about the width of the blob developed.
[20:23] <Aaron_Kennedy> It is too bad this chat doesn't have a whiteboard... this topic lends itself to graphic diagrams
[20:23] <ErikR> That darn thing in the simulation looks SO MUCH like what so many of us have seen... the waterfall just behind
[20:23] <ErikR> the back edge of the updraft.
[20:23] <ErikR> MAYBE... that's what the occlusion downdraft really is visually and in radar obs
20:25] <Aaron_Kennedy> Ok couple more questions involving "the big picture" at the time of blobs
[20:25] <Aaron_Kennedy> <Joseph_C_Guerra> Question: In your illustration, Showing Cool and Warm downdrafts in relation to tornadogenesis, it shows that the warmer downdraft rises viloently back up, is this due to the fact that cold air sinks and hot air rises?
[20:25] <ErikR> Just to be clear, or simple simulation captured VERY MANY of the features seen in complex cloud model simulations, which leads me to ASK whether the occlusion downdraft maybe has been erroneously explained in the past.
20:26] <ErikR> Joseph.. yes... in a nutshell... or think of it this way... the tornado cyclone would LIKE to lift the air because friction is forcing the air into it near the ground. But if it's cold, a whole lot more work must be done to lift it, and it's harder for the cyclone to intensify
[20:27] <Aaron_Kennedy> <Ggarf>You have said descending reflectivity cores may be related to tornadogenesis. I
[20:27] <Aaron_Kennedy> recall seeing a picture of the Hesston tornado of 1990 that showed a small rain band just
[20:27] <Aaron_Kennedy> to the west-southwest of the tornado. However, at the time of the photo, the tornado
[20:27] <Aaron_Kennedy> had been on the ground for ~ 40 minutes. Could DRCs also aid in the longetivity of some
[20:27] <Aaron_Kennedy> tornadoes?
[20:27] <Aaron_Kennedy> Oo that came out bad
[20:28] <Aaron_Kennedy> <AmosM> Q: following up on Gabe's question, how do you imagine the DCRs might be altering the thermodynamics of the RFD if at all?
[20:28] <ErikR> No... I understand... and I have seen the same thing. I haven't thought it through, but I'm guessing that the DRC/RFD could continue to contribute circulation as long as it's present. I have the gut feeling that many tornadoes get their initial quota of circulation, and then just gradually spin down
[20:29] <ErikR> But some apparently keep getting a new dose of circulation as they go along.
20:29] <ErikR> The CRD and thermo is the million dollar question right now in my opnion. There is something that is allowing some RFDs to be intense aloft, reach the ground, and arrive there warm
[20:30] <ErikR> To be an intense RFD strongly implies that there is a lot of water loading and/or evap/melting going on aloft.
[20:31] <Aaron_Kennedy> <ef> what visual clues on radar should look for the blobs
[20:31] <ErikR> But, it's apparently warming dry adiabatically near the ground. One culprit might be that the DD is being driven by the weight of a few very large drops, and hence not being cooled excessively
[20:31] <ErikR> Expect the blob to first appear aloft, right below the echo overhang at the trailing part of the storm. If the storm is close enuf to radar, you might be able to see the blob as a dot or "hot spot" in the rear-side echo appendage ALOFT FIRST.
[20:32] <ErikR> They seem to descend ~ 10 meters/sec, so it takes a volume scan or two for them to show up at the base scan
20:32] <ErikR> The classic appearance, (Aaron?) is a local max in reflectivity embedded in the rear-side appendage.
[20:32] <Aaron_Kennedy> ya
[20:33] <ErikR> People have usually called this appendage a "hook", but in my experience, it is seldom hook-like until the gust front as surged, and the vortices have really intensified.
[20:33] <ErikR> Once it is hook-like, the storm has done its thing in terms of producing a tornado cyclone... the only question remaining is whether that will contract into a tornado
[20:34] <ErikR> I want to remind everyone that a lot of what I am saying is not in the formal literature yet.... subject to a lot of scrutiny by other scientists. So your mileage may vary
[20:34] <ErikR> Heh.... you DON'T WANT to know how hard it is to get this stuff published!
[20:35] <Aaron_Kennedy> The red tape of science
[20:35] <Aaron_Kennedy> <Joseph_C_Guerra> Where did you come up with the "Blob Echo" name?
[20:35] <ErikR> There are many, many obstacles... most of which don't need to be there
[20:36] <Aaron_Kennedy> And a bit more technical: <AmosM> Q: When you guys were measuring RFDs, was the DCR concept anywhere in your mind? Any chance a probe might have stumbled into one?
[20:36] <ErikR> Joseph, when you see the echo in 3D, it looks like a blob descending from the echo aloft. Or a stalactite (is that the one that hangs?).
[20:37] <ErikR> We get this by doing a numerical analysis of all the tilts of 88D data to a grid, and then using visualization software to look at the 3D structure of a certain reflectivity value, like 40 dBZ
20:37] <ErikR> The DRC was not in our minds when we were out there in VORTEX or its successors. It's pretty new in the last 18 months. But yes, I have at least one case where the cars unwittingly were in the blob.
[20:38] <Aaron_Kennedy> <Jo_n_Shane> "Do you believe there's one main type of process that leads to tornadogenesis, or do you think there's multiple processes, none of which are neccessarilty related to each other...in other words, do you believe the blob theory is touching on THE way tornado genesis occurs, or just ONE OF the ways?
[20:38] <ErikR> In V2, we will intentionally sample the blobs with mobile mesonets as well as unmanned aircraft
[20:38] <Aaron_Kennedy> We got a bunch of questions on Vortex II...
[20:38] <Aaron_Kennedy> I figure we can finish up the blob stuff... touch vortex II, and then we have a few off topic questions
[20:39] <ErikR> My sense, Jo_n_Shane, is that this is probably the MAJOR way that supercells produce tornado cyclones. ANd keep in mind that there might not always be a blob echo, but probably always a very small scale (0.5-2 mi) locally intense DD in the RFD
[20:39] <ErikR> BUT
[20:40] <ErikR> That only gets us to tornado cyclone... something you see visually as "rapid circulation" preferrably "right overhead".... and you will see in mobile mesonet and doppler data
[20:40] <ErikR> There may be a lot of variety in how what we call tornadoes (a visual term) come to be within the tornado cyclone
[20:41] <ErikR> An interesting anecdote... to me anyway... in 1979, we were chasing the Wichita Falls storm. Near Seymour, a dark rainshaft appeared just at the back of a really wicked rotating base.
[20:41] <ErikR> I thought that this was all wrong... we had been told that the base FOLLOWS the rain, not the other way around. Within minutes... a violent tornado.
20:43] <Aaron_Kennedy> <Ggarf>VORTEX II will have a significantly larger set of vehicles than VORTEX I. How
[20:43] <Aaron_Kennedy> will logistical issues (gasoline for vehicles, etc) be handled?
[20:43] <ErikR> Wow
[20:43] <ErikR> We will be doing some things differently. We will be using an ad hoc mobile digital network (WiFi?) to send graphical info to all teams
[20:44] <Aaron_Kennedy> hrm
[20:44] <ErikR> I envision this to include realtime counts of the numbers of our vehicles at various service stations, etc., as well as possibly reports of restroom line length, etc.
[20:44] <ErikR> We will probably be in 3-4 mini-caravans of 10-15 vehicle each. That sort of thing.
[20:44] <ErikR> Next?
[20:44] <Aaron_Kennedy> <AmosM> Q: Would it make sense to recruit some chasers for V2 simply to decrease traffic
[20:44] <Aaron_Kennedy> density given the number of MMs planned?
[20:45] <Aaron_Kennedy> or do you grab every grad student and make full use of their stipends
[20:46] <ErikR> There has been talk of outfitting chaser cars with instruments. There are pros and cons... liability being one. Another concern is that our MM mission MUST be science driven... always moving around to sample the assigned gradients, and NEVER stopping to enjoy the storm
[20:46] <ErikR> And of course the grad students... one ought to be able to be in a couple or three mms at once, right?
[20:46] <Aaron_Kennedy> hah
[20:47] <Aaron_Kennedy> We have several questions about the use of UAV's in Vortex II
[20:47] <ErikR> We found in V1... no offence to anyone involved... that folks usually MUST stop to get video. It is too hard to resist
[20:47] <ErikR> OK... first let me say that I want to be thinking with everyone here about ways to get scientifically useful video. To me, that means somehow encoding lat, lon, elevation and camera orientation into the digital stream
[20:48] <ErikR> Camera orientation being azimuth, roll, and tilt to the nearest 0.1 deg or so.
[20:48] <ErikR> UAVs... query away...
[20:48] <Aaron_Kennedy> Have scientists talked to camera makers about including this data?
[20:49] <ErikR> Not yet. I do know that there are devices that can get these data for UAVs... a small box about the size of a coffee cup in volume that cost about $5k a few years ago.
[20:49] <ErikR> How to interface it to the DV data stream is another issue.
[20:50] <Aaron_Kennedy> yep
[20:50] <Aaron_Kennedy> As far as UAV questions.... what sort of UAVs will be used... in what quantity
[20:51] <ErikR> There is a big effort underway at CU.... http://recuv.colorado.edu I think is the web page. The UAVs are roughly 2 meter wingspan.... a hardened version of a popular hobby model plane
[20:51] <ErikR> They will fly 35-120 kt roughly. Somewhat hailproof. ~3 hour duration
[20:51] *** Bill_H has quit (Quit: Leaving)
[20:52] *** Guest02 has joined #stormchase
[20:52] *** weathernet has quit (Ping timeout)
[20:52] <Aaron_Kennedy> What sort of instrument packages will you be able to fit on them
[20:52] <ErikR> And let me say that these aircraft know their position, yaw, pitch, roll, and know how to fly from one location to another on their own
[20:52] <ErikR> The idea that we will test this summer is this... a MM will be in radio contact with a UAV, sending the mm lat, lon, and pressure. The UAV will endeavor to fly to at the same lat, lon and say 50 mb lower pressure automatically
[20:53] *** Guest02 is now known as BillH
[20:53] <ErikR> Instruments... standard sonde package or better. ACtually we're looking at making our own mini-sondes for a variety of applications. And
[20:53] <ErikR> we're working with NCAR to develop a device to image particles up to large raindrops and small hailstones
[20:54] *** MikeF has quit (Quit: Leaving)
[20:54] <Aaron_Kennedy> like a mini cloudscope/2dc probe?
[20:54] <ErikR> They could actually carry quite a bit more instrument payload... there will be an onboard generator.
[20:54] <ErikR> Yep... this will be a mini 2D probe.
[20:54] *** charlesk has quit (Quit: Leaving)
[20:54] <Aaron_Kennedy> <Kyle_F> you mentioned the use of airborne radars as part of VortexII. What kind of aircraft will you use for that...P-3s?
[20:54] <ErikR> The precip field will be illuminated in a narrow slab by a pulsed, collimated light source.
[20:55] <ErikR> It has been proposed that the NCAR/Navy Research Lab P-3 will be flown with the ELDORA radar.... there has been some discussion of adding the U Wyoming cloud radar
[20:55] *** danhinch has quit (Ping timeout)
[20:56] <ErikR> I will be honest here, though... with seven ground-based mobile Dopplers, those will be the chief data source for Doppler analysis. One or two of these mobile radars will be dual-polarization as well
[20:56] *** AdrianElizabeth has quit (Connection reset by peer)
[20:56] <Aaron_Kennedy> Is there even an operational dual pol radar yet?
[20:56] <Aaron_Kennedy> mobile
[20:56] <Aaron_Kennedy> that is
[20:56] <ErikR> It's amazing how the state of the art has changed in the last few years, thanks much to the ceaseless efforts of Josh Wurman and the recent efforts of OU/NSSL/TAMU/TTU
[20:57] <ErikR> Yes, there is an X-band mobile dual-pol that usually resides in Greece, but was built here. And NSSL/OU are in the process of collaborating on another, I believe
[20:57] *** Eric_K0NUT has joined #stormchase
[20:57] <Aaron_Kennedy> <ef> What states will Vortex 2 cover?
[20:58] <ErikR> V2 domain has been based on land use and road coverage... flat, agricultural, dense roads, few trees. From roughly MAF-OKC-TOP-DSM-Souix Falls-VTN-LBF-EHA-MAF
[20:59] <Aaron_Kennedy> <GeorgeT> When is Vortex II scheduled to begin? And how long will the project continue?
[20:59] <ErikR> By the way... V2 is a FULLY MOBILE experiment... there won't be a "home base". Home will be on the road in motels. We will set up a few maintenance depots around the Plains in case we need repairs
[20:59] <Aaron_Kennedy> <MikeDinGRI>Is there any new information about the funding
[20:59] <Aaron_Kennedy> status of VORTEX 2007/2008?
[20:59] <Aaron_Kennedy> Last of the Vortex questions
[21:00] <ErikR> V2 has been proposed for early May 2007-end of June, and the same period in 2008. Whether or not we really can go two years is up to the National Science Foundation. And there is a reasonable chance we will be asked to delay until 2008/9
[21:01] <ErikR> Status... the formal experiment proposal is now in review. We should hear ~June. Then individual researchers will submit their own proposals for their own research components. Anyway... we ought to be able to announce the general go/no-go and timetable sometime this summer
[21:02] <Aaron_Kennedy> Any plans for mobile phased array radar in the projecT?
[21:02] <ErikR> I believe that U Mass has developed a mobile PA radar, and I would guess that perhaps Howie Bluestein will propose using it since he works closely with the UMass engineers historically
[21:03] <Aaron_Kennedy> Ok... now for a few off topic questions
[21:03] <ErikR> OK
[21:03] <Aaron_Kennedy> <LauraD> Have you considered chasing storms in Canada to study or just for fun?

[21:08] <Rockwell> How ironic, that server is named vortex
[21:08] <GeorgeT> lol
[21:08] <Aaron_Kennedy> <Mike_H> Then I started taking readings and watching to see how frequent they were and how "strong". The biggest factor seemed to be the RH. Often the steam would billow out and be tilted over horizontally by any winds. Then it would be forced to have two rotating sides with the center of this mass being "cut" up as it would spin. It would even spread as it does so until the two sides are further apart rotating by themselves.
[21:09] <Aaron_Kennedy> Last chance for questions
[21:09] <ErikR> Cool....are you saying they are more common/vigorous when it's dry?
[21:09] *** Aaron_Kennedy sets mode +v on Mike_H
[21:09] <Mike_H> yes
[21:09] <Mike_H> yes
[21:10] <ErikR> I would speculate that this allows the edges of the steam plume to cool more than normal... increasing the horizontal vorticity of both directions of spin
[21:10] <ErikR> I wonder if what I said at the start about the physics of the rotation in supercell tornadoes made any sense?
[21:10] <ErikR> Did anyone wonder what the mesocyclone has to do with things?
[21:11] <GeorgeT> the meso, yes. How does it fit into these new findings?
[21:11] <ErikR> It doesn't, much...
[21:12] <ErikR> My present opinion is that the meso is there because the inflow has large SRH... I guess we all knew that. So it is a big SRH-meter in the sky
[21:12] <ErikR> I don't think a meso MAKES a tornado, like we thought for so many years
[21:12] <Aaron_Kennedy> Plenty (and I mean plenty) of supercells don't produce tornadoes... or ever come close
[21:13] <ErikR> It is POSSIBLE that a meso embedded in stronger winds aloft has a place at the back side with very little flow, allowing precip to descend there and creating a blob.
[21:13] <Aaron_Kennedy> my chase experiences are proof of that
[21:13] <ErikR> Me too. And I've seen storms WITHOUT mesos produce tornado cyclones and then tornadoes, ending up looking very classic
[21:13] <Rockwell> PMFJ, but what about landspout-type tornadoes?
[21:14] <Aaron_Kennedy> and <Monsoon> for Erik...does electrical charge/lightning play a role or give clues?
[21:14] *** Guest85 has joined #stormchase
[21:14] *** stwx1002 has quit (Quit: PJIRC forever!)
[21:14] <ErikR> Yep... those are a different beast entirely. I don't have a good sense of how common the landspout mechanism is with supercells. It's something else we may get a chance to look at in V2. In one way, it could be the blobbing that produces the TC and gust front, and the landspout mech might take things the rest of the way
[21:15] <Rockwell> Okay cool, thanks
[21:15] <ErikR> Lightning... someone is baiting me here. There are some intriguing signatures in total lightning now that we're mapping it in 4D. But to my eye, they don't say a whole lot more than radar reflectivity is telling us.
[21:16] <ErikR> I was part of some experiments in the 80's that looked for anything unusual electrical near tornadoes... the Chief was our driver and inspiration... we didn't find anything. Doesn't mean it's not there... just well hidden maybe
[21:17] <Aaron_Kennedy> <AmosM> Q: Since we're well enough off-topic. Some friends of mine measured RFD around the Mulvane storm 6-11-04 and found CAPE/CIN approx equivalent to ambient env. That storm was on the cool side of a boundary and I was thinking that if it had not been, the RH values would have been lower and possibly not-so-'warm' RFD would have occured. Could this mean there is more value in boundaries than simply enhanced SHV?
[21:18] <ErikR> YES! We have actually observed a peak in CAPE, a min in CIN, and a min in LCL on the immediate cool side of boundaries. SO I believe that you are right that boundaries are doing several good things for supercells, not just enhanced SRH
[21:19] <Aaron_Kennedy> Finally, we have a request for any brief... interesting chase stories
[21:22] <ErikR> Goodness.... I could fill volumes with interesting chase stories. But the things I've done pale in comparison to many of the things that chasers are doing these days. I guess I would take this opportunity to encourage folks not to take wild chances out there... there's always going to be another tornado, and they can be pretty enjoyable from a few tornado diameters away... no need to be in the corner region. That's one reason we're working
[21:22] <ErikR> wow... Unknown comma nd: privmsgensors
[21:22] <Aaron_Kennedy> ?
[21:22] <ErikR> ? me too
[21:23] <Rockwell> PRIVMSG is an IRC command... something must have gotten truncated
[21:23] <Aaron_Kennedy> Weird..
[21:23] <Aaron_Kennedy> Well I think that pretty much concludes the formal chat
[21:23] <ErikR> OK
[21:23] <GeorgeT> OK, I'd like to give a big thanks to Erik for volunteering to come here and explain the DRC (among other thinngs) for us. Erik, that was an outstanding job! Also, everyone is welcome to hang around here with us as long as you want tonight and dicuss anything weather related or otherwise you'd like. Also, feel free to come back. This room is usually very active starting this time of year and lots of forecasting and other stuff goes on in here.
[21:23] <Rockwell> Thank you very much, Erik
[21:23] <CalebL> Yes, thank you, Erik.
[21:23] <AmosM> Thanks, Dr. Rasmussen
[21:23] <Rockwell> [21:23] <CalebL> It was very informative

 

[Jeff Snyder]

Date: March 17th
Guest: Dr. Joshua Wurman, President, Center for Severe Weather Research
Chat log below or at http://www.midwestchase.com/wurmanchat.html

[21:51:05] <@GeorgeT> <SA> "Regarding the accuracy/validity of DOW windspeed measurements in tornadoes, did the downplaying of the 318mp reading on 3 may 99 have anything to do with the media frenzy it created? I ask because I read years ago that the 246mph measurement taken on 30 May 98 of the Spencer, SD tornado was used to actually HELP validate the F-scale windspeed estimations
[21:51:32] <JoshWurman> Well, first, the DOW measurement has to be compared very carefully to
[21:51:58] <JoshWurman> other measurements. It is a radar measurement taken well above the ground, in this case about 150 feet. So, comparing to a wind
[21:52:19] <JoshWurman> at building height is challenging. Our more careful reported measurement is
[21:52:31] <JoshWurman> 301 mph +/- 20. It is important to keep in mind that all measurements
[21:52:48] <JoshWurman> have this type of uncertainty. The 231 mph on Mt. Washington should have
[21:53:01] <JoshWurman> some kind of +/- attached, but it seems to be not reported.
[21:53:18] <JoshWurman> I have not "downplayed' the measurement per se, but certainly do not focus
[21:53:30] <JoshWurman> on it since the exact highest wind that we've measured is of less scientific interest
[21:53:46] <JoshWurman> than the overall structure of tornadoes or how they form.
[21:53:57] <JoshWurman> The other thing to remember about high resolution radar measurements is
[21:54:10] <JoshWurman> that they represent very very short gusts. The 301 mph is a 1/5 second gust.
[21:54:24] <JoshWurman> The corresponding 3 sec gust would be signficantly lower.
[21:54:35] <@GeorgeT> interesting
[21:54:49] <@GeorgeT> <Chief`Skyreader> The 319 speed was an ave was it not... If I recall 285-225 and the 319 was an ave speed... Just curious there.. but question is... that was at 600'... What is the height of the max wind of a torndo? And how fast might it build up? Say rooftop? 25'
[21:55:21] <JoshWurman> I'm not sure what you're saying about 319 mph. Our measurement was
[21:55:37] <JoshWurman> 301 mph +/- 20. Now, I'm sure that some very short gusts, or some pieces
[21:55:51] <JoshWurman> of gravel/debris were moving 320, 340, etc., and some were moving 280, 260 etc.
[21:55:59] <JoshWurman> That is the nature of turbulent flow.
[21:56:14] <JoshWurman> As to the height of the maximum winds, we do not know. We believe that it is
[21:56:34] <JoshWurman> below about 300 feet, and may be near 100 feet. But there are not enough
[21:56:43] <JoshWurman> definitive measurement to say for sure.
[21:56:48] Joins: ckuster ([email protected]) [28 users]
[21:56:58] <JoshWurman> MOderator: Should I use or avoid carraige returns when I type long replies?
[21:57:30] <@GeorgeT> Josh, you may type a message as long as you wish
[21:57:33] <@GeorgeT> it will support it
[21:58:02] <@Chief`Skyreader> (should hear a click click click on PC speaker if exceeding like 512? chars...
[21:58:09] <@GeorgeT> yeah
[21:58:20] <@Caleb> Indeed
[21:58:41] <@Chief`Skyreader> yes 512...
[21:58:45] <@GeorgeT> Ok, next questions
[21:59:03] <@GeorgeT> <NightHawk> How is the phased array mobile radar different than your doppler radar?
[21:59:40] <JoshWurman> A phased array radar uses a series of emmitters rather than a single source of energy
[21:59:59] <JoshWurman> So, the Rapid-Scan DOW, which has an array of about 9000 emmitters arranged on
[22:00:19] <JoshWurman> 106 waveguides, can change the direction of its beam by changing frequency.
[22:00:54] <+JoshWurman> In this manner we send out 6-12 simultaneous beams, literally raking the sky 6-12 times rather than just once per sweep.
[22:01:15] <+JoshWurman> So, each time the antenna goes around, it gets a 3D scan. We've used this in 2003, and
[22:01:30] <+JoshWurman> less successfully in 2004 (despite all those tornadoes) to collect true 3D snapshots
[22:01:37] <+JoshWurman> in rapidly changing tornadoes.
[22:01:55] <+JoshWurman> Many military radars are phased arrays since active phased arrays (much more
[22:02:15] <+JoshWurman> expensive than the passive-phased-array technique we use) can point first one
[22:02:29] <+JoshWurman> place, then the other, which is very useful is one is tracking, say, several incoming
[22:02:34] <+JoshWurman> missiles or aircraft.
[22:03:01] <@GeorgeT> <ef> What did you learn from the investigations of using the DOWs on Hurricane Frances and Ivan
[22:03:21] <+JoshWurman> Not to park too close to the cliff.
[22:03:46] <+JoshWurman> Seriously, though, we are only early in our investigations. We are looking into correlating
[22:04:02] <+JoshWurman> specific wind gusts with particular areas of damage. We collected very high res data
[22:04:21] <+JoshWurman> over Hutchinson Island including the nuke, the causeway trailer park, which had
[22:04:37] <+JoshWurman> major damage, and a series of condos on the barrier island that may have
[22:04:49] <+JoshWurman> affected the winds in ways we can see with the radar. It is a very exciting
[22:05:05] <+JoshWurman> data set.
[22:05:19] <@GeorgeT> <Mike_H> If you can see a tornado vortex with the DOW, is there a height were it usually becomes less defined and/or ends? What height is this typically if this can be seen? If you can't at what height on average does it become less viewable via the radar?
[22:05:44] <+JoshWurman> Above about 2 km (1.2 miles), well into the cloud, the circulation becomes very
[22:06:00] <+JoshWurman> confusing and merges, usually, with the parent mesocyclone.
[22:07:05] <@Chief`Skyreader> (might help to do an 'end' or such when done with the answer Josh)
[22:07:14] <+JoshWurman> okay. end
[22:07:14] <@GeorgeT> <Chief`Skyreader> You've noted eddies in the boundry of the RFD, no? I wonder if "the blob" could be seen coming down and if so, if this kicks off any eddies along the RFD boundry?
[22:07:15] <@Chief`Skyreader> (oops Dr Wurman)
[22:07:36] <@Chief`Skyreader> Eri*'s 'blob'...
[22:07:40] <+JoshWurman> Well, I believe that Erik Rasmussen was in this forum recently, and he is the
[22:07:57] <+JoshWurman> the main proponent of the blob. The blob, as I understand it, originates at
[22:08:16] <+JoshWurman> much higher levels than we usually scan with the DOWs. We get great resolution
[22:08:32] <+JoshWurman> by being up close, but lose vertical persepective, usually seeing only about
[22:08:57] <+JoshWurman> 2-6 km above the ground. We do see intense small scale vortices, I've been
[22:09:18] <+JoshWurman> calling them genesis vortices, along the gust front, and sometimes these appear
[22:09:40] <+JoshWurman> to spiral into, and perhaps congeal to form, a developing tornado. We are
[22:09:48] Joins: Guest56 ([email protected]) [29 users]
[22:10:03] <+JoshWurman> just beginning an analysis effort into the role of these small vortices and it will
[22:10:14] <+JoshWurman> be led by Yvette Richardson at PSU. end
[22:10:26] <@GeorgeT> Hi Guest56......type /nick JohnDoe to change name
[22:10:30] <@GeorgeT> <FrankM> What about reports of their being recorded wind speeds of Mach 1 generated by tornados? Any truth to those?
[22:10:30] <@GeorgeT> <FrankM> And if there were any recorded wind speeds of mach 1 reported, which tornado produced that wind? Anything specific that would cause that tornado to reach speeds of Mach 1?
[22:10:53] <@GeorgeT> being Mach 1 at sea level in around 725 mph, I doubt those are true....but an interesting Q nonetheless
[22:11:00] <@Chief`Skyreader> (ahhh I see... too far overhead... need more funding to get a 2nd range truck going... thank you... Smile)
[22:11:01] <+JoshWurman> No measurements of winds anywhere near M1 have occured. There have been
[22:11:02] Guest56 ([email protected]) is now known as rdewey
[22:11:17] <+JoshWurman> theoretical (Fieldler) and numerical (Llewelen) studies that have suggested that
[22:11:31] <+JoshWurman> M1 may be possible. But, if true, it may be in very small regions that we have
[22:11:49] <+JoshWurman> not resolved with even high res DOW radars. end
[22:12:16] <@GeorgeT> ok gang, I'm outta questions
[22:12:25] <@GeorgeT> feel free to PM me some new ones
[22:12:28] <@Chief`Skyreader> my pebble question to fill in gt
[22:12:46] <@Chief`Skyreader> Around Dallas water is costly... and so a few folks have put large areas of their front lawn with golfball sized stream pebbles... Might this be a bad idea?
[22:13:13] <+JoshWurman> Well, I"m not sure that I'd want to be downstream in a tornado. However, since
[22:13:25] <+JoshWurman> the mean recurrance interval of tornadic winds over any particular lawn, even
[22:13:34] <+JoshWurman> in Dallas, is about 2000+ years, I wouldn't worry.
[22:13:52] <+JoshWurman> end
[22:14:00] <@GeorgeT> <Mike_H> In your opinion which plains state is the best tornado state? Smile
[22:14:15] <@GeorgeT> BTW Josh, just let us know if you get tired of typing
[22:14:19] <@GeorgeT> hehe
[22:14:32] <+JoshWurman> Best to live in or best for intercepts? I assume that you men the latter. In this
[22:14:33] Joins: JayM ([email protected]) [30 users]
[22:14:51] <+JoshWurman> case, we prefer the flat areas of TX SW of AMA and NW of LBB and also
[22:15:06] <+JoshWurman> various flat areas of Kansas. It is much easier for us to find good radar sites there.
[22:15:07] <+JoshWurman> end.
[22:15:21] <@GeorgeT> <ef> Any progress on the Bistatic Radar Networks
[22:15:39] <+JoshWurman> Not much progress on bistatic networks mainly because I've been focusing
[22:15:51] <+JoshWurman> on the DOWS and recently the rapid-scan DOW. The bistatic technique
[22:16:08] <+JoshWurman> has proved viable and there are recent papers by Friedrich and also by Satoh
[22:16:28] <+JoshWurman> that have analyzed data. Unless there is a champiion for a new technology, it takes a long time
[22:16:39] <+JoshWurman> for it to catch on. I need a clone. end
[22:17:23] <@Chief`Skyreader> That can be done now...
[22:17:29] <@Chief`Skyreader> clone... Wink
[22:17:29] <@GeorgeT> <ef> What has been learned from project IHOP?
[22:17:45] Quits: Rockwell ([email protected]) (Quit
[22:17:59] <+JoshWurman> IHOP: Lots has been learned, but much remains. There is a special issue of MWR coming out in a few
[22:18:23] <+JoshWurman> months that will have several papers. I've been working mainly with the PSU group to examine how different
[22:18:44] <+JoshWurman> boundaries affected convective initiation and how misocyclones, small 1-2 km scale cyclones
[22:19:04] <+JoshWurman> focused uplift and may have been related to CI. Unfortunately, there were not a lot of CI cases
[22:19:32] <+JoshWurman> in IHOP, so it may prove difficult to draw general conclusions. What one winds up with in the absence
[22:19:58] <+JoshWurman> of lots of cases, are individual case studies, eg. how CI happened or didn't in a particular case.
[22:20:18] <+JoshWurman> We were once in the same situation with DOW-observed tornadoes. But, now, with about
[22:20:36] <+JoshWurman> 100 cases we are starting to be able to tackle more general questions. For example
[22:20:55] <+JoshWurman> are there broad classes of tornadoes, do their evolutions vary, are there different
[22:21:03] <+JoshWurman> modes of tornadogenesis, etc. end.
[22:21:10] <@GeorgeT> Here's an interesting question:
[22:21:16] <@GeorgeT> <Mike_H> In your view has the increase in chasers slacked off, or does it seem to still be increasing(judging by how many following the dows I suppose)?
[22:21:50] <+JoshWurman> There were a lot of chasers out in 2004. I think it was more than in 2003 based on the
[22:22:05] <+JoshWurman> peak crowds on some days and several times in hotel parking lots and other loitering areas before
[22:22:24] <+JoshWurman> the weather got active. So far we have not really had a problem with crowds. I know there is always
[22:22:43] <+JoshWurman> concern among the scientific teams, but I personally have not seen a problem. So long as people
[22:23:06] <+JoshWurman> are reasonable, get off the road, etc. we're find. My main pet peeve on the road are the occassional
[22:23:29] <+JoshWurman> chasers who are not sensitive to the acceleration problems that the DOWs have. Please don't
[22:23:48] <+JoshWurman> get right in front of us on a downhill. We're trying to get all the speed we can to get up the next ridge.
[22:23:50] <+JoshWurman> end.
[22:24:10] <@GeorgeT> I'll ask a question picking up where Mike's left off: It is my understanding that some chasers with those portable, "marine" radars interfered with the DOW's on occasion in the past. With the introduction of XM radio and WxWorx, do you see fewer of these marine radars in use?
[22:24:27] <+JoshWurman> I hope so.
[22:24:42] <+JoshWurman> WX is a great product. Sure it is blurred somewhat, and can be few minutes out of date, but
[22:25:00] <+JoshWurman> it is probably much better information that what was coming out of the marine radars anyway.
[22:25:19] <+JoshWurman> I'm glad to say that we did not see much X-band interference in 2004.
[22:25:27] Quits: kanani ([email protected]) (Quit: Leaving)
[22:25:31] <+JoshWurman> end
[22:25:39] <@GeorgeT> <Chief`Skyreader> Four times now since 2000, I've seen, in my view finder of my Canon GL1, a condensation funnel in a core in the center of the wall cloud. These funnels where NOT visible to the naked eye! In one, Foss Lake tornado, the core let up and the tornado appeared quite fully formed as a trunk... Question is... Have you seen any, what I'd call TVS, signatures in visible cores? 1 outa 4 had a boni fidi tornado, but I wonder if that was
[22:26:11] <@Chief`Skyreader> (the CCDs filter UV or ???? but they was there...)
[22:26:18] <+JoshWurman> Well, a condensation funnel occurs whenever the pressure gets low enough for
[22:26:37] <+JoshWurman> condensation. In a complex flow field, it is possible that several such funnels could
[22:26:55] <+JoshWurman> exist. The DOWs see very complex flow fields in some situations and it is surprising
[22:27:09] <+JoshWurman> to mee that more sundry funnels are not seen. I would think that the
[22:27:23] <+JoshWurman> small scale vortices that we see could make funnels, for example. In other
[22:27:44] <+JoshWurman> cases we see what I would say are mutliple-vortex mesos, but the smaller
[22:27:59] <+JoshWurman> vortices are not really tornadoes. By the way, defining what is and what is not
[22:28:13] <@Chief`Skyreader> (These extended sfc to where cut off due to arcus of wall cloud
[22:28:22] <+JoshWurman> a tornado does not become easier with extra data. There are often cases which
[22:28:40] <+JoshWurman> are very unclear. We were north of Geary, OK last May, in a region that was
[22:28:58] <+JoshWurman> fairly opaque visually due to blowing dust. In the radar, we could see several short
[22:29:15] <+JoshWurman> lived, intermittent, but certainly tornadic strength vortices. Some of these we decided
[22:29:29] <+JoshWurman> were tornadoes, based on continuity. There is still somewhat of a debate concerning
[22:29:47] <+JoshWurman> whether the 2-3 km scale circulation which DOW3 had the misfortune of sampling
[22:30:04] <+JoshWurman> directly, was a tornado containing a single multiple-vortex, or whether the larger
[22:30:26] <+JoshWurman> circulation was simply a surface meso enhanced on the S side by the RFD. In
[22:30:29] Joins: kanani ([email protected]) [29 users]
[22:30:53] <+JoshWurman> any case, winds at 12 m above the ground were 87 m/s, nearly 200 mph.
[22:31:20] <+JoshWurman> The inner "tornado" had winds of only 65 m/s. We would have been more
[22:31:31] <+JoshWurman> happy in the tornado than where we stopped. end
[22:31:34] <@GeorgeT> OK, we've been asking questions for what I guess has been close to an hour. So we might want to start winding this down. One or two more questions and I'm going to un-moderate the room and allow you to chat freely with Dr. Wurman, that way he isn't required to do all the chatting. And Dr. Wurman, feel free to take a break if you need one and end whenever you are ready.
[22:31:41] <@Chief`Skyreader> wow... on 200... TY
[22:31:45] Joins: RyanH ([email protected]) [30 users]
[22:31:54] <@GeorgeT> <Mike_H> Did the dow data show anything interesting about the May 24, 2004 sc NE tornadoes? That storm was simply not happy unless it had a tornado down and just wondered if there were any clues on that setup as to why that might have been.
[22:32:25] <+JoshWurman> We have just received a large collaborative grant, with PSU and OU and NCAR to begin analyzing
[22:32:43] <+JoshWurman> the 2004 data. David Dowell at OU/CIMMS will be leading the analysis of the 24th. It is a
[22:33:00] <+JoshWurman> very interesting case with a front interacting with the storms. The storm motion really messed
[22:33:16] <+JoshWurman> up our dual-Doppler deployments, complicating our analysis. However the storms, as you mentioned
[22:33:28] <+JoshWurman> were quite prolific tornado producers. end.
[22:33:34] <@GeorgeT> <ef> In VORTEX 2, what do you want to accomplish with the DOWS and other radars
[22:33:34] <@GeorgeT> <ef> <ef> When will ROTATE 2005 begin and for how long
[22:33:55] <+JoshWurman> With VORTEX2, we hope to use several mobile radars, perhaps about 7 to study various
[22:34:15] <+JoshWurman> scales. (btw, you can go to www.vortex2.org for some info. the site is not fully up and there
[22:34:30] <+JoshWurman> are some missing links, but it will contain the most recent updates). We hope
[22:34:44] <+JoshWurman> to use the SMART radars to sample the complete supercell, then DOWs to sample
[22:34:59] <+JoshWurman> the meso/hook and get dual-Doppler there, and use the Rapid-Scan DOW and
[22:35:12] <+JoshWurman> the UMASS W band to get both ultra-high spatial and temporal observations of
[22:35:27] <+JoshWurman> the tornado vortex itself. XPOL, or another dual-pol radar will sample the hook
[22:35:47] <+JoshWurman> to study microphysical issues, i..e the roles of water, ice, large vs small drops, etc
[22:36:04] <+JoshWurman> in driving the RFD etc. There are a lot of details in the SPO and EDO documents
[22:36:13] <+JoshWurman> which are linked at www.vortex2.org.
[22:36:18] <+JoshWurman> Now to ROTATE2005:
[22:36:36] <+JoshWurman> We are still struggling to make final plans, and to find enough funding to actually go out.
[22:36:58] <+JoshWurman> This is particularly true this year with the crazy gas prices. DOWs get a whopping 4 mpg, so our
[22:37:16] <+JoshWurman> fleet gets about 1 mph. You can do the $ math for a typical season.
[22:37:37] <+JoshWurman> We are also trying something new this season, providing a real-time DOW radar display, over
[22:37:56] <+JoshWurman> a wireless link to a chase tour company. We hope that this can help fund some of our activities
[22:38:02] <+JoshWurman> in coming seasons.
[22:38:03] <+JoshWurman> end
[22:38:07] <@GeorgeT> thanks for the link to vortex2.org
[22:38:10] <@Chief`Skyreader> (I could fix the site... Chief is available) Smile
[22:38:14] <@GeorgeT> ok, last question...........
[22:38:17] <@GeorgeT> <LauraD> what inspired josh to chase storms?
[22:38:42] <+JoshWurman> I grew up in PA, so not much in the way of chasing there. However, when I moved
[22:39:07] <+JoshWurman> to Boulder in the early 90's, I did some recreational chasing. I became interested in chasing scientifically when
[22:39:30] <+JoshWurman> I read some of the papers by Howie Bluestein and collaborators. Howie really pioneered much of
[22:39:54] <+JoshWurman> scientific chasing. But, I thought that we could have a real revolution with much more ambitious radars.
[22:40:17] <+JoshWurman> Basically they had the "right idea but the wrong toys". So, against much advice, we set out
[22:40:40] <+JoshWurman> to build ambitious radars, with big dishes and powerful transmitters, and fast scanning, basically
[22:41:06] <+JoshWurman> a very non-compromsing radar, but on a truck. Well, that's a long answer. end.
[22:41:29] <@Chief`Skyreader> Do you park across the road like Howie? Wink
[22:41:39] <@Chief`Skyreader> oh I kid HB!
[22:41:52] GeorgeT sets mode: -m
[22:42:05] <+JoshWurman> I don't want to get into criticising particular actions especially if I wasn't there to see it myself.
[22:42:06] Joins: kurt ([email protected]) [31 users]
[22:42:15] <@GeorgeT> OK, the room is now free to speak at will
[22:42:28] <+JoshWurman> We try to park off the roads as much as possible, but we have done "grey" things on occassion. The key
[22:42:34] <FrankM> how many miles do you typically do a year with the DOWs?
[22:42:36] <@Caleb> Thank you very much for your time, Dr. Wurman; very interesting
[22:42:42] <@GeorgeT> let's remember we have special guests so let's be courteous and well mannered (please)
[22:42:44] <+JoshWurman> is to be reasonable. Blocking a road is not reasonable. Partialy blocking a back dirt road for a little
[22:42:58] <LauraD> Thank you Josh for coming in to chat with us about your research. I wish you the best of luck in your future studies. And you are forgiven, for coming in a little later than scheduled Smile
[22:43:18] <+JoshWurman> while, and moving if a rare vehicle comes along is a different matter. Reasonableness. end
[22:43:25] <tstorm> Thank you for all your research Dr. Wurman. It intrigues me everytime I read up on what you are studying and analyzing.
[22:43:25] <rdewey> The discussion was well worth the wait! Thanks!
[22:43:29] <ef> thank you for answering my questions Josh
[22:43:32] <+JoshWurman> We travel about 10k miles/year doing tornado work, typically.
[22:43:40] <@Chief`Skyreader> Oh I joke Dr W... see all these guys gave him hell for doing it a couple times.,,, I saw him on Happy day... screamed up in black non-chase looking saturn coupe and yelled, "You all are crazy!!" He looked up and recognized me and laughed... I easily drove around him and left the bewildered faces on his students...
[22:43:40] <DougM> Hey Josh, just outta curiousity, I join the convo late...what was the first tornado you've seen?
[22:43:42] <@GeorgeT> 10k miles
[22:43:43] <@GeorgeT> wow
[22:43:48] <NightHawk> wow, Dr Wurman, thanks for taking the time and answering our questions
[22:44:27] <FrankM> yeah... thank you Dr. Wurman
[22:44:30] <+JoshWurman> The first tornado I saw was in Colorado in 1992, just from a car, no DOWs yet.
[22:44:43] <@Chief`Skyreader> could you get Nat Geo to ride along for show and fund some?
[22:44:44] <DougM> thank you for joining us, Mr. Wurman
[22:44:48] <@Chief`Skyreader> TWC or?
[22:44:51] <@GeorgeT> BTW, Dr. John Scala will be here on March 31st at 8 PM Central.....he will be discussing the F-Scale, building construction and warning leadtimes
[22:44:58] <@GeorgeT> everyone is invited back for that one
[22:45:06] <DougM> thank you George
[22:45:09] <@Chief`Skyreader> cool gt...
[22:45:15] <+JoshWurman> We have just published the first actual comparison of measured winds and F-scale damage.
[22:45:33] <+JoshWurman> Amazingly the wind portion of the F-scale is, except for this recent analysis, completely
[22:45:39] <FrankM> due tell us all Dr. Wurman...
[22:45:46] <FrankM> do*
[22:45:55] <DougM> I will definitely be reviewing the conversation i missed...thank you for chatting with us Mr. Wurman
[22:46:03] <+JoshWurman> uncalibrated. The article is Wurman and Alexander in the Jan 2005 MWR.
[22:46:22] <ef> Monthly Weather Review
[22:46:28] <+JoshWurman> The key is that not only are the numerical values of wind in the F-scale uncalibrated, but the basic
[22:46:37] <@Chief`Skyreader> what if there are discrepencies seen!??
[22:46:46] <@Chief`Skyreader> Smile
[22:46:52] <+JoshWurman> underlying assumption that peak gusts cause damae is untested. Who says that damage = f(gust) and that the duration
[22:47:15] <+JoshWurman> of winds over a certain level is not more important (Jarrell? Any hurricane?).
[22:47:41] <+JoshWurman> So, we have presented, in the paper, alternatives like f(duration above threshold)
[22:47:58] <+JoshWurman> f(changing directionality), f( some function of debris loading since it is probably the
[22:48:15] <+JoshWurman> debris that breaches the envelope of buildings and starts the collapses). end
[22:48:21] <@Chief`Skyreader> f( gust * (bumper of ford * vel of bumper**2) * duration on target )
[22:48:23] <@Chief`Skyreader> Smile
[22:48:41] <@Chief`Skyreader> the scrubbing bubbles.... looks great JoshWurman...
[22:48:45] <SA> Like the infamous "roof lifting video" from May 12 near Attica...
[22:48:54] <+JoshWurman> Well, sure. It is likely that damage potential might be something like
[22:49:13] <+JoshWurman> V**3 since the speed and amount and size of debris increases dramatically as
[22:49:14] <SA> To my eye, it appears as if an inflow gust is what lifts the roof off the house frame, not the actual tornado circulation
[22:49:14] <@Chief`Skyreader> ya that might had some missle hurt the supports but it looked like pure lift shane
[22:49:26] <+JoshWurman> windspeed gets higher.. end
[22:49:39] <Mike_H> torque factor must be important too
[22:49:48] <kurt> ?join #stormchase2
[22:49:52] <kurt> oops sorry
[22:49:57] <FrankM> lol
[22:50:03] <@Chief`Skyreader> yes shane... concur... outside debris... jeeez... do we have a name for the ring of crap flying around? bebris skirt?
[22:50:07] <+JoshWurman> As a case in point, the DOW was in extremely high winds north of Geary this past May, bu the
[22:50:09] <@Chief`Skyreader> brain fart
[22:50:14] <ef> with tornadoes, what f-scale is usually associated with vehicles going airborbe
[22:50:25] <+JoshWurman> areas was virtually devoid of sources of debris and we had little damage. My house in
[22:50:34] <ef> airborne
[22:50:42] <ef> cannot spell
[22:50:47] <+JoshWurman> Boulder has ~100 mph gusts at least once per year, but we've never had F1 damage
[22:50:57] <SA> Very interesting
[22:50:59] <+JoshWurman> since there is virtually no debris.
[22:51:10] <+JoshWurman> end
[22:51:15] <Mike_H> tornadic 100mph has torque
[22:51:23] <LauraD> Josh have you ever been to Canada to chase storms?
[22:51:26] <@Chief`Skyreader> and that's it's a dynamic impact... the structure does not have time to 'brace' itself... a steadily increasing straight line wind and it would lean and stress up... a rapid hit or change in direction and the forces become dynamic... the building is in motion when it hits its stress points...
[22:51:49] <+JoshWurman> No, but we've been there to chase a fire. The fire was cancelled, but we caught an unplanned wildfire
[22:52:05] <@Chief`Skyreader> fire whilries?
[22:52:06] <+JoshWurman> in Montana. We've also been to Alaska for aviation weather studies.
[22:52:08] <@Chief`Skyreader> rl
[22:52:23] <@Chief`Skyreader> any plane wake vorticies?
[22:52:30] <+JoshWurman> My belief is that most engineering studies of wind loads take only static pressure forces
[22:52:48] <@Chief`Skyreader> yes... boo static.... 'stuff' moves...
[22:52:49] <+JoshWurman> into account, so duration of gust does not matter. But, as anyone who has seen a hurricane video
[22:53:17] <+JoshWurman> knows, the roof flaps around a while, then gets blown off. Clearly duration of wind can matter.
[22:53:24] <+JoshWurman> end
[22:54:04] <@Chief`Skyreader> as can a slow tornado... could have F3 winds but do F4 damage because of "time on target"?
[22:54:38] <ef> will there ever be a remote controlled dow to drive into a tornado, just a little humor
[22:54:46] <+JoshWurman> Sure, I would imagine that a slow "F3" tornado might do "F4" damage. Of course, a fast moving tornado
[22:55:19] <@Chief`Skyreader> (I can help josh with gas money... DOW Tours! Smile Get one old van for $10,000 and pack in 4 paying at $2k per... there's 8k per week...)
[22:55:21] <+JoshWurman> gets a bonus "F" on the southern side just due to its motion. So maybe it is a wash. But, we just don't
[22:55:29] <+JoshWurman> know.
[22:55:45] <@GeorgeT> LOL nEAL
[22:56:00] <@Chief`Skyreader> more dows on more storms to become case studies, no?
[22:56:45] <+JoshWurman> We have been going out with project ROTATE nearly every year in order to get more cases. The key is to not just have
[22:56:57] <ef> how much does one of the dows cost to build
[22:57:12] <+JoshWurman> a handful of cases, but have the ~100 in order to be able to study clases of tornadoes, geneses, etc.
[22:57:41] <+JoshWurman> DOWs cost about $500,000 depending on the specs. The Rapid-Scan DOW costs about $1M.
[22:58:04] <@Chief`Skyreader> (first week pays for van, 2nd pays for my 2 months as Nav... 3rd pays for GeorgeT's driving van... so 6 weeks at 7k (1k less for gas/rooms) is 42k for the season...
[22:58:15] <@Chief`Skyreader> oh jeeez.... ouuch...
[22:58:21] <@Chief`Skyreader> n/m
[22:58:23] <@Chief`Skyreader> Smile
[22:58:29] <@Chief`Skyreader> you need Bill Gates!
[22:58:34] <@GeorgeT> lol
[22:59:05] <@Chief`Skyreader> oh! that British guy that owns airlines and such... ballons around etc...
[22:59:11] <@Chief`Skyreader> +o
[22:59:14] <DougM> Richard Branson
[22:59:17] <+JoshWurman> We're working with Todd Thorn of Storm Chase Adventure Tours this year, but may work
[22:59:19] <@Chief`Skyreader> bingo
[22:59:43] <+JoshWurman> with an additional company in 2006. The key is whether there is enough interest from customers to make
[23:00:04] <@Chief`Skyreader> How about old russian phased array... I can get you a 5m panel for $20k and some Coors Beer..
[23:00:06] <+JoshWurman> it economically viable. They do get a different experience by seeing the scientific data, etc. But there
[23:00:16] <+JoshWurman> is an additional cost.
[23:00:35] <tstorm> that is a tour I would be interested in!
[23:00:42] <+JoshWurman> Using converted phased arrays is tempting. But, the conversion to a weather radar probably costs more than the cost of the new Rapid-Scan DOW.
[23:00:43] <ef> when inside the dow, looking at the radar data coming in, do you actually get out of the truck and view the tornado visually yourself
[23:00:47] <@Chief`Skyreader> do you GPS correct the velocities?
[23:01:15] Joins: Guest92 ([email protected]) [32 users]
[23:01:16] <+JoshWurman> I rarely get out of the truck. I'm often amazed by the video. During multiple-DOW missions I am completely absorbed
[23:01:20] * Matt_T is away: away
[23:01:26] <@GeorgeT> hi Guest92
[23:01:40] <+JoshWurman> in trying to keep the trucks coordinated and triangulated on the storm. The minute we're deployed, I'm trying to figure out
[23:02:02] <+JoshWurman> the next deployment location, when we have to move (in a coordinated fashion), and the route. Frankly, it is not
[23:02:23] <+JoshWurman> much fun. When we have radar breakdowns and we only have one radar I'm free to do more conventinal intercepts,
[23:02:48] <+JoshWurman> i.e. drive at the tornado and it is much more fun, even relaxing.
[23:02:50] <Guest92> Cant change my nick
[23:02:52] <@GeorgeT> I bet such an operation involves quite a few people
[23:02:55] <Mike_H> what hail size is considered too big for the dows
[23:03:00] Joins: Sheila ([email protected]) [33 users]
[23:03:03] <@GeorgeT> Guest 92, type /nick JohnDoe
[23:03:04] Guest92 ([email protected]) is now known as Tornx
[23:03:07] <SA> hey Sheila
[23:03:11] <+JoshWurman> In answer to the other question, we do not now, but will soon, correct our data using gps.
[23:03:11] <Mike_H> or does it matter
[23:03:12] <@GeorgeT> hi Sheila
[23:03:13] <SA> welcome Tornx
[23:03:14] <Mike_H> sheila
[23:03:16] <Tornx> Oh
[23:03:19] <Tornx> LOL
[23:03:28] <Sheila> hey all
[23:03:30] <+JoshWurman> The biggest hail that the DOWs have experienced is softball, but anything over golfball is too large
[23:03:47] <Tornx> Hey Skyreader
[23:03:49] <+JoshWurman> and we take precations such as pointing our antenna away from it. We go through windshields
[23:04:05] <+JoshWurman> a couple/few times a season..
[23:04:15] <Mike_H> nice, lol
[23:04:33] <+JoshWurman> In answer the other question: We use 3 people per vehicle. So last year our crew was 12.
[23:04:51] <+JoshWurman> It all depends on how many trucks we take out. We may have a smaller experiment this year due to $.
[23:05:16] <ef> i paid 225 a gallon for gas today
[23:05:25] Joins: ScudStudBob ([email protected]) [34 users]
[23:05:32] <tstorm> 1.89 here
[23:05:35] <NightHawk> hey Bob
[23:05:43] <kurt> tstorm were you at
[23:05:45] <@GeorgeT> We could always write Congress on behalf of you guys and request more $$$
[23:05:45] <@GeorgeT> Smile
[23:05:50] <tstorm> houston area
[23:05:50] <@Chief`Skyreader> hay bob... JoshWurman is here... we;re in casual chat though... feel free to ask a question
[23:05:51] <ef> will there be any improvements in the DOWS
[23:05:51] <@GeorgeT> Hi Bob
[23:05:53] <Tornx> $2.25? sic!
[23:05:56] <ef> in technology
[23:06:07] <kurt> its 208 at some stations but i saw it at 2.25 tonight never have i seen it that high here
[23:06:16] <DougM> Hey Josh, don't worry, I'm in pre-law Poltical Science, if I ever become a congressman, I'll give you all the funding you need Wink
[23:06:16] <+JoshWurman> We are always working on improvements. The Rapid-Scan 6 beam DOW is a qualitative improvement.
[23:06:16] <LauraD> Hey, Bob.
[23:06:24] <ScudStudBob> Top O' the Evenin' and Happy St Patty's to ye
[23:06:30] <NightHawk> ty bob
[23:06:31] <@Chief`Skyreader> how long for a scan?
[23:06:36] <+JoshWurman> We are working to improve the quality of the data we collect while moving. We are working
[23:06:53] <+JoshWurman> on the wireless remote real-time display that I mentioned a while back. etc.
[23:07:10] <@Chief`Skyreader> how long for a scan? ie, how many frames can I see in a loop? Smile as apposed to 1/3 or 6 min..
[23:07:12] <+JoshWurman> We always make minor improvements. Last year we got a Wxworx for example.
[23:07:34] <+JoshWurman> We take about 4-5 sec per sweep, and about 12 sweeps per volume, so we update
[23:07:42] <Tornx> How you like the Wxworx?
[23:07:48] <Tornx> I just bought one
[23:07:59] <+JoshWurman> at about 50-60 sec intervals. Thats' better than the 88D's, but not nearly as good as the rapid-scan at 5 sec per volume.
[23:08:31] * @Chief`Skyreader could write RasGPS for DOW... Include topographical data to allow high? observation points denoted along path... Smile Shading of visible ground at 10'?
[23:08:32] <+JoshWurman> While it has obvious and frustrating limitations, I liked the wxworx a lot. It is reasonably priced and
[23:08:32] <@Chief`Skyreader> Smile
[23:09:16] <+JoshWurman> provides pretty good data. I'm sure that minor improvements will be made in coming years.
[23:09:35] <Tornx> Great
[23:09:38] Joins: CourtH ([email protected]) [35 users]
[23:09:38] Joins: timmy ([email protected]) [36 users]
[23:09:41] <@Chief`Skyreader> 5 sec... wow... nice loops... cool...
[23:09:47] <+JoshWurman> Erik Rasmussen and I have proposed a pre-VORTEX2 project to put the remote DOW display on a GIS map along with
[23:10:07] <NightHawk> Dr Wurman, thank you for answering my phased-array radar question earlier...I operate a military phased-array radar(AN/TPS-75)...I was curious in how phased-array systems were incorporated into weather research
[23:10:24] <+JoshWurman> the locations of other vehicles, forecasts, etc. in preparation for having ~40 vehicles out in VORTEX2.
[23:10:36] Parts: ckuster ([email protected]) [35 users]
[23:11:01] <+JoshWurman> Nighthawk: as you know, thee spy1 phased array system is being converted to weather use in norman. also, a group in california
[23:11:09] * @Chief`Skyreader note to Homeland Def... NightHawk disclosed use of AN/TPS-75 against regs AF4124-14233934B- sub paragraph C section 34.2
[23:11:13] <NightHawk> lol
[23:11:19] <@GeorgeT> lol
[23:11:33] <+JoshWurman> is working to convert a mobile system for weather work. the problem with these systems is mainly cost (and beamwidth secondarily).
[23:11:51] <NightHawk> I would understand, with the costs
[23:11:56] <NightHawk> it isn't cheap
[23:12:01] Quits: kurt ([email protected]) (Quit: PJIRC forever!)
[23:12:24] <+JoshWurman> The beamwidth of the spy1 radar means that high res data is only collected within, say, 30 km
[23:12:32] <NightHawk> wow
[23:12:45] <+JoshWurman> of the radar. (that's true of dows and other systems too.) But that means that a 88D
[23:13:02] <+JoshWurman> like spacing would mean only high res data in 2-3% of the domain. Basically
[23:13:15] <+JoshWurman> the benefits of phased array are only achieved if you're really really close to the
[23:13:27] <@GeorgeT> Hopefully we'll get some nice storms soon (over unpopulated areas) in which to study
[23:13:28] <+JoshWurman> weather, which is impossible for the converted SPY1.
[23:13:33] <NightHawk> ah
[23:13:53] <ef> NWS, should add more NEXRAD sites to fill the gaps, will that ever happen
[23:14:05] <@GeorgeT> that would be nice EF
[23:14:07] <NightHawk> ty, Josh
[23:14:13] Quits: SA ([email protected]) (Quit
[23:14:13] <@GeorgeT> There certainly are a few gaps in coverage
[23:14:28] Quits: Fabian ([email protected]) (Quit: PJIRC forever!)
[23:14:31] <+JoshWurman> The NWS would have to add 500-1000 sites to fill in the gaps. CASA type radars don't work either because, to keep
[23:14:35] <@Chief`Skyreader> Oh ya... RasGPS will have what I call MOBs.. Moveable Object Blocks... One of which could be auto-created as each vehicle comes on-line... These MOBs can have realtime updated velocities, and allow inter vehicle messaging... MOBs may also be a meso or TVS... assigned by operator... or fed of data, but tougher... also RasGPS will have a shortcast feature that extraploates all MOBs out in time 5, 10, 15 min, etc...
[23:14:39] <@Chief`Skyreader> yep 512...
[23:14:41] <@Chief`Skyreader> Wink
[23:14:41] <+JoshWurman> costs down, they have large beamwidths.
[23:15:03] <@GeorgeT> that's too bad Sad
[23:15:08] <ef> what does a new NEXRAD system cost these days
[23:15:35] <Tornx> That remote DOW on GIS pre-vortex2 display you mentioned a min ago- will that be public accessible?
[23:15:43] <@Chief`Skyreader> 4 billion EF...
[23:15:48] <+JoshWurman> I don't now the cost of a modern 88d, probably $10m or so.
[23:16:13] <@GeorgeT> yikes
[23:16:17] <+JoshWurman> The remote display that we're providing to the tour company will not be available since we're
[23:16:31] <@GeorgeT> guess that means we won't be able to get one for our front lawn, EF! Smile
[23:16:44] <ef> lol
[23:16:44] <+JoshWurman> trying to sell the service to fund our scientific experiment. The VORTEX2 display? I don't know.
[23:17:21] <Tornx> Which Tour?
[23:17:55] Joins: NickG ([email protected]) [32 users]
[23:17:59] <@Chief`Skyreader> Pepsi! Phased arrays Everywhere Possibily Saving lIves...
[23:18:00] <@GeorgeT> wb Nick
[23:18:01] <+JoshWurman> Storm Chaser Adventure Tours this year. Probably them and another company (anyone interested, please contact us) in 2006.
[23:18:38] <NickG> It was that "ghost" thing again with NG...LOL. Ty George.
[23:18:44] <ef> TRADD will volunteer, inside joke
[23:18:49] <@GeorgeT> hehe
[23:18:59] <@Chief`Skyreader> sell feed to TWC?
[23:19:00] <Tornx> LOL
[23:19:22] <+JoshWurman> We've asked TWC. It would seem a natural. No interest to date.
[23:19:25] <Tornx> Yea seems TWC would pay $$
[23:20:08] <@Chief`Skyreader> oh! ummm high def tv.... they'll pay $$$ for high def vid of a fish tank for god's sake...
[23:20:13] <DougM> Josh, has the data from VORTEX I been intrepreted (Tornado Video Classics by Tom Grazulius said it would take 10 years to intrepret the data) and if the VORTEX II project is seperate from the first project or a supplement?
[23:20:13] <ScudStudBob> It might interrupt Storm Stories
[23:20:17] <+JoshWurman> I would think that cutting live to a real-time DOW display of a tornado, being able to say precisely how intense, growing, weakening, etc would be exciting for TWC, but they have not bitten.
[23:20:25] Quits: JayM ([email protected]) (Quit: Leaving)
[23:20:37] <@GeorgeT> I'm sure Dr. Forbes could make good use of it
[23:20:39] Quits: Mike_H ([email protected]) (Quit
[23:20:53] <+JoshWurman> Much from VORTEX1 has been interpreted, as has post-V1 data from ROTATE. However much remains to be done, hence
[23:20:57] <@GeorgeT> would be better than hearing a gardening report from P. Allen Smith
[23:20:59] <@GeorgeT> Smile
[23:21:03] <@Caleb> Indeed
[23:21:19] <DougM> Josh, could you describe the "work that needs to be done"?
[23:21:21] <@Chief`Skyreader> Need any Software Engineers to crunch data?
[23:21:24] <+JoshWurman> our current analyses projects. The V2 SPO talks a lot about the current state of the art, what has been learned from V1, etc.
[23:21:53] <+JoshWurman> Well, at a fundimental level, we still don't know why most rotating thunderstorms don't produce tornadoes but some do. And
[23:22:37] <+JoshWurman> we don't really know when the producers will produce. And, we don't know if the tornadoes will be weak or intense, long or short lived, cyclic or singular. That's
[23:22:57] <DougM> okay...out of all the theories of why some supercells produce tornadoes and some don't...which intrigues you the most?
[23:22:59] <+JoshWurman> a lot not to know.
[23:23:41] <+JoshWurman> Well, I like simple over complex and think it really just comes down to low level temperature, so
[23:23:52] <@Chief`Skyreader> Could you get a value of the theta-e around with radar??? that would be helpful... Wink
[23:24:05] <DougM> occam's razor...i see, hehe Wink thanks Josh
[23:24:20] <+JoshWurman> the question is which structures keep warm air near the tornadoes and which don't. There's probably a lot
[23:24:23] <ef> Have you sample many LP's supercells with the DOWS
[23:24:55] <+JoshWurman> of subteties, but that's basically it. We can measure theta-e near the tornado a the DOW trucks. In V2 we'll use
[23:25:19] <+JoshWurman> a lot of mobile mesonet cars and, we hope, a fleet of UAV's which can measure critical data above the surface.
[23:25:51] <+JoshWurman> Finally, with really high quality dual-Doppler data, one can calculate 3D fields of temperature (really pertubation buoyancy) using
[23:25:54] <@GeorgeT> The UAV's sound really interesting
[23:25:55] <+JoshWurman> just radar data.
[23:26:01] <@GeorgeT> Erik mentioned those
[23:26:09] <@Chief`Skyreader> cool
[23:26:13] <@Chief`Skyreader> on 3D fields
[23:26:15] <DougM> Who will be supplying the Unmanned Aerial Vehicles for V2 if it comes to fruition?
[23:26:25] <+JoshWurman> The UAV's are one of the major exciting new technologies to emerge post V1. That and DOWs
[23:26:39] <+JoshWurman> are what will be the qualitative differenc between V1 and V2.
[23:26:55] <ef> isn;t university of colorado working on the uav's
[23:26:56] <@Chief`Skyreader> UAV's 'almost' made IHOP folks... they came close to test runs during IHOP I believe...
[23:27:12] <+JoshWurman> CU is developing instrumented inexpensive UAVs. The trick is to keep 'em cheap. The military
[23:27:35] <+JoshWurman> has UAV's for a price, just like they have phased array radars, but at ~1M$ a pop, we won't see
[23:27:41] <+JoshWurman> them near tornadoes anytime soon.
[23:27:48] <DougM> Geukes, I know that University of Colorado was working on a UAV for *pre*-tornadic-supercell development, my soon-to-be-uncle was working on it and he graduated top of his class
[23:27:58] <NightHawk> ah, UAVs
[23:28:15] <NightHawk> that really interested me when Erik mentioned that
[23:28:16] <+JoshWurman> That's probably the same CU project, the group is RECUV, I believe. Erik is working
[23:28:32] <+JoshWurman> closely with them and the pre-VORTEX2 proposal that I discussed integrated the
[23:28:35] <NightHawk> I was figuring that he was contracting use of Predators
[23:28:37] <NightHawk> lol
[23:28:47] <+JoshWurman> UAV data, DOW data, and a real-time display all together.
[23:28:51] <DougM> my soon-to-be-uncle is now going to Stanford, paid for by Lockheed Martin
[23:28:55] <@Chief`Skyreader> pilotless A10;s epoxy...
[23:29:20] <NightHawk> pilotless, eh?
[23:29:22] <@Chief`Skyreader> ;
[23:29:22] <NightHawk> lol
[23:29:25] <@Chief`Skyreader> Wink
[23:29:30] <NightHawk> someday, perhaps
[23:30:00] Quits: timmy ([email protected]) (Quit: Leaving)
[23:30:17] <+JoshWurman> Well, it is 2130 here in CO, so I'm signing off. Thank you all for a very interesting conversation. I apoligize again for my late start. I was confused about the timezone.
[23:30:39] <@Chief`Skyreader> quite all right Dr Wurman...
[23:30:44] <tstorm> thank you for your time and answering all our questions!
[23:30:48] <LauraD> Thank you Josh for coming in tonight to discuss your research with us. We very much appreciate your time and effort. Thank you again.
[23:30:52] <ef> thanks for chatting with us josh
[23:30:52] <DougM> Thank you for your presence Dr. Wurman
[23:30:56] <NightHawk> thanks a lot for taking your time to answer our questions, Dr Wurman
[23:30:57] <@Caleb> Thank you very much again, Dr. Wurman
[23:31:00] <kanani> thanks Dr.Wurman
[23:31:00] <@Chief`Skyreader> thanks for joining us and giving us the scope...
[23:31:05] Quits: JoshWurman

 

[Caleb Lawrence]

Here is the chat log for Dr. John Scala, 3-31-2005. Big thanks to Dr. John Scala for such patience, as he was booted off many times by his connection, but came back every time. And thanks again to George for arranging this in the first place.

The connection problems Dr. Scala had have been edited (to the best of my abilities) to make the questions flow better.


[20:56:00] <JScala> looks like we are rockin and rolling in the southern Plains tonight
[20:56:10] Joins: DougM ([email protected]) [20 users]
[20:56:13] <cnmsales> hello all
[20:56:25] <Mike_HH> hello John
[20:56:27] <@GeorgeT> I was watching the activity across the South earlier
[20:56:29] Joins: SA ([email protected]) [21 users]
[20:56:35] <DougM> hey shane
[20:56:39] <SA> hello
[20:56:59] <@GeorgeT> hey guys
[20:57:02] <JScala> tremendous back building over the deep south earlier
[20:57:03] Quits: DanC ([email protected]) (Connection reset by peer)
[20:57:06] <FrankM> it is quite entretaining watching these storms on radar... compared to what we were looking at a few months ago..
[20:57:16] <@GeorgeT> Yes
[20:57:22] <@GeorgeT> I'm not much of a winter weather guy
[20:57:23] <@GeorgeT> hehe
[20:57:31] Quits: SA ([email protected]) (Quit
[20:57:31] <FrankM> go snow...
[20:57:32] <JScala> Well, the atmosphere is beginning to awaken
[20:57:39] <cnmsales> i like winter, for about 3 weeks
[20:57:39] <cnmsales>
[20:57:39] Joins: DanC ([email protected]) [20 users]
[20:57:46] <JoeG> 5 min ETA
[20:57:58] <FrankM> well... its the natural cycle
[20:58:00] <Mike_HH> it'd be nice to see the gulf stop getting whacked by fronts
[20:58:01] <Mike_HH> sigh
[20:58:02] <dane> Oh man this machine is acting up, hope I'll not miss to much of this chat, brb. Hi John.
[20:58:13] <JScala> I like a good snowstorm, too, but its time for boomers
[20:58:18] <@Caleb> Yeah
[20:58:20] <@GeorgeT> agreed
[20:58:22] <@GeorgeT>
[20:58:24] Quits: dane ([email protected]) (Quit: Leaving)
[20:58:27] <cnmsales> me 2
[20:58:27] Joins: Randy ([email protected]) [20 users]
[20:58:31] <JoeG> Yep
[20:58:36] <@GeorgeT> hey Randy
[20:58:45] <Randy> George good evening!
[20:58:49] <Randy> Where you from again?
[20:58:55] <JoeG> Oh, and good evening Dr. Scala
[20:59:02] <JScala> Hello, Joe
[20:59:05] <FrankM> actually this year has been quiet for snow accumulation... you guys prolly got more snow then we did up here
[20:59:05] <@GeorgeT> Booneville, KY
[20:59:10] <@GeorgeT> that's SE of Lexington
[20:59:13] <Randy> Good evening to you to Dr. Scala
[20:59:15] <@GeorgeT> (the middle of nowhere really)
[20:59:25] <JScala> You should be in BOS, 4' above average
[20:59:39] <JScala> Hello, Randy
[20:59:52] <FrankM> yeah.. everything has passed us to the south this year
[20:59:55] <@GeorgeT> snowfall here was extremely light for the year
[20:59:58] <cnmsales> Dr Scala, do you have a web site?
[21:00:02] <FrankM> new england got the big chunck.. we got nothing
[21:00:10] <@Caleb> I've had my fair share of snow for this winter; I'd just like some warm temperatures now. Luckily NW Ohio is slowly getting there, finally
[21:00:10] <JoeG> And as usual for me, its been calm in Trumbull, CT so far
[21:00:37] <JScala> Just the pages I use for my classes at MU. I will be developing my own page in the near future
[21:00:41] <JoeG> Although, we are supposed to get some thunderstorms on Saturday
[21:00:42] <FrankM> i think today was the first day we reached the double digits for temp (in C)
[21:00:56] <DougM> I saw lightning last night for the first time in awhile...relieved a little SDS
[21:01:03] <JoeG> Cool
[21:01:05] <Mah_Skywarn> Hello Dr Scala
[21:01:14] <JScala> Greetings!
[21:01:16] <JoeG> I got some amazing ones when i was in NYC
[21:01:30] <Randy> What's the forecast for next week?
[21:01:33] <@GeorgeT> Dr. Scala, anytime you are ready to begin, just let me know. And whenever you get tired of taking questions, we'll end. Hehe.
[21:01:41] <JoeG> heh
[21:01:44] <Mah_Skywarn> When did you work at TWC ?
[21:01:52] <JScala> I'm game...as long as my digits hold out
[21:01:55] <JoeG> yep, youre the boss here, Dr. Scala
[21:01:57] <@GeorgeT> lol
[21:02:02] <JoeG>
[21:02:08] <JScala> I was at TWC from 1998-2002
[21:02:12] <Mike_HH> some might want to direct some questions to George in PM
[21:02:23] Joins: RMK_TCU_W ([email protected]) [21 users]
[21:02:26] <JoeG> And, thank you for taking the time to chat with us chasers
[21:02:30] <@GeorgeT> we have a fairly small group here tonight, so we might not have to moderate it afterall
[21:02:38] <FrankM> yeah.. thank you Dr. Scala
[21:02:46] <@Caleb> We do appreciate your time, Dr. Scala
[21:02:52] <DougM> i wont be here long im going out to party tonight
[21:02:53] <Randy> Dido here
[21:02:53] <JoeG> yeah, we are a well behaved bunch
[21:02:56] <JScala> Glad to be here...I follow some rather distiguished folks
[21:02:56] <DanC> welcome
[21:03:25] <@GeorgeT> Yeah, so far Dr. Rasmussen and Wurman have paid us visits
[21:03:44] Joins: Pinwheeler ([email protected]) [22 users]
[21:03:45] <JScala> I know both...I'd like to go on ride with the DOW sometime
[21:03:54] <JoeG> yep, and a few more are on the way as well
[21:03:56] Joins: Guest30 ([email protected]) [23 users]
[21:04:04] Guest30 ([email protected]) is now known as samsagnella
[21:04:19] <JoeG> It would be fun, Dr., i sure would like to do that
[21:04:26] <JoeG> Hey Sam
[21:04:31] <samsagnella> hey joe
[21:04:42] <Mike_HH> have you ever storm chased John?
[21:04:52] <@GeorgeT> These frogs are really getting a nice tune going outside right now
[21:05:00] <@GeorgeT> I love early Spring
[21:05:05] <JScala> Oh yes, probably across 13 states by now
[21:05:06] <JoeG> heh, i hear them too
[21:05:10] <Mike_HH> very cool
[21:05:22] <Mike_HH> still chase at all then?
[21:05:23] <JScala> I'm heading out to OK i n May to get some time in
[21:05:23] Joins: Kimtwister ([email protected]) [24 users]
[21:05:24] <JoeG> 13, a healthy number if you ask me
[21:05:33] <Randy> Dr. John when did you leave TWC?
[21:05:40] <JoeG> thats great, im hoping to chase in KS next summer
[21:05:44] <Kimtwister> hello dr scala
[21:05:46] <JoeG> he left in 2002
[21:05:55] <@GeorgeT> Hopefully by way we can get some nice days without these polar fronts scouring all the moisture
[21:06:04] <@GeorgeT> ooops, by that time, rather
[21:06:06] <JScala> Still chasing when I can, but not in the east, too difficult.
[21:06:21] <JoeG> All you have to do is ask mother nature nicley George
[21:06:30] <JScala> I left TWC in July 2002, burned out form the early morning gig
[21:06:43] <Mike_HH> yes, starts going downhill east of Nebraska, lol
[21:06:51] <JoeG> hehe
[21:06:52] <Randy> Do you still keep in contact with the TWC crew?
[21:07:02] <FrankM> was it fun working at TWC or did your day consist of analyzing weather patterns only?
[21:07:11] ColinEats ([email protected]) is now known as ColinD
[21:07:17] <JScala> Sure, spoke to a friend down there just this week
[21:07:37] <JScala> I enjoyed TWC, but I found I was the only doing detailed analysis
[21:07:59] <JScala> The don't have the manpower to do a synoptic analysis
[21:08:15] <Randy> I forgot Dr. Scala who then took your spot on the TWC?
[21:08:15] <@GeorgeT> ok Doug
[21:08:19] <Kimtwister> ok gt
[21:08:27] Joins: LauraD ([email protected]) [24 users]
[21:08:37] <JScala> That frsutrated me but I enjoyed developing my own ideas and sharing them with the morning team
[21:08:42] <Mah_Skywarn> http://snowball.millersv.edu/metall/html/i...amsbanq03-1.jpg
[21:08:49] <Mah_Skywarn> that you on the right Dr ?
[21:08:52] <@GeorgeT> Dr. Jon Nese is the present morning storm analyst there
[21:09:03] <@GeorgeT> and of course Dr. Forbes in the evenings
[21:09:13] <Kimtwister> yea
[21:09:15] <JScala> Jon Neese who used to be at the Franklin Inst
[21:09:20] <JoeG> Now, i have a question a bit closer on topic: Now, i know that there are some flaws in the F-scale such as building integrity and such, so is there another plan in the works to possibly make another form of the Fujita Scale, or to improve it?
[21:10:03] <JScala> Yes, there was the 2003 Symposium to look a couple of other items like how long a building is subject to a specific wind
[21:10:19] <Randy> Anyway a "typical person" can get a behind the scenes look at the TWC? Or is it just employees that can enter?
[21:10:25] <JScala> Problems will creep into the climatology though if the scale is changes
[21:10:31] <JoeG> ah
[21:10:35] Joins: RyanH ([email protected]) [25 users]
[21:10:43] <@GeorgeT> hey Ryan
[21:10:48] <JScala> Its bad enough now with the population bias that exists
[21:10:48] <Kimtwister> hi ry
[21:10:53] <RyanH> Hello
[21:10:54] <AdrianElizabeth> hello Ryan
[21:11:15] <JScala> I know Greg Forbes are working on it, but I don't know what the status is
[21:11:15] <FrankM> population bias?
[21:11:20] <JoeG> Because, an old barn leveled, which is MUCH weaker than a newer, better constructed home can wwithstand more wind
[21:11:45] <JScala> Local maxs in incidence often result of more people witnessing the event
[21:12:07] <JScala> These numbers go into the data base
[21:12:49] <@GeorgeT> I sometimes wonder if that explains the number of touchdowns reported in and around a nearby town....London, KY. They seem to get 10 tornadoes to every one recorded in the surrounding counties combined. It even has the guys at the local NWS office puzzled.
[21:12:59] <JScala> Joe, you are right. I surveyed the damage from a tornado in PA last summer and was amazed at the destruction
[21:13:14] <Kimtwister> is from SW PA
[21:13:31] <JScala> Some structures were completely removed yet we graded it as an F3 due to construction considerations
[21:14:00] Joins: Kanani ([email protected]) [26 users]
[21:14:02] <JScala> This is Campbelltown tornado of July 14, 2004...just missed Hershey, PA
[21:14:05] <AdrianElizabeth> hey Kanani
[21:14:11] <@GeorgeT> evening Kanani
[21:14:12] <JoeG> Oh, i remember that one
[21:14:16] <Kimtwister> i remeber that storm
[21:14:26] <Kanani> howdy
[21:14:28] <JScala> I thought I was in KS when I entered that development
[21:14:44] <FrankM> what about the observations that one side of a tornado has stronger winds than the other side... does that factor into the F-scale?
[21:14:46] Joins: ScudStudBob ([email protected]) [27 users]
[21:14:50] <JScala> Tim Marshall's work came in handy
[21:14:51] Joins: gn ([email protected]) [28 users]
[21:14:57] <@GeorgeT> evening Bob and gn
[21:15:02] <AdrianElizabeth> hello gn and bob
[21:15:03] <Kimtwister> tims anice fellow
[21:15:04] <ScudStudBob> Thx GT
[21:15:24] <JScala> The tangential wind added to the motion will result in a stornger wind on one side, much like
[21:15:28] <JScala> a hurricane
[21:15:43] <JoeG> Yep
[21:16:02] <@GeorgeT> a question about construction.......
[21:16:44] Joins: SA ([email protected]) [29 users]
[21:16:48] <Kimtwister> hi shane
[21:16:49] <@GeorgeT> what type of construction typically best stands up to a strong tornado? Are those with "ranch" style roofs and slab foundations with anchor bolts typically more wind resistant?
[21:18:20] <JScala> What I saw was homes with brick walls and wall studs achored to base plate faired the best
[21:18:35] <JScala> Vinyl siding wwent bye-bye
[21:18:59] <@GeorgeT> Glad I live in a brick home with bottom plate bolted to the foundation
[21:18:59] <@GeorgeT> hehe
[21:18:59] Joins: weathernet ([email protected]) [30 users]
[21:18:59] <JoeG> heh
[21:19:14] <JScala> And so many roofs are constructed at the factory and just hoisted on top without adequate fastening
[21:19:15] <AdrianElizabeth> hello weathernet
[21:19:29] <Kimtwister> has a question a bout c chasing
[21:19:31] <JScala> These roofs are lifted hole and thrown
[21:19:33] <@GeorgeT> BTW gang, is this unmoderated chat working well for you or would you prefer it be moderated?
[21:19:38] <JoeG> Hmm, see, i never get tornadoes here, so im not bolted down.. hope i don t have that much of an eventful summer
[21:19:41] <JScala> That's whole..
[21:19:49] <JoeG> I like it unmoderated
[21:19:51] <Kimtwister> yes gt
[21:19:57] <AdrianElizabeth> I like it too
[21:20:00] <Kimtwister> me to
[21:20:12] <JScala> Fine here, I will just answer what I can with my nimble fingers
[21:20:19] <@GeorgeT> haha
[21:20:19] <@GeorgeT> ok
[21:20:21] <JoeG> heh
[21:20:36] <JoeG> don't give youself carpal tunnel Jon
[21:20:36] <@GeorgeT> this way does keep you more a part of the chat and not the center of it
[21:20:50] <JScala> Homes are going up here in PA with little regard for wind in excess of 100 mph
[21:20:55] <Mike_HH> which area do you think has the best chaseable tornadoes(like say a state)?
[21:20:55] <JoeG> yeah, i would feel kinda awkward
[21:21:18] <JScala> No problem...
[21:21:40] <JScala> The best chasing I've been on has been in ND, OK and TX
[21:22:04] <JoeG> i prefered OK on my chasing expidition awhile ago
[21:22:11] Joins: greenmoss ([email protected]) [31 users]
[21:22:13] <Kimtwister> i like kansas
[21:22:13] <Mike_HH> cool
[21:22:20] <JScala> Gotta to be to see and drive
[21:22:28] <JoeG> didnt see much in TX, ands never chased in ND
[21:22:29] <JScala> Sorry
[21:22:29] Parts: greenmoss ([email protected]) [30 users]
[21:22:41] <JScala> Road access, and visibility
[21:22:46] <ef_away> With programs like GEMPAK, GARP, etc, in many colleges, is the art of doing hand analysis slowly disappearing fron courses like synoptics
[21:23:00] <JScala> YES>>YES>>>YES!!
[21:23:19] <JScala> I demand hand analysis because there is much more one realizes by looking at the data
[21:23:55] <JScala> Objective analysis is fast but smoothes key values
[21:23:58] <JoeG> right, "i want the hard raw data fool!" (Mr. T)
[21:24:01] <JoeG>
[21:24:13] <AdrianElizabeth> ha
[21:24:36] <FrankM> good old Mr. T
[21:24:37] <@GeorgeT> sometimes technology can't replace the human eyeball and brain
[21:24:39] <@GeorgeT> for sure
[21:24:45] <FrankM> Dr. Scala...
[21:24:48] <Kimtwister> DR JOHN what made u chase storms?
[21:24:48] <JScala> Chuck Doswell and I had an enlightened discussion on this suject recently...we are of the same mind in that regard
[21:24:55] <Mike_HH> I don't think I've ever done hand analysis, lol
[21:25:16] <@GeorgeT> Me either Mike...not because I don't want to, I'm just not capable of doing so
[21:25:21] <@GeorgeT> lol
[21:25:25] <RyanH> lol
[21:25:32] <JScala> I like to be outside to witness weather, and feel it, not just look at pictures
[21:25:37] <Mike_HH> leaving earlier would get me to see omre
[21:25:37] <Mike_HH> more
[21:25:41] <FrankM> I heard reports that they are planing on building these storm shelters under overpasses...is that accurate?
[21:26:04] <@GeorgeT> oh wow
[21:26:13] <@GeorgeT> I sure hope they pick a more open area
[21:26:14] <JScala> Thats new to me...the Andover video set storm safety back several years
[21:26:18] <@GeorgeT> say an interstate rest stop
[21:26:36] <FrankM> i heard a little shelter under an overpass...
[21:26:48] <FrankM> something where people can go in case of a svr wx event
[21:26:55] <JScala> now a rest stop would make sense, but how many of those are there per 100 miles in KS?
[21:26:59] <JoeG> i wouldnt think that logical
[21:27:04] <FrankM> since people are drawn to overpasses.. i thought it made sense
[21:27:12] <JoeG> the rest stop sounds good
[21:27:15] <JScala> So are traffic jams in a hailstorm
[21:27:23] <Kimtwister> yup
[21:27:25] <@GeorgeT> yeah, just so long as it doesn't jam up the highway
[21:27:29] <JoeG> heh
[21:27:35] <JScala> But that's happening now
[21:27:44] <FrankM> i heard that they would incorporate the design of this new shelter into the construction of the new overpasses
[21:27:58] <JScala> People pull under an overpass and stop traffic
[21:28:20] <MikeDinGRI> Dr. Scala, after Dr. R's recent chast about some of the latest theories regarding tornadogenesis, I am wondering where you see the empahsis of research into tornadogensis going over the next 5-10 years?
[21:28:20] <FrankM> never gonna trust TLC again
[21:28:33] <Kimtwister> hehe
[21:28:33] <JoeG> making the danger even greater
[21:28:35] <Randy> Dr. Scala do you think there is away we can educate the general public to stay away from over passes during a tornado
[21:28:37] <Kanani> they are building storm shelters in in tx at the "safety" rest stops
[21:28:48] <Kanani> 2 that i know of now
[21:28:59] <Kimtwister> oh thats good
[21:29:15] <@GeorgeT> Good info Kanani. I see Texans think like me!
[21:29:20] Joins: JayM ([email protected]) [31 users]
[21:29:25] <JScala> I show the Andover video often and always say these people were so fortunate...look at the van in the background that does a circle on its nose
[21:29:30] <@GeorgeT> hello Jay
[21:29:33] <JayM> hey
[21:29:45] <Kimtwister> i remember that footage
[21:29:51] <AdrianElizabeth> hi Jay
[21:29:53] <@GeorgeT> Right, that was only an F2 tornado that didn't hit the overpass directly
[21:29:53] <Kimtwister> very scary
[21:29:54] <JoeG> yeah, they were fortunate to not get killed from that
[21:30:06] <@GeorgeT> the poor folks under that one overpass on 5-3-99 were not so fortunate
[21:30:09] <JScala> Right, and it was decaying as it moved through
[21:30:14] <JoeG> imagine if it was an F5 like Moore, OK
[21:30:22] <Kimtwister> remembers that gt
[21:30:25] <Kimtwister> was sad
[21:30:34] <SA> That's the difference between an F2 scrap and an F4 direct hit George
[21:30:40] <JScala> Oh that's gruesome...no doubt you've seen the pictures of the concrete wher they sttod
[21:30:41] <FrankM> it was very sad listening to those stories about may 3rd kim
[21:30:41] <JoeG> I remember people using overpasses, and dying in them
[21:30:53] <Kimtwister> yup was a bad storm
[21:30:59] <Kimtwister> i have it on video
[21:31:00] <@Caleb> Ah, yes, the imprints, outlines...very disturbing
[21:31:04] <Kimtwister> tim marshalls
[21:31:07] <@GeorgeT> very
[21:31:08] <FrankM> very...
[21:31:11] <JoeG> very
[21:31:26] <JScala> Makes an impression, right? So I emphasize stay away from overpasses
[21:31:37] <Kimtwister> very true
[21:31:41] <@GeorgeT> Tim Marshall's May 3rd survey on his 1999 highlights tape showed some incredible things
[21:31:42] <JScala> Then I am asked, well, where should I go?
[21:31:45] <FrankM> you were working during that outbreak were you not Dr. Scala?
[21:31:53] <SA> What's eeeire is Chuck Doswell took photos of that overpass and they found the mising woman's body not far from where he'd been standing while shooting photos, about an hour after he'd been there
[21:31:55] <cnmsales> Dr Scala, i know this may be a very hard question to answer. Do you see the amount of tornadoes per year riseing or falling?
[21:31:55] <Kimtwister> yup gt
[21:32:12] <Randy> You know something it's too bad you can't put a sign at every overpass saying how dangerous it is during a tornado
[21:32:15] <Kimtwister> good question traye
[21:32:37] <JScala> Yes, my air time at TWC on May 3 was a defining moment, and I didn't sleep well for a couple
[21:32:42] <JScala> of days after
[21:32:46] <JoeG> i bet
[21:32:58] <JScala> So climate?
[21:33:12] <Kimtwister> global warming/
[21:33:23] <ef_away> What research are you currently doing at Millersville
[21:33:31] <JScala> Well, I think we are entering a time of extremes which may produce periods of above and below average numbers
[21:33:42] <@GeorgeT> You certainly did all you could do to alert people. I still have video I recorded from that evening. I could sense the urgency in your voice and knew something big was happening.
[21:33:48] <cnmsales> i see, please expund on why you think this
[21:33:56] <JScala> Look at the May 1-10, 2003 and May 21-30, 2004...astounding numbers
[21:34:11] <@GeorgeT> interesting
[21:34:27] <@GeorgeT> seems most of the severe weather the past two years have come in 2 week marathons
[21:34:33] <FrankM> couldnt the extreme numbers also be explained by better technology and more well trained spotters out in the field?
[21:35:19] <cnmsales> Yes i agree, i live in nevada mo and we saw many many storms both years just north and south of us in a short week period
[21:35:21] <MikeDinGRI> Dr. Scala, after Dr. R's recent chast about some of the latest theories regarding tornadogenesis, I am wondering where you see the empahsis of research into tornadogensis going over the next 5-10 years?
[21:35:27] <JScala> So, George, I was reading reports that just blew me away
[21:35:43] <FrankM> couldnt the extreme numbers also be explained by better technology and more well trained spotters out in the field?
[21:36:06] Quits: DanC ([email protected]) (Ping timeout)
[21:36:16] <JScala> Tough quesiton, but I think a lot of emphasis will be on initiation, then mechanims for rotation
[21:36:52] <JScala> Yes, look at the trend since 1991...even SPC uses a 3-year average
[21:37:04] Joins: DanC ([email protected]) [31 users]
[21:37:10] Quits: Kanani ([email protected]) (Quit: Leaving)
[21:37:13] <Kimtwister> wb dan
[21:37:58] Joins: NG ([email protected]) [31 users]
[21:38:04] <cnmsales> Dr Scala, do you ever see any technology being created that defines tornadoes easily or will it continue to be a guessing game?
[21:38:20] <Kimtwister> hi nick
[21:38:43] <Jscala> I think more research will go into understanding rotation from ground up vs cloud down
[21:38:51] <cnmsales> i see
[21:38:51] <NG> hi. Hi Mr. Scala!
[21:38:56] <LauraD> Do you think tornado alley shifting more northward due to warmer weather trends and global warming?
[21:39:14] Quits: samsagnella ([email protected]) (Quit: Leaving)
[21:39:53] <Kimtwister> brb
[21:39:57] Joins: Kanani ([email protected]) [31 users]
[21:40:02] <Jscala> we really need to consider convection in generally, then jet stream position before we try to link climate with small scale phenomena like tornadoes
[21:40:56] <cnmsales> Dr Scala, does things like el nino's tend to help produce more tornados or the oposite? Or does it not really affect it at all?
[21:41:05] <@GeorgeT> Did you hear anything about how Project IHOP turned out? I know they were tasked with studying initiation.
[21:41:55] <cnmsales> Dr Scala, does things like el nino's tend to help produce more tornados or the oposite? Or does it not really affect it at all?
[21:42:52] <JScala> ENSO affects large scale patterns...which indirectly may make an envrionment more favorable for storms
[21:43:21] <JScala> ENSO does not directly generate tornadoes
[21:43:44] <RMK_TCU_W> Dr. Scala, over the years have you developed any theories of your own w/respect to tornadogenesis?
[21:43:45] <cnmsales> Dr Scala yes thats what I meant.
[21:43:48] <JScala> Think 1998..remember the Feb tornado outbreak in FL that killed >40
[21:44:19] <JScala> That was el nino year characterized by strong subtropical jet
[21:44:25] <@GeorgeT> yes, seems like the jet stayed over the south from Feb through April, with outbreak after outbreak across the south
[21:44:45] <@GeorgeT> I was out in the middle of the one that occurred on April 16
[21:44:51] <JScala> Right, those storms developed on an outflow boundary that increased the SRH
[21:45:00] <@GeorgeT> a very vivid date in my memory
[21:45:24] <JScala> I can those campers lying in a pile in Kissimmee
[21:45:24] <cnmsales> I see, is it safe to say that el nino's tend to keep out brakes further to the south?
[21:45:56] <@GeorgeT> I remembering seeing the newspaper that came out that had pictures of all 42 victims
[21:45:59] <JScala> the jet is further south, over the Gulf Coast which would favor deeper convection, svr weather there
[21:46:08] <@GeorgeT> *remember
[21:46:34] <NG> Dr. Scala, when do you think the next severe weather day will occur? Looking at the GFS... possibly Tuesday? What do you think?
[21:47:05] <JScala> That's my thinking...although the pattern seems to be more zonal, and further north.
[21:47:21] <weathernet> Dr Scala Here in Tampa Fl as you know we had three hurricanes pass over us last year do you have any perdictions for this comming hurricane season?
[21:48:21] <@GeorgeT> NG is a future SPC forecaster. He's only 15 and already chasing and forecasting!
[21:48:38] <weathernet> Dr Scala Here in Tampa Fl as you know we had three hurricanes pass over us last year do you have any perdictions for this comming hurricane season?
[21:48:57] Parts: Randy ([email protected]) [30 users]
[21:49:08] <JScala> Chris Landsea's work suggests the post-1995 era will favor more TC
[21:49:30] <@GeorgeT> Yes it is Kim
[21:49:34] <JScala> Will more hit FL? Tough quesiton...depends on where the subtrop anticyclone sets up
[21:49:36] <@GeorgeT> tons of info there
[21:50:05] <JScala> Damage est for Fl is>30 billion so far
[21:50:25] <@GeorgeT> wow
[21:50:41] <cnmsales> So dr scala do you think tornadoes or hurricanes are more dangerous? Being from mississippi gulf coast i tend to think tornadoes
[21:50:42] <Kimtwister> are they gonna have stormchase 2005 on twc?
[21:50:46] <JScala> Speaking of SPC...I will be there in May participating in forecast program
[21:51:28] <JScala> Obviously, tornadoes generate stronger winds, but both can effectively rearrange your house and your life
[21:51:32] <@GeorgeT> If May's as crazy as the past two have been, Roger Edwards may make you a convective outlook forecaster
[21:51:33] <@GeorgeT> hehe
[21:51:42] <@GeorgeT> I'm sure they were glad to see the past two May's end
[21:52:00] <JScala> I heard it was nuts there and at some of the local offices
[21:52:21] <JoeG> heh
[21:53:19] <ef_away> Will MIllersville ever get a masters program in meteorology, i notice in NWA Job Lisitng there are looking to hire someone
[21:53:30] <ef_away> more faculty
[21:53:33] <JScala> I closed out some windows, maybe thats the prob
[21:53:43] <cnmsales> Dr Scala im wondering if you would mind commenting on hurricane camile.
[21:53:53] <JScala> OK, that annoucement is for my position
[21:54:16] <JScala> I've decided to pursue several private sector opps
[21:54:32] <JScala> including return to TV
[21:54:41] <@GeorgeT> awesome!
[21:54:44] <@GeorgeT> congrats
[21:54:58] <JScala> not TWC though...they appear to be going in another direction
[21:54:58] <@Caleb> Congrats. Hope you find something you like
[21:54:59] <ef_away> you should move to the plains then
[21:55:19] <JScala> My wife won't let me, but I will be returning more often to chase
[21:55:32] <Kimtwister> great congrats
[21:55:39] <Mike_HH> gas makes bust days more depressing......learned that yesterday
[21:55:49] <FrankM> lol
[21:55:50] <Kimtwister> heheh
[21:56:04] <JScala> thanks...I want to continue working with the local NWS offices and pursue my own deals
[21:56:04] <cnmsales> Dr Scala , im wondering if you could comment on Hurricane Camile
[21:56:07] <Mike_HH> so anyone going out this year, don't chase the bust days
[21:56:27] <@GeorgeT> lol Mike
[21:56:38] <JScala> Camille...what a storm...how high was the surge? >21' maybe ut was 26'
[21:56:40] <@GeorgeT> you just be sure to let us know which days those will be, ok?
[21:56:57] <FrankM> good old chaing almanac
[21:57:01] <cnmsales> It was bad made it all the way past the railroad tracks which are almost a mile inland
[21:57:01] <JScala> hey, sure George...
[21:57:28] <JScala> Hurricane Hugo put a dolphin in the second story of a home in CHS
[21:57:40] <FrankM> second story?!
[21:57:40] <@Caleb> Wow
[21:57:40] <JScala> now that's a surge
[21:57:45] <Kimtwister> wow
[21:57:46] <@Caleb> Indeed
[21:57:52] <Kanani> holy mackeral
[21:57:52] <Kimtwister> i saw the dammage
[21:57:58] <JoeG> ouch
[21:58:02] <@GeorgeT> that would qualify as a debris
[21:58:10] <FrankM> lol...
[21:58:15] <cnmsales> I have heard rumors that the winds in camile reached almost 300 mph, is this true?
[21:58:18] <JScala> Camille's claim to fame is the hurricane party that killed 3o people
[21:58:19] <Kimtwister> there was a boat in a yard and a church roof ripped apart
[21:58:38] <cnmsales> Yes, the hurricane partys were very popular back then
[21:58:40] <ef_away> Any stuff on warning lead times, polygons warnings, svr wx criteria raised, you like to see change
[21:58:53] <@GeorgeT> polygons....good question EF
[21:59:09] <JScala> No, I don't know about 300 but Andrew suggested subscale vortices operate in the eyewall that can boost the wind above 200 mph
[21:59:21] <cnmsales> Amazing
[21:59:32] <JoeG> right, i remember hearing that
[21:59:43] <JScala> just look at the 1-min imagery...amazing
[22:00:07] <JScala> The Campbelltown tornado lead time was about 5min
[22:00:30] <JoeG> in other words, no time at all really
[22:00:32] <JScala> due to the rapid spin up of the vortex as the convection tracked across a warm front
[22:00:57] <JScala> well enough so the warning was issued and people heard it in time to take shelter
[22:01:20] <JScala> the warning saved lives...and it was based on LWX not CCX
[22:01:29] <JoeG> oh, good point
[22:01:34] <FrankM> LWX? CCX?
[22:01:37] <cnmsales> What is the major difference between the two?
[22:01:48] <JScala> Sterling radar vs State College
[22:02:20] <JScala> the tor developed between the two but LWX SRV caught the gate to gate shear that was missed by CCX
[22:02:27] Quits: ScudStudBob ([email protected]) (Connection reset by peer)
[22:03:43] <ef_away> have you ever thought about writing a textbook on synoptic and mesoscale meteorology
[22:03:44] <@GeorgeT> Have you ever had a chance to check out any of the Gibson Ridge radar software yet?
[22:03:55] <ef_away> bluestein book is getting old now, lol
[22:03:59] <ef_away> s
[22:03:59] <@GeorgeT> oooops, sorry for the simultaneous question
[22:04:01] <Jscala> No to both questions
[22:04:25] <Jscala> I've thought about a forecast text..there is none
[22:04:36] <@GeorgeT> that would be nice
[22:04:42] <@GeorgeT> especially for people like me
[22:05:07] <@Caleb> I'd buy that
[22:05:13] <FrankM> what.. in your opinion.. would you believe to be a good forecasting routine to forecast svr wx?
[22:05:18] <@GeorgeT> I am strictly amateur and try to educate myself as much as possible
[22:05:26] <@GeorgeT> but there are limited resources
[22:06:30] <ef_away> i notice there is not many books out there, on synoptics, you got pettersons classic 2 volume set, bluestein 2 volume set, tim vasqquez books, weather analysis by djuric,
[22:06:56] <Jscala> also Carlson's book whihc I use with Palmen Mem Vol
[22:07:05] <FrankM> what.. in your opinion.. would you believe to be a good forecasting routine to forecast svr wx?
[22:07:21] <FrankM> or maybe just a good forecasting routine?
[22:07:34] <@GeorgeT> that could require a book to Frank
[22:07:35] <@GeorgeT> hehe
[22:07:41] <Jscala> I start with the water vapor, analyze upper air, then meso analysis of surface...boundaries are everything
[22:08:14] <Jscala> I am always amazed at what I find when I do a detailed analysis
[22:08:30] <LauraD> have drylines ever occured in the Great Lakes region?
[22:08:33] <Jscala> Last week;s HPC surface analyses confused the dry line and the CF
[22:08:34] <Kimtwister> here and tere room just listening tot he twc music
[22:08:52] <@GeorgeT> any tips for locating OFB's after they start to wash out a bit? You prefer sfc maps for example? Other tools?
[22:08:59] <ef_away> gravity waves,
[22:09:04] <ef_away> are important
[22:09:21] <Jscala> ONe could argue a pseudo dry line actually made it to PA in May 2003, same one associated with the KS outbreak
[22:10:02] <Jscala> OFB...surface analysis coupled with 1 km vis, and animated
[22:10:03] Joins: Nick_at_Nite ([email protected]) [30 users]
[22:10:12] <@GeorgeT> evening Nick
[22:10:21] <@GeorgeT> thanks John!
[22:10:39] <Jscala> are we done?
[22:10:48] <JoeG> only when you are
[22:11:00] <JoeG> you control the schedule here
[22:11:00] <Mike_HH> is there an amount of sbcape that you can't achieve without having convection.....one forecaster insists 5000cape is impossible
[22:11:01] <Jscala> let's keep going a bit longer
[22:11:02] <@GeorgeT> We will wrap up anytime you get tired
[22:11:11] <JoeG> k, its all up to you
[22:11:33] <Jscala> remember July 1995..the killer heat wave?
[22:11:38] <JoeG> ic
[22:11:41] <JoeG> who dosent
[22:11:44] <@GeorgeT> I do
[22:11:53] <@GeorgeT> I fought some fires in July that year
[22:11:58] <Jscala> I saw a SBCAPE of 6500 J/kg in IAD sounding that was never realized because it was capped
[22:12:12] <RMK_TCU_W> Very hot...southern WI had some dewpoints of 84!
[22:12:14] <Mike_HH> someone needs to tell mr bookbinder this, lol
[22:12:19] <JoeG> Also, i would like to thank everyone else for keeping the chat so clean
[22:12:27] <SA> I believe 5-26-97 in eastern OK had incredible CAPE values
[22:12:31] <@GeorgeT> lol Mike, we'll save the log
[22:12:39] <SA> I don't know if they were realized, but there were definitely storms that day
[22:12:40] <JayM> so did jarrel, tx
[22:12:40] <JoeG> i remember that too
[22:12:45] <MikeDinGRI> Jarrell also had some very large CAPE values
[22:12:49] <@GeorgeT> The Jarrell, TX day was extreme too
[22:12:52] <JayM> close to 7000
[22:12:52] <Mike_HH> yes, I remember plenty of examples too
[22:12:58] <@GeorgeT> lol, same thought, same time
[22:13:03] <ef_away> the oax example
[22:13:07] <ef_away> sounding that H has
[22:13:11] <Jscala> the july 15 1995 derecho in upstate NY realized the CAPE
[22:13:32] <FrankM> now that event.. i remember
[22:13:36] <Jscala> Oh, Jarrel was phenomenal..the 12 Z sounding was nothing
[22:13:37] <Kimtwister> heres a cool song i remember
[22:13:58] <Mike_HH> I don't even know where that sounding is now
[22:14:00] <Jscala> but an outflow interacted with a front and the rest is history
[22:14:03] <Mike_HH> oh spc page
[22:14:24] <Jscala> Check it out..it was unremarkable
[22:14:35] <ef_away> John, what do you think of the WRF model vs the NAM has the WRF outperform the NAM yet
[22:14:52] <ef_away> i notice millersville has wrf model graphics
[22:15:15] <Jscala> we will be using the wrf and nam at SPC during the project so I am intrigued to compare them
[22:15:39] <Mike_HH> http://www.spc.noaa.gov/exper/archive/even.../OAX_00_obs.gif
[22:15:43] <Jscala> yes, we run the wrf using nam initial fields...it performs well
[22:16:03] Quits: SA ([email protected]) (Quit
[22:16:15] <RMK_TCU_W> Roger Edwards saved an image from LBF back in the late 90s w/9000 j/kg CAPE.
[22:16:24] <RMK_TCU_W> I believe a giant MCS was the end result.
[22:16:31] <Jscala> 9000! that's nuclear
[22:16:52] <Mike_HH> I've seen 7000 on the spc meso page on a couple chases
[22:16:56] <Jscala> think of the updraft strength
[22:17:02] <Mike_HH> but figured since it was sbcape it was wrong
[22:17:27] <Jscala> I'd like to know the cape for the aurora storm in NE last June
[22:17:28] <ef_away> do you like using sbcape in your forecasting
[22:17:59] <Jscala> can be misleading since a parcel will interact with its environment...i trend toward mlcape
[22:18:13] <Jscala> with a look at sbcape
[22:19:01] <ef_away> any thoughts on use of forecast soundings
[22:19:02] <MikeDinGRI> http://www.spc.noaa.gov/exper/archive/even.../OAX_00_obs.gif
[22:19:05] <Jscala> in fact the idea of cape is really inaccurate but what's better?
[22:19:14] <MikeDinGRI> that's the OAX 00Z from June 22, 2003
[22:19:43] <ef_away> how accurate are the forecast soundings, does it underestimate CAPE and other parameters
[22:19:44] <Jscala> I look at RUC fcsts for nowcasts, and NAM soundings to get a general feel but there are
[22:19:46] <MikeDinGRI> ML CAPE was over 4000J/kg
[22:19:48] <Jscala> inherent errors
[22:20:08] <Jscala> had to be to produce that hailstone
[22:20:33] <@GeorgeT> ok.....
[22:20:40] <@GeorgeT> since we have a pause, I'll ask another question
[22:20:51] <Mike_HH> yeah mlcape was 5800 on the July 12 04 beast.....but that was at oax....was likely higher west where the storm took place.....that storm held 65-70k tops for over an hour
[22:20:52] <Jscala> we are getting into the grey area where we use a synoptic scale model, I know it says NAM, to forecast
[22:20:59] <Jscala> mesoscale events
[22:21:16] <MikeDinGRI> That was an impressive beast, wish I had some stills of it
[22:21:37] <@GeorgeT> If you followed the Nov 10, 2002 outbreak, had the middle portion of that outbreak filled in with supercells, do you think the total number of tornadoes that day could have rivaled the Super Outbreak?
[22:21:45] <Jscala> the mesoscale is the speed of sound htat Chuck Yeager broke through
[22:22:09] <Jscala> interesting question,,George
[22:22:25] <Jscala> One of my research interests is late season severe outbreaks
[22:22:44] <Jscala> this was a classic event,,and the strongest outbreak of 2002
[22:23:06] <Mike_HH> and the thought was linear the days ahead of it
[22:23:14] <RMK_TCU_W> Here's a re-post of that 9000+ CAPE sounding: http://limetap.com/images/hugecape.gif
[22:23:15] <@GeorgeT> yeah
[22:23:19] <Jscala> the super outbreak held a 500 jet of 120 knots
[22:23:28] <Mike_HH> yikes
[22:23:32] Joins: AaronK ([email protected]) [30 users]
[22:23:35] <Mike_HH> thta doesn't sound fun
[22:23:39] <@GeorgeT> hey Aaron
[22:23:42] <AaronK> howdy
[22:23:52] <ef_away> aaron ask some questions
[22:23:56] <MikeDinGRI> Since you're interested in late season outbreaks, how significant do you think evapotranspiration is in supplying LL moisture for NW flow scenarios?
[22:24:03] <Jscala> not on Nov 10, but I suspect the downsear diffluence was extensive given the width of the outbreak
[22:24:17] <Mike_HH> I wonder what storm speeds were for the super outbreak....must of had some realy backed low levels
[22:24:34] <@GeorgeT> some moved as fast as 55-60 mph, I think
[22:24:42] <@GeorgeT> they were truckin'
[22:24:46] <AaronK> Was also broken into 3 lines I thought
[22:24:52] <Jscala> I'll ask dan mccarthy...he ran an eta run using the reanalysis data
[22:25:31] <Nick_at_Nite> some of the radar based storm motions were 50-55 knots
[22:25:34] <Jscala> so the deep layer was extensive, also there were multiple surface boundaries to focus SRH
[22:26:24] <@GeorgeT> it's amazing how the directional shear was so perfect for tornadoes, even violent tornadoes, over such a wide area
[22:26:30] <@GeorgeT> never saw anything like that before
[22:26:33] <Jscala> the NW flow stuff generates derechos which may benefit from ll moisture
[22:26:35] <@GeorgeT> basically from AL to Canada
[22:26:44] Joins: Guest98 ([email protected]) [31 users]
[22:26:59] Quits: Guest98 ([email protected]) (Quit: Guest98)
[22:27:00] <Jscala> right, 15 tornadoes in progress at the same time
[22:27:03] <Mike_HH> I love nw flow in NE in July....some of the best sups I've seen have been in it
[22:27:36] <Jscala> you should chase in CO...its there all the time in July
[22:27:42] <MikeDinGRI> I've had some great NW flow luck in IA as well...one of my most favorite tornadoes was from a NW flow setup
[22:28:08] <Jscala> the ll shear can be awesme if the flow backs
[22:28:26] <Mike_HH> that big event july 7 in NC KS was nw flow.......
[22:28:34] <Mike_HH> TWC had that amazing looking supercell on for days after it
[22:28:36] <Nick_at_Nite> there is a paper and slide show on the SPC publications website from last year concerning the 74 outbreak
[22:28:41] Parts: RyanH ([email protected]) [29 users]
[22:29:05] <ef_away> any good forecasting tips for northwest flow days
[22:29:06] <@GeorgeT> Yes, that has tons of good stuff Nick
[22:29:11] <Jscala> that is probably dan's work..he ran a svr fcst workshop using the 1974 case
[22:29:11] <@GeorgeT> thanks for bringing that up
[22:29:16] <@GeorgeT> I had forgotten it
[22:29:27] <JoeG> Well, guys im gonna go, cya later
[22:29:34] <@GeorgeT> nite Joe
[22:29:49] <JoeG> And Dr. Scala, thank you very much for taking the time to chat with us!
[22:29:51] <JoeG>
[22:30:08] <Jscala> This was great...I'd like to do it again
[22:30:20] <@GeorgeT> feel free to come back anytime you like
[22:30:25] <@GeorgeT> we chat nightly in #stormchase
[22:30:35] <JoeG> Yeah, we do.
[22:30:36] <FrankM> we arent going anywhere anytime soon
[22:30:38] <@GeorgeT> although sometimes we tend to veer in all different sorts of directions
[22:30:42] <JoeG> heck no
[22:31:00] <Jscala> Thanks, George...I will do that, particularly after I return from OK
[22:31:03] <AdrianElizabeth> We are here 24/7
[22:31:06] <@GeorgeT> the evenings before a moderate or higher risk we tend to be all business though
[22:31:07] <@GeorgeT> hehe
[22:31:17] <cnmsales> TY for answering all our questions tonight DR
[22:31:18] <FrankM> we actually wear business suits
[22:31:23] <FrankM> lol
[22:31:27] <AdrianElizabeth> as if
[22:31:29] <JayM> do we own business siuts??
[22:31:32] <JoeG> so, Guys, Girls, and Dr. Scala, ill talk to you guys later!
[22:31:39] <FrankM> cya joe
[22:31:45] <Jscala> ok, i'll be back
[22:31:45] * MikeDinGRI don't wear ties anymore!
[22:31:48] <@Caleb> Thank you for your time with us, Dr. Scala. Fascinating and informing chat
[22:31:51] <AdrianElizabeth> bye Joe
[22:31:53] <ef_away> thank you for visiting us john
[22:31:57] <Jscala> Good night'
[22:31:57] <Mike_HH> thanks for coming in John
[22:32:00] <@GeorgeT> yes, this has been lots of fun
[22:32:10] <JoeG> good night John
[22:32:15] Quits: Jscala