Ben Holcomb
EF5
Rob touch base with Bill. I think I tasked him (if he remembers, he *IS* old) with finding us a place while out skiing this weekend.
Michigan Storm Chasing Climatology
- Thread starter Adam Adkins
- Start date
chrisbray
EF4
What kind of Michigan get together?
Robert Forry
EF3
Chris, it's chasers from the area, plus some Noobs from OKC and the Chicago area.. Had
chasers up from Ohio too. I'll have the FB page back up soon with the "where". Will do Ben.
Adam Adkins
EF3
Thanks for all the thoughts guys!
One thing I still wonder is, what are the kind of setups that produce the prolific CG storms I keep hearing about? And what are your thoughts in regards to climate change effects in Michigan? I had read about an increase in extreme precipitation events, but do you all agree? Is there anything else?
Thanks!
One thing I still wonder is, what are the kind of setups that produce the prolific CG storms I keep hearing about? And what are your thoughts in regards to climate change effects in Michigan? I had read about an increase in extreme precipitation events, but do you all agree? Is there anything else?
Thanks!
Adam Lucio
EF5
The summer ring of fire pulse storms. When that 594 ridge parks itself over the plains and bakes them in the 100 degree heat, the midwest often sits on the edge of that ridge. So you have 90/75 air and 5000 CAPE just waiting to be utilized. Since we sit on the edge of the ridge we get just enough shear to get slow moving, training MCSes and pulse type storms (they often bring flooding issues as well.) Its that hot, humid, sticky summer air that really gets the lightning going. 60k foot tops every night for a week straight. Ive looked out my window here in Chicago and have watched towers flickering away over Milwaukee. Its quite a sight, and they usually occur in a stagnant pattern that involves a stationary front that just meanders across the area for a few days bringing multiple rounds of action. I look forward to it every year.
Michael Gavan
EF2
Yep! Really any Northwest flow, 90/70s. Especially Ring of Fire set ups. a few supercells in Minnesota or SD or WI will eventually turn into a Derecho and slam through the great lakes a few times each summer. I'd have to look up the exact ingredients on this but IIRC we will tend to get training or parked storms from saturated 20kt southerly 700-825mb combined with relatively weak (40kt) NW flow.... Storms just fire and keep firing in the same place over and over again, 60Kft tops. Events like this last hours starting in late afternoon and into the early morning having moved only a few counties. That adds to the Lightning show since, of course, nothing is moving anywhere. I see it happen in MN, WI, MI, N OH a couple times a year. Often Lake Michigan will act as the trough that provides the lift for this and we will get a couple of events each year just in our location alone (Allegan/Ottawa counties just NW of Chicago/due east of Milwaukee on the Michigan side)
Adam Adkins
EF3
60k tops - that's pretty high! Also mid-70s dew points +? That sounds unbearable. Can those mid-upper 70s make their way that far north usually?
So it sounds like the big storms happen when the air gets most muggy in MI under northwest flow. Sounds like a great thing to look out for! And of course, rotating supercells in May and June I hope!
So it sounds like the big storms happen when the air gets most muggy in MI under northwest flow. Sounds like a great thing to look out for! And of course, rotating supercells in May and June I hope!
Adam Adkins
EF3
But that of course brings me to the big question: Are summertime lightning storms and storm chasing better in southern Michigan or in Colorado?
Nick Nolte
EF2
Hi Adam,
I'm a bit late to the thread, but thought I'd throw my input in. I do enjoy chasing Michigan sometimes, but very rarely venture north of I-96. Once you get beyond there it starts turning into state forests and hills, but there's still a chance for a good storm up that way, and I know the thumb area is a bit easier to chase and can get some photogenic storms there as well. We haven't had much oppressive humidity that I can remember in the last two or three summers, but every once in a while it'll get pretty thick. What I usually see is our surface flow is almost always veered out of the southwest or west so that hurts your inflow, reducing your helicity and low level shear. Every once in a while we'll see southerly winds, or southeast storm motion (March 15, 2012) that will help with that and we can get stuff going.
As far as comparing lightning storms in Michigan vs. Colorado, I think they're two different beasts. You're not going to get a nice clear high based storm to catch bolts here in Michigan like you can in the high plains. It's definitely going to be different than chasing Colorado, for sure, but we get our own gems here. Like Ben mentioned you'll get some pretty bitching shelf clouds if you can make it to the lakeshore and watch them roll in or experience some nice classic derecho events. Every once in a while you get some nice lightning shows with some supercell or supercellular like storms that roll in off the lake. I remember one near Fennville back in July of 2010 that was rather prolific as far as lightning goes.
Thanks for linking my Dexter video, I like to keep that fresh in the minds of others
That was a complete surprise day and I was the benefactor of circumstance being within 20 miles of that storm when I got out of work and it was . I know, myself and several other chasers were surprised to see the classic supercell signature on radar for that storm, it was very central plains looking and very uncharacteristic for Michigan. I never thought I'd see a linear spinup tornado in this state let alone a classic photogenic one.
Welcome to Michigan!
I'm a bit late to the thread, but thought I'd throw my input in. I do enjoy chasing Michigan sometimes, but very rarely venture north of I-96. Once you get beyond there it starts turning into state forests and hills, but there's still a chance for a good storm up that way, and I know the thumb area is a bit easier to chase and can get some photogenic storms there as well. We haven't had much oppressive humidity that I can remember in the last two or three summers, but every once in a while it'll get pretty thick. What I usually see is our surface flow is almost always veered out of the southwest or west so that hurts your inflow, reducing your helicity and low level shear. Every once in a while we'll see southerly winds, or southeast storm motion (March 15, 2012) that will help with that and we can get stuff going.
As far as comparing lightning storms in Michigan vs. Colorado, I think they're two different beasts. You're not going to get a nice clear high based storm to catch bolts here in Michigan like you can in the high plains. It's definitely going to be different than chasing Colorado, for sure, but we get our own gems here. Like Ben mentioned you'll get some pretty bitching shelf clouds if you can make it to the lakeshore and watch them roll in or experience some nice classic derecho events. Every once in a while you get some nice lightning shows with some supercell or supercellular like storms that roll in off the lake. I remember one near Fennville back in July of 2010 that was rather prolific as far as lightning goes.
Thanks for linking my Dexter video, I like to keep that fresh in the minds of others
That was a complete surprise day and I was the benefactor of circumstance being within 20 miles of that storm when I got out of work and it was . I know, myself and several other chasers were surprised to see the classic supercell signature on radar for that storm, it was very central plains looking and very uncharacteristic for Michigan. I never thought I'd see a linear spinup tornado in this state let alone a classic photogenic one.Welcome to Michigan!
L.B. LaForce
EF2
Hello Adam and Welcome to MI!
As Nick said, anything north of I-96 can get hairy at times, although most of Michigan chasing is trying to find a good spot to view a storm. As stated earlier, violent tornadoes are rare, but as a meteorologist at the local WFO in GRR always says, "we are long past due for a violent tornado." Most tornadoes here in MI are quick spinups where you must be really lucky to be in the right spot at the right time. On occasion there are longer lived tornadoes, but photogenic tornadoes are few and far between. Be sure to keep an eye out for boundary interactions, we get a lot of tornadoes that form along those intersections as well. That being said, we get a lot of MCS's and the occasional derecho which can lead to spectacular lightning shows and decent shelf clouds. Waterspouts are also another option in the fall!
If you like fishing, MI offers lots of lakes, and some of the best salmon fishing in the country on the rivers that lead into Lake Michigan.
As Nick said, anything north of I-96 can get hairy at times, although most of Michigan chasing is trying to find a good spot to view a storm. As stated earlier, violent tornadoes are rare, but as a meteorologist at the local WFO in GRR always says, "we are long past due for a violent tornado." Most tornadoes here in MI are quick spinups where you must be really lucky to be in the right spot at the right time. On occasion there are longer lived tornadoes, but photogenic tornadoes are few and far between. Be sure to keep an eye out for boundary interactions, we get a lot of tornadoes that form along those intersections as well. That being said, we get a lot of MCS's and the occasional derecho which can lead to spectacular lightning shows and decent shelf clouds. Waterspouts are also another option in the fall!
If you like fishing, MI offers lots of lakes, and some of the best salmon fishing in the country on the rivers that lead into Lake Michigan.
Adam Adkins
EF3
Why is it that the forest density increases so much in Michigan? Other areas in the Midwest that average similar precipitation have much less or more stunted trees. Why are Michigan's forests so lush? I also noticed while visiting that the forests have much more dead on the ground than other forests in the east. Why is this? Is it from storms?
Also any locals noticing any climate change patterns in MI?
Thanks for your great responses!
Also any locals noticing any climate change patterns in MI?
Thanks for your great responses!
Robert Forry
EF3
Climate Change? Hum... Yeah, it's getting colder here....
I'm no expert on stunted growth of forest in the surrounding states. Have never heard of that. Our forests here were heavily harvested during the westward expansion in the 1800s. Over the last 100 years, proper harvesting and replanting efforts have probably lead to why they're so lush, but IMO it's not due to myth of "climate change."I spend time in the woods here every year, and have since my youth, and the deadfall doesn't look any different to me. Yes, the ashbore problem hasn't helped matters below the Mackinaw Bridge, so that maybe some of what you've seen..
I'm in the upper peninsula of Michigan so I figured I'll throw my thoughts out there. On the first question, I suspect the answer may be two part. The summers are cooler up here and when a seedling germinates, I think it has a better chance up here of surviving the critical first year without getting burnt out by a hot and dry spell. A lot of the dominate species here do pretty well growing in the shade of an upper canopy. Trees like White Cedar, Red Maple, various Spruces and the invasive Glossy Buckthorn do a very good job of filling in any available spaces to grow in. They have no problem growing in crowds. These trees all also tolerant of extreme cold and aren't as fond of warm temps. This is obviously a guess, but seems to have merit.
No thoughts on the amount of dead trees on the ground. I can't say I've noticed a higher portion of tress laying down here than anywhere else.
As far as noticing anything related to climate, the only thing I can think of is that the first time I ever saw a possum up here was about twenty years ago. I had gone my first thirty years up here without bumping into one and now they're common. That's the only thing I've ever noticed. The winters still suck and the mosquito Air Force still comes out strong as soon as it warms up!
No thoughts on the amount of dead trees on the ground. I can't say I've noticed a higher portion of tress laying down here than anywhere else.
As far as noticing anything related to climate, the only thing I can think of is that the first time I ever saw a possum up here was about twenty years ago. I had gone my first thirty years up here without bumping into one and now they're common. That's the only thing I've ever noticed. The winters still suck and the mosquito Air Force still comes out strong as soon as it warms up!
Last edited by a moderator:
Michael Gavan
EF2
The answer is very simple. Farms and not Farms.
Early on the limitations for trees were REAL prairie grass which is 7+ feet tall and extremely thick at the base. Everything else was forest where possible. It's practically impossible for trees to set root into that stuff. Once settlers arrived the land that buffalo "managed" (stomping seedlings and eating grass and pooping nutrient dense fertilizer) was change forever. this phenomenon vanished and much of the land was converted to farm land. What you'll notice in the low plains is that trees hug rivers, not just because there's more water there, but because it wasn't tillable or wasn't tilled. If you draw a line from Edmonton Canada, to Madison Wisconsin, to New Orleans, You can imagine virtually everything east and north of that line being forest, and west of that mainly prairie or transitional. Much of that forest was managed by native peoples in some way before Europeans arrived, They actively culled low vegetation---they had to, that's how they kept warm and how they built stuff. Pretty much all of this at one point or another was forested by about 1890. Where land was flattest, it was converted to farmland.
For Example, Zoom in on Illinois. This is right at the historical transition from prairie to forest. You'll notice that today, anything that is farmable is treeless---Except by major rivers and in towns. Same goes for Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri and eastern OK/KS. etc. Trees grow just as prolific in those areas regardless of species.
Michigan on the other hand has a different story. (one it shares with Wisconsin and Minnesota) In the 1800's all of the flat land was converted for farm use. However, there's a point where both wheat and corn are very difficult to grow (historically) and that's in Zone 4 or lower. That line runs right through the center of Wisconsin and Michigan. This is roughly where total 80 degree days start to number less than about 90 in a year. At that point there is less focus on farming--and as a result the land was allowed to rebound to a forest state...And then later, became state forest. Simultanously, since around 1930 or so, family farming gave way to more or less industrial farming. Homesteads became vacation properties and subdivisions...or were just left to fallow.
In my particular spot, I'm in a very flat treeless area, about 15 sqaure miles with rich dark dirt from floodplains. Surrounding that is state land, game preserves, recreation areas, lakes, cottages, etc...and far fewer farms. Those areas have been allowed to return to forest for the last 50-75 years. They are THICK with forest.
One interesting thing is, that we actually can get 80 degree dews! In late July, corn in Iowa, Indiana and Illinois, combined with a SW wind turn Michigan into a sauna. Nearly all of that land, 4 larger states worth was converted from shady dark leafed forest with a cool floor----or tall prairie grass with low transpiration rates----to corn stalks. Ever tried to sleep in 75 degree weather with 100% humidity? You will experience that soon enough. Every corn stalk can transpire up to 1 gallon of water per day at it's peak in late July. Not surprisingly that corresponds with those insane pulse storms we get.
That's climate change if there's any---directly affecting a large area of planet by changing how the surface absorbs, reflects, and radiates heat and water---not just by tailpipes and trace weakling greenhouse gasses.
Edit: I did a little more research and fact checking myself. There's some additional factors I neglected...Droughts occur more frequently in the very areas where there are less trees, and also, historic prairies experience frequent fires in those drought years with few natural fire breaks. That helped beat the trees down too, while the grasses themselves absolutely loved fire for soil nutrients. So basically we have a historic reason for trees versus few, and a modern factor (farming) that roughly mimics that natural boundry.
Early on the limitations for trees were REAL prairie grass which is 7+ feet tall and extremely thick at the base. Everything else was forest where possible. It's practically impossible for trees to set root into that stuff. Once settlers arrived the land that buffalo "managed" (stomping seedlings and eating grass and pooping nutrient dense fertilizer) was change forever. this phenomenon vanished and much of the land was converted to farm land. What you'll notice in the low plains is that trees hug rivers, not just because there's more water there, but because it wasn't tillable or wasn't tilled. If you draw a line from Edmonton Canada, to Madison Wisconsin, to New Orleans, You can imagine virtually everything east and north of that line being forest, and west of that mainly prairie or transitional. Much of that forest was managed by native peoples in some way before Europeans arrived, They actively culled low vegetation---they had to, that's how they kept warm and how they built stuff. Pretty much all of this at one point or another was forested by about 1890. Where land was flattest, it was converted to farmland.
For Example, Zoom in on Illinois. This is right at the historical transition from prairie to forest. You'll notice that today, anything that is farmable is treeless---Except by major rivers and in towns. Same goes for Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri and eastern OK/KS. etc. Trees grow just as prolific in those areas regardless of species.
Michigan on the other hand has a different story. (one it shares with Wisconsin and Minnesota) In the 1800's all of the flat land was converted for farm use. However, there's a point where both wheat and corn are very difficult to grow (historically) and that's in Zone 4 or lower. That line runs right through the center of Wisconsin and Michigan. This is roughly where total 80 degree days start to number less than about 90 in a year. At that point there is less focus on farming--and as a result the land was allowed to rebound to a forest state...And then later, became state forest. Simultanously, since around 1930 or so, family farming gave way to more or less industrial farming. Homesteads became vacation properties and subdivisions...or were just left to fallow.
In my particular spot, I'm in a very flat treeless area, about 15 sqaure miles with rich dark dirt from floodplains. Surrounding that is state land, game preserves, recreation areas, lakes, cottages, etc...and far fewer farms. Those areas have been allowed to return to forest for the last 50-75 years. They are THICK with forest.
One interesting thing is, that we actually can get 80 degree dews! In late July, corn in Iowa, Indiana and Illinois, combined with a SW wind turn Michigan into a sauna. Nearly all of that land, 4 larger states worth was converted from shady dark leafed forest with a cool floor----or tall prairie grass with low transpiration rates----to corn stalks. Ever tried to sleep in 75 degree weather with 100% humidity? You will experience that soon enough. Every corn stalk can transpire up to 1 gallon of water per day at it's peak in late July. Not surprisingly that corresponds with those insane pulse storms we get.
That's climate change if there's any---directly affecting a large area of planet by changing how the surface absorbs, reflects, and radiates heat and water---not just by tailpipes and trace weakling greenhouse gasses.
Edit: I did a little more research and fact checking myself. There's some additional factors I neglected...Droughts occur more frequently in the very areas where there are less trees, and also, historic prairies experience frequent fires in those drought years with few natural fire breaks. That helped beat the trees down too, while the grasses themselves absolutely loved fire for soil nutrients. So basically we have a historic reason for trees versus few, and a modern factor (farming) that roughly mimics that natural boundry.
Last edited by a moderator:
Michael Gavan
EF2
Also, check this out. Every time I look at this I'm mesmerized by how closely it corresponds to where lush forest land is and isn't. This is just one extreme summer. So this might be another factor...maybe not causal, but certainly correlative, or maybe reverse causal. (Heat makes better farmland, to a point, but maybe 100 degree days slow or inhibit tree growth) This was actually from a post made by Meteorologist Bill Steffan. Check out Bill's blog! you'll love it.
