• After witnessing the continued decrease of involvement in the SpotterNetwork staff in serving SN members with troubleshooting issues recently, I have unilaterally decided to terminate the relationship between SpotterNetwork's support and Stormtrack. I have witnessed multiple users unable to receive support weeks after initiating help threads on the forum. I find this lack of response from SpotterNetwork officials disappointing and a failure to hold up their end of the agreement that was made years ago, before I took over management of this site. In my opinion, having Stormtrack users sit and wait for so long to receive help on SpotterNetwork issues on the Stormtrack forums reflects poorly not only on SpotterNetwork, but on Stormtrack and (by association) me as well. Since the issue has not been satisfactorily addressed, I no longer wish for the Stormtrack forum to be associated with SpotterNetwork.

    I apologize to those who continue to have issues with the service and continue to see their issues left unaddressed. Please understand that the connection between ST and SN was put in place long before I had any say over it. But now that I am the "captain of this ship," it is within my right (nay, duty) to make adjustments as I see necessary. Ending this relationship is such an adjustment.

    For those who continue to need help, I recommend navigating a web browswer to SpotterNetwork's About page, and seeking the individuals listed on that page for all further inquiries about SpotterNetwork.

    From this moment forward, the SpotterNetwork sub-forum has been hidden/deleted and there will be no assurance that any SpotterNetwork issues brought up in any of Stormtrack's other sub-forums will be addressed. Do not rely on Stormtrack for help with SpotterNetwork issues.

    Sincerely, Jeff D.

2023-06-25 EVENT: IN/OH/KY/TN

JamesCaruso

Staff member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
1,859
Location
Newtown, Pennsylvania
Looks like a potential volatile setup on Sunday, although not in our traditional chasing region and likely not ideal from a storm mode perspective anyway, given strong forcing from a cold front and the exit region of a strong 500mb jet.

My main reason for posting - and MODs feel free to move it if appropriate - is an opportunity to highlight something that always perplexes me: being unable to reconcile what is in an SPC outlook with what I am seeing in the models. Sometimes SPC does not reference specific models and just talk in generalities, so if I can't see it in one specific model it usually doesn't trouble me. But here, they specifically reference the NAM (this is the Day 2 outlook issued at 06Z on 6/24):

"NAM forecast soundings in the vicinity of Louisville, Kentucky in the late afternoon, beneath the nose of the mid-level jet, have MLCAPE peaking near 4000 J/kg. 0-6 km shear is forecast to be near 50 knots, with 0-3 km storm relative helicity generally near or above 300 m2/s2. "

So from Pivotal Weather I pulled a 48-hour NAM sounding for Louisville Kentucky - run at 0Z on 6/24 (should be the latest version available for the 06Z Day 2 outlook) and valid for 0Z on 6/26 (the evening of Sunday 6/25). This is shown below.

MLCAPE over 4400 - I guess "peaking near 4000" makes sense. But 0-6km shear is shown at 65 in the sounding, vs 50 in the outlook. 0-3km SRH is shown at 508 in the sounding, significantly higher than "near or above 300" in the outlook.

The sounding parameters for 21Z are less impressive, but I think SPC is intending to (and should be) referring to the time things peak.

This is not intended to be critical of the SPC outlook. I am just trying to understand why things don't seem to match. Am I looking at something incorrectly? Is it a NAM "version" issue of some sort? Does SPC blend in other model solutions to offset NAM biases, even though specifically referencing the NAM?

nam_2023062400_048_38.29--85.71.png
 
Back
Top