Page 1 of 1

May 2011: inactive, why?

Posted: Tue May 17, 2011 10:54 pm
by CrazyC83
What a difference a month makes! April was insane, yet May so far has been mostly tranquil at least from the severe weather side (and that is good news too for the flood victims with not much new rainfall).

My speculative reasoning is that the drought in the southern Plains has been zapping any moisture potential and limiting the activity in what would otherwise be the heart of severe weather this month. I see no reason why that won't continue. I think Tornado Alley this year will seriously disappoint for tornado chasers (and please for emergency mangement), at least from Kansas and Nebraska south.

But come June, activity normally shifts north into the Upper Midwest where it has still been moist. So maybe June will be bad as well?

Posted: Wed May 18, 2011 12:48 am
by JonathanBelles
Is it possible that the last even (the big one) zapped all of the energy from the atmosphere? I don't know if the atmosphere has a reserve like that. I certainly do think the drought has something to do with it, but that was there before the storms, so it cannot be all of the cause.

Posted: Wed May 18, 2011 6:56 am
by RL3AO
The blocking ridge over the central US is going to kill most chances of severe weather over the Central Plains.

Posted: Wed May 18, 2011 8:44 am
by CrazyC83
It kinda reminds me of 2005 vs. 2006 from a hurricane perspective. We went from an insane 2005 to a mostly tranquil 2006.

The drought was there too before the storms, but Tornado Alley for the most part was not getting them. Western Oklahoma and all of Kansas and Nebraska were pretty quiet. And that is the prime area in May. All the activity potential was set up for the warm Gulf and across Dixie Alley (with some in the Midwest). The ridge has blocked those areas, and put the sharp line in Tornado Alley which is being zapped by the drought.

Re: May 2011: inactive, why?

Posted: Wed May 18, 2011 9:30 pm
by HurricaneBill
I wouldn't let my guard down yet. After the 1974 Super Outbreak, Oklahoma had a significant outbreak in June 1974.

With how quiet it has gotten, you'd think Vortex2 was out there or something.

Re: May 2011: inactive, why?

Posted: Wed May 18, 2011 9:45 pm
by RL3AO
HurricaneBill wrote:
With how quiet it has gotten, you'd think Vortex2 was out there or something.


The weather channel is...

Just think, if the gov't sponsored a year round vortex 3 project, we could basically eliminate tornadoes.

Re: May 2011: inactive, why?

Posted: Wed May 18, 2011 10:28 pm
by Florida1118
RL3AO wrote:
HurricaneBill wrote:
With how quiet it has gotten, you'd think Vortex2 was out there or something.


The weather channel is...

Just think, if the gov't sponsored a year round vortex 3 project, we could basically eliminate tornadoes.

I don't think we should mess with nature even more than we already do. We wouldn't know the effects of what we would have done until it would be too late. Always got to remember, we live in natures world, not the other way around.

Re: May 2011: inactive, why?

Posted: Wed May 18, 2011 10:43 pm
by CrazyC83
HurricaneBill wrote:I wouldn't let my guard down yet. After the 1974 Super Outbreak, Oklahoma had a significant outbreak in June 1974.

With how quiet it has gotten, you'd think Vortex2 was out there or something.


Very true, things can change in a heartbeat. June also moves the activity farther north, and the flooding and wet winter and early spring there means the atmosphere is very juicy.

Re: May 2011: inactive, why?

Posted: Thu May 19, 2011 6:03 am
by tomboudreau
Florida1118 wrote:
RL3AO wrote:
HurricaneBill wrote:
With how quiet it has gotten, you'd think Vortex2 was out there or something.


The weather channel is...

Just think, if the gov't sponsored a year round vortex 3 project, we could basically eliminate tornadoes.

I don't think we should mess with nature even more than we already do. We wouldn't know the effects of what we would have done until it would be too late. Always got to remember, we live in natures world, not the other way around.


What he means is that for the first year of V2 (Spring of 09), there were very limited opportunities for severe wx to pop up in their targetted area. He isn't saying that we should mess with nature. V2 spent most of the time the first year chasing nothing.

Re: May 2011: inactive, why?

Posted: Thu May 19, 2011 8:01 am
by RL3AO
Florida1118 wrote:
RL3AO wrote:
HurricaneBill wrote:
With how quiet it has gotten, you'd think Vortex2 was out there or something.


The weather channel is...

Just think, if the gov't sponsored a year round vortex 3 project, we could basically eliminate tornadoes.

I don't think we should mess with nature even more than we already do. We wouldn't know the effects of what we would have done until it would be too late. Always got to remember, we live in natures world, not the other way around.


Vortex project wasn't some cloud seeding thing. It was a research mission and when it started, severe weather basically shut down for almost 3 weeks. Almost like mother nature didn't want us to learn her secrets....

Re: May 2011: inactive, why?

Posted: Thu May 19, 2011 4:09 pm
by HurricaneBill
RL3AO wrote:Vortex project wasn't some cloud seeding thing. It was a research mission and when it started, severe weather basically shut down for almost 3 weeks. Almost like mother nature didn't want us to learn her secrets....


A watched pot never boils.

Re: May 2011: inactive, why?

Posted: Thu May 19, 2011 7:47 pm
by Stephanie
RL3AO wrote:
HurricaneBill wrote:
With how quiet it has gotten, you'd think Vortex2 was out there or something.


The weather channel is...

Just think, if the gov't sponsored a year round vortex 3 project, we could basically eliminate tornadoes.


I was surprised that they were out in MAY instead of April. I realize it takes a lot of planning and May is their designated month, but they must've had a sinking feeling inside when everything was happening in April.

Posted: Thu May 19, 2011 9:58 pm
by wxmann_91
There was a fundamental pattern shift from a progressive to a blocky regime around the end of the month. This has bottled up the jet stream and as a result the systems this month have been high-amplitude, closed, and/or detached from sources of jet energy. These types of systems tend to produce less tornadoes.

The drought hurt the Plains a lot in April when many systems picked up an anomalously dry mixed layer that capped things off there. As Crazy mentioned this may have contributed to a more active severe season to the east; when the mixed layer weakened to levels that were "just right" (i.e. what is more usual for the Plains) to the east in the Southeast and the Carolinas, Plains-like supercells developed there. But so far this month the drought has made no noticeable impact and in fact if anything the cap has been too weak in the Plains - the systems might just have not been dynamic enough to pick up a warm mixed layer to cap things off.

Re: May 2011: inactive, why?

Posted: Sat May 21, 2011 3:48 am
by somethingfunny
HurricaneBill wrote:
RL3AO wrote:Vortex project wasn't some cloud seeding thing. It was a research mission and when it started, severe weather basically shut down for almost 3 weeks. Almost like mother nature didn't want us to learn her secrets....


A watched pot never boils.


Exactly LOL!

Posted: Sun May 22, 2011 8:41 pm
by CrazyC83
And that tranquil period...just went up in smoke.