7/14/2010 FCST: MN/IA/WI

Joined
May 1, 2004
Messages
3,417
Location
Springfield, IL
An interesting and dynamic setup looks like its shaping up over southern MN/northern IA/western WI on Wednesday. A 70 knot midlevel jet is forecast to eject across the northern plains during the evening, along with a strong southwesterly low level jet, and backed surface winds of 10-20 knots. The speed and directional shear look very favorable for supercells, although I'm still worried a bit about storm mode. The NAM has been forecasting ongoing precip throughout the day along the MN/IA border. The instability is actually forecast to hit 3000 J/Kg across portions of northern Iowa by noon and into Minnesota shortly afterwards, and with the strong low level jet the tornado parameters are quite high throughout the day. The problem is there is a super stout cap also forecasted, and it holds its grip until after 21z before finally eroding in northeast Iowa and southeast Minnesota. Given the strong instability early on with the ongoing storms, but with the strong cap, I expect elevated supercells with a severe hail threat most of the day across Iowa and Minnesota. As the cap weakens later in the afternoon/evening, hopefully we can see these storms become surface based and that will give us a better shot at tornadoes. There could be a lot of storms throughout the day including cluseters and embedded supercells, which will put down a myriad of boundaries. We could see new development of surface based supercells east and south of the ongoing storms, and this might be the more chaseable play. Anyway, it looks like a complicated forecast that will hinge on what happens tomorrow further west as well as the ongoing precip in the morning, but the shear and instability are there for supercells and tornadoes.
 
7/14/10 FCST: MN, IA, WI

A trough will sweep across this area on Wednesday bringing the potential for severe storms, including tornadoes. There are a few things that I'm not liking at the moment, but we'll have to follow the models up until the day of the event.

CAPE values push into 3000-400 J/KG, 0-1km Helicity is also plentiful at around 300 m^2/s^2. 0-1 EHI values are around 5 along the MN, IA border, and MN, WI border. Bulk shear around 40-50kts will be supportive for supercells.

One thing im not liking is the H7 temps. H7 temps are around 12-13C. There does appear to be a little shortwave disturbance that makes its way through the IA, MN, WI border around 0z that may provide enough forcing to break the cap, although its still in question.

NAM_221_2010071212_F60_TMPC_700_MB.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It definitely looks like capping is going to be an issue, but for what it's worth, both 12Z American models showed widespread areas of UVV at 500, 700, and 850 mb at 18Z and 00Z. Kinda strange, especially given the change in 700 mb temps between 18 and 00Z in the 12Z GFS. Both models also have precip initiating around 21Z and present by 00Z.
 
Wednesday looks like a classic high CAPE/moderate shear summer event in the upper-Mississippi valley. Forecast sounding based on the 12z NAM this morning indicate 50-60kts 0-6km shear with a good bulk of that shear in the lowest 3km or so.

http://www.twisterdata.com/data/tmp/scratc...0N_92.5000W.png

Height falls aren't forecast to be overly significant throughout the day in my favored area S.E. MN, N.E. IA, W. WI; forcing along the cold front in MN and weak warm front in Wisconsin should be enough to get a few supercells to develop in an environment more than conducive for supercells and tornadoes.

I like the fact that it falls on the 7 year anniversary of one of my favorite Minnesota chases ever. That happened over better terrain in SC MN...it doesn't look like I'll be so fortunate in that aspect this time around.
 
The MPX discussion talks about the 700 mb temp situation...

"TO GO ALONG WITH ALL OF THIS...H7 TEMPS
ARE FORECAST TO DECREASE DURING THE AFTERNOON AS THE MAIN H7
TROUGH MOVES IN...WHICH SHOULD ALLOW THE ENTIRE COLD FRONT TO
INITIATE STORMS."

Also an interesting comment here..

"THE NAM/ECMWF/GEFS ALL HAVE A 40 TO 50 KT LLJ
WORKING INTO ERN MN...WHICH IS A GOOD 4 TO 5 STANDARD DEVIATIONS
ABOVE NORMAL...MAKING H85 WINDS OF THIS STRENGTH IN MID JULY OF
SOMEWHAT RARE OCCURRENCE."

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/product.php?site=mpx&product=AFD&issuedby=MPX
 
Ok, anyone wanna come pick me up for chasing on Wednesday? LOL

CENTRAL_ETA212_TORNADO-MASK_60HR.jpg

The is the same area where the shortwave disturbance is forecasted to go through, also associated with the high UVV values that Jeff pointed out earlier.

The latest runs have been throwing it from south central MN and north central IA to western WI and south eastern MN. The 0z NAM shows the H7 temps cooling by 0z. The Albert Lea area is definitely not the area that needs any more tornadoes, and since it doesnt look like i'll be able to go, ill make my virtual target polygon:

targetmap.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This morning the WRF had the best dynamics over southeast Minnesota and western Wisconsin. The new run has it farther west towards south central MN/north central IA which is more favorable chase terrain. MLCAPE around 4000 with H7 temps cooling below 12C by 0z. Good helicities as well over this area. Target right now would be Albert Lea, MN to Mason City, IA.
 
I'll third the target area of Albert Lea to Mason City and about 80 miles east and add that the 00Z NAM tonight showed winds suddenly backing along a line from just south of Mason City to near Waterloo to near Dubuque at 00Z as well. Model still has precipitation, but now showing it persistent all day instead of just blowing it up in the afternoon.
 
Well the day two is up and no big surprises. Everyone is pretty much all over this one as of now.. doesn't seem like an overnight MCS is even going to be an issue in S MN/N IA and W WI.. just lots of heating and juice.
 
Tonight's 00Z NAM is backing surface flow over SE MN in advance of surface trough with nice southerly 925 flow. I am liking an initial target just east of Albert Lea by 20Z. I prefer to play the southern end of this activity but would not be surprised to see tornadic supercells from MPX southeastward towards Eau Claire WI.
 
Just got done looking at this and I am liking this more and more. Before I thought that there was going to be a MCS that came through about 11AM-1PM and destroy the day.As of right now that does look to be a issue at all. Then I looked at the latest data and saw the trailing low forming in SD NE. If that varifies as well as the EHI at 0-1 KM being what it is, the target area will be very interesting. If things can stay descrete at all, the Cape,EHI and upper level winds......WOW!!! I can not remember a day like this in mid July, correct me if I am wrong but this is late season stuff. The only complaint I can have is that being from the Twin Cities and having family.... I am hoping the Cities stays safe..... Do not want to see another Hugo.

I will be heading south a bit bepending what Rob Hurkes and I see in the morning. Be safe to all going out, and enjoy the one more good day the weather is offering.
 
Just noted in a text that there are significant differences between the NAM and GFS. Deal breakers, actually.

http://www.twisterdata.com/data/tmp.../NAM_218_2010071400_F21_43.0000N_92.0000W.png

Are you serious?! This says huge EF10 tornadoes along the MN/IA border (Charles City is my NAM target)...buuuuuut.......

http://www.twisterdata.com/data/tmp...ng/GFS_3_2010071400_F21_43.0000N_92.5000W.png

In an almost identical location at the same time, this time on the GFS, it says crap. As in, I'm not going crap.

Not sure why people aren't a little worried about this huge difference...I mean, it's literally the difference between a huge day and an absolute crap day (boundaries excluded, of course), so if anyone has any ideas on which one to believe, I'm listening.

For what it's worth, 4km WRF doesn't break out precip, I don't think.


So, it's either Charles City, or I'm not chasing.
 
We aren't worried about the hodograph in this case because in this set up the further south you go the less ideal the directional shear is. An ideal location would have south or southeast winds at the surface potentially when storms go through.

I could definitely see a long track tornado go from Spring Valley, MN to Tomah, WI and north and south of that line.

Charles City will *probably* be too far south.. at least for a good tornado threat.. but still worth a play.. as of now it is right on the edge.
 
Not sure why people aren't a little worried about this huge difference...I mean, it's literally the difference between a huge day and an absolute crap day (boundaries excluded, of course), so if anyone has any ideas on which one to believe, I'm listening.

GFS certainly pushes the frontal wave with best surface features well east into central WI. I have not been a fan of the NAM for some time but got a bit excited at tonight's run. Will see what tommorow brings and if I decide to chase, will stay with the best surface convergence wherever that ends up. Would prefer southern MN as opposed to east of La Crosse to the cities..
 
We aren't worried about the hodograph in this case because in this set up the further south you go the less ideal the directional shear is. An ideal location would have south or southeast winds at the surface potentially when storms go through.

I could definitely see a long track tornado go from Spring Valley, MN to Tomah, WI and north and south of that line.

Charles City will *probably* be too far south.. at least for a good tornado threat.. but still worth a play.. as of now it is right on the edge.

I guess I should clarify that since I can't get out earlier than 10am or so (with a 5hr drive to target), I'll be slightly more negative than I should be, and looking further south than most.

But, with the GFS, I'm not sure where the directional shear gets much better, at least in chaseable terrain. It's not very good no matter where you go, as far as the GFS says. Now, I'd completely agree that with the NAM (and this is with Pritchard showing me a graphic that I completely forgot to look at earlier), I should probably move 50 miles north or so of where I said. That's assuming, of course, that the NAM verifies. If GFS does with veered and weaker lower level winds, then I'm not a fan at all.
 
Back
Top