Celebrating the 50th Conference on Broadcast Meteorology
The 50th AMS Conference on Broadcast Meteorology took place last week, 21-23 June 2023, in Phoenix, Arizona–more than six decades after the first Broadcast conference in Hartford, Connecticut, in 1956. The conference has been a source of cutting-edge information on the art and science of broadcasting the weather, encounters with industry greats, and collaborations that last lifetimes. To help celebrate, we asked several longtime broadcast meteorologists to share their memories with us, plus advice and insights on how the field has changed. The following is the first of three posts featuring their responses.
What are some of your memorable moments from past sessions of the Conference on Broadcast Meteorology?
“My first conference was in Boston in 1981. I remember sitting way in the back and feeling kind of lost and insignificant among all the legends around me. All of a sudden a hand was extended to me and I turned to my right. There sat Harry Volkman! Harry introduced himself and asked my name, and we had a very nice conversation. I never forgot how kind he was to a ‘kid’ weather-caster – Harry was always one of my heroes and someone I still try to emulate.
Today, I still keep that experience in mind when I meet young up-and-coming meteorologists. I hope that I might help inspire them to have a successful career.”
Mike Nelson, Denver7 Chief Meteorologist, KMGH, Denver, Colorado
Left two photos: Harry Volkman; right photo: Mike Nelson at KMOX in the 1980s. Photos courtesy of Mike Nelson.
“I’ve attended nearly every conference since ~1979. I was chair of the broadcast board [for the 1985 conference in Honolulu, Hawai’i], and Mike Smith from Wichita was program chair. Initial thought was that TV news directors would never permit their meteorologists to travel to Hawai’i. Were we wrong! We had record attendance. We programmed the day to start and very early – 7 a.m. to 1 p.m. or so, given people were mostly on Eastern/Central end time. In the afternoon, everyone was on their own to enjoy the island.”
Todd Glickman, Senior Director, Corporate Relations at MIT
Photos from the 15th Conference on Broadcast Meteorology in Honolulu, Hawai’i, 1985. Top: Peter Leavitt, President of WSI Corporation, John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel, and Bruce Schwoegler, Chief Meteorologist of WBZ-TV Boston. Bottom: Evelyn Mazur, Director of Meetings at AMS, Brad Field from Hartford, Bill Kamal from Miami, Fred Gadomski of Penn State, and Ken Spengler, Executive Director of AMS. Photos courtesy of Todd Glickman.
“My first AMS Broadcaster’s conference, and first presentation, was 50 years ago… 1973 at historic Cape Cod. The legendary Don Kent with his Boston accent was most kind with his comments.”
Joe Witte, Climate Outreach Specialist, Aquent, Pasadena, California
What’s been valuable to you about these conferences?
“AMS Broadcast conferences have given me knowledge, professional exposure, and lifelong friendships with like-minded people.”
Alan Sealls, AMS Fellow, CBM, Past Seal Board Chair; Chief Meteorologist at NBC15, WPMI-TV, Mobile, Alabama
“The AMS Broadcast Conference helps me stay up-to-date on the latest in the industry from both the meteorology side and the broadcast side. It’s a great opportunity to connect with my peers in the field and provides an excellent opportunity to learn from each other and experts in various genres of meteorology and climate.As the conference organizer one year, I learned valuable leadership, planning, and organizational skills.”
Lisa Spencer, Chief Meteorologist, News4, Nashville
“I have been broadcasting the weather in Montgomery, Alabama, for 45 years on TV and radio. I attended my first AMS Broadcast Conference in 1984 in Clearwater, Florida. Phoenix [was] my 25th broadcast conference. 25 out of 50. These conferences are so important to me. The learning process never ends. Also, the conference experience has shown me America. And each year I look forward to catching up with my fraternity of friends in this incredible business.”
“The Broadcasters Conferences have provided numerous long-lasting memories and friends.”
Joe Witte, Climate Outreach Specialist, Aquent, Pasadena, California
“I attended my first AMS Broadcast Conference in 1993 Charleston, South Carolina, on the hunt for my first job as a broadcast meteorologist. Within a few weeks landed in Johnson City, Tennessee. My advice to all: network, network, and network!
I’ve gained so much from each conference. Presentations by experts on case studies and what was learned. New technology and its impact within the broadcast industry on what we do daily!
What I cherish the most: long-lasting friendships among colleagues. Each conference is a reunion. In some way we’ve all impacted each other in boosting confidence and in being challenged to deliver daily the best information in helping viewers plan and be safe!”
Header photos (clockwise from top left): Evelyn Mazur, Director of Meetings at AMS, Brad Field from Hartford, Bill Kamal from Miami, Fred Gadomski of Penn State, and Ken Spengler, Executive Director of AMS (photo courtesy of Todd Glickman). Yolanda Amadeo and Jim Cantore (photo courtesy of Yolanda Amadeo). Mike Nelson and Terry Kelly, 1979 (photo courtesy of Mike Nelson).
Guest post by Haven Cashwell, PhD Student and Graduate Research Assistant at Auburn University
From my small hometown of Marshallberg in eastern North Carolina, and even my current home as a researcher and PhD student at Auburn University, the chambers of Congress have always felt like a different world. I had never even visited Washington, D.C., before, so truly I did not know what the policy world looked like. The recent AMS Summer Policy Colloquium opened these doors to me and showed that the pathway between research and policy isn’t as distant as I once thought.
The integration of science and policy has always intrigued me—such as policy for coastal resiliency, since my hometown of Marshallberg, NC is being impacted by climatic changes—but I was not aware of how that process worked. As I finish my PhD, I’m also exploring possible career paths that I could take after graduating. One aspect of my current research involves assessing and communicating climate and health risk factors with frontline communities in the Carolinas, which has made connections with the policy process feel even more pressing.
My mentor for an internship this summer is Dr. Kathie Dello, North Carolina’s state climatologist, who previously attended the colloquium and encouraged me to participate as well. After a week at the Colloquium, I left with lots of new knowledge and a much greater appreciation of how the policymaking process works.
For instance, I learned about the concepts of science for policy and policy for science, and how to navigate the two. Given my background in science communication, the idea of translating scientific evidence and research results to be usable and actionable (science for policy) felt very familiar, but I gained a new understanding of how policy affects funding that goes to different agencies for scientific research (policy for science).
The 2023 AMS Summer Policy Colloquium cohort walking to Capitol Hill
Together with several dozen fellow scientists, I heard from professionals working in the policy world. They represented careers ranging from those having to do with the federal budget process to congressional staffers working directly with members of congress on science initiatives. I had no idea the options were so broad and varied. And far from the common perception that policy has to be dull, these speakers had great passion for their own work and a clear enthusiasm for sharing that with my peers and me.
We put our knowledge into practice in a legislative exercise that was sprinkled throughout the week. Participants were separated into groups and assigned to play the role of a senator marking up certain legislation. The goal was to get an understanding of how politics, policy, and procedure interact in the legislative process by creating amendments to bills and working together to create a significant piece of legislation. Much enthusiasm was shared among the participants at the end of the week when “voting” for the legislation, as the hard work throughout the entire week was put into practice.
I left the Colloquium not only with a much better understanding of how science and policy can connect, but also with a new cohort with whom I networked throughout the week. Whether our careers keep us in the sciences or shift toward the world of policy, I’m excited for our paths to cross in the future and see how our experiences from this week in Washington shape our own work.
I would recommend attending the Summer Policy Colloquium to any young scientist who is interested in the policy process. By being better informed about how science and policy intersect, I’m now able to consider how my own research could fit in, whether it’s sharing how results from my research could influence policy or how to communicate and collaborate with policymakers in general.
The 2023 AMS Summer Policy Colloquium cohort
Whether my future takes me back to small towns facing climate risks, leading research universities, or even a career in the policy sector, I know that the Summer Policy Colloquium has given me the tools and knowledge to be a more well-rounded researcher capable of connecting with the world of policy.
About the AMS Summer Policy Colloquium
TheAMS Summer Policy Colloquium provides an overview of policy basics and decision-making in the earth and atmospheric sciences, along with opportunities to meet and dialogue with federal officials, Congressional staffers, and other decision-makers. Aimed at early and mid-level federal managers, scientists, private-sector executives, university faculty, and selected graduate students and fellows, the Colloquium helps participants build skills and contacts, gauge interest in science policy and program leadership, and explore selected issues in depth.
A Research Spotlight from the 14th Annual Fire and Forest Meteorology Symposium, 2–4 May, 2023
The California Canyon Fire controlled burn moves upslope. Image: San José State University
Wildfires in complex terrain like canyons are known to be particularly dangerous. Canyon fires often “blow up” or “erupt,” exploding suddenly with intense heat and spreading rapidly—and too often causing fatalities among firefighters. In the ninth session of the 14th Fire and Forest Meteorology Symposium on 4 May, Maritza Arreola Amaya presented initial results from the California Canyon Fire experiment, a controlled burn that was intensively documented to help better understand the behavior of canyon fires.
In this experiment, conducted in Central California’s Gabilan Range, a fire was ignited and monitored by a large team who placed sensors around the fire site and monitored the blaze from the ground, from the air with balloons, drones and helicopters; from meteorological towers; and with vehicle-mounted instruments including Radar, LiDAR (“light detection and ranging,” which uses laser light pulses to build three-dimensional images), and SoDAR (“sonic detection and ranging,” which uses sound waves to measure wind speed at different heights). The fire was lit near the bottom of the canyon in steep terrain of chaparral and sparse oak trees. It moved quickly up the canyon, the first time a fire of this size has naturally done so while under intense monitoring.
Flame attachment and v-shaped spread of the California Canyon Fire controlled burn. Image: CAL FIRE
The fire spread up the walls of the canyon in a “v” shape. It clearly exhibited eruptive behavior including flame attachment—in which hot gases rising from the fire downslope heat the unburned fuel further up the slope, leading to an intense, quickly spreading fire front. A highly turbulent, rotating plume of smoke emerged, and air was rapidly entrained into the fire, where temperatures reached nearly 800 degrees Centigrade (1472 Fahrenheit).
While some instruments were destroyed by the flames, researchers at San Jose State, the NSF-UICRC Wildfire Interdisciplinary Research Center, and more are eagerly analyzing the data collected to help improve understanding and modeling of dangerous canyon fires.
“Working on this one-of-a-kind canyon project was one of the coolest things I’ve ever done. Seeing the experiment that took so long to organize and set up finally come to life was amazing. It involved countless hours setting up complicated instrumentation so that ultimately the behavior of a wildfire on canyon terrain could be analyzed for the first time naturally moving up a large canyon. I know that this successful experiment will play a big part in future investigations involving wildfires on complex terrain and the danger they bring to firefighters.”
For a real-life example of a fatal canyon fire and the weather conditions that worsened it, see our post about the Yarnell Hill Fire.
About 14Fire
Meteorology and wildfires are intimately interconnected—and wildfires are becoming increasingly severe and frequent in many parts of the United States. From local residents and firefighters on the ground to planners and insurers, to people hundreds of miles away breathing wind-driven smoke, society relies on our ever-improving ability to understand and forecast the atmospheric conditions relating to wildfire. The American Meteorological Society’s 14th Fire and Forest Meteorology Symposium brought together researchers and fire managers to discuss the latest science.
By Katie Pflaumer, AMS Marketing Communications Manager, and Paul Higgins, AMS Associate Executive Director for Policy
The federal budget is the cornerstone for much of the scientific funding in the United States. Directly or indirectly, federal funding impacts the work of almost all AMS members and those in related fields. But do you know how it works? Even if you’re not attending the AMS Summer Policy Colloquium this coming week, you can still get a sense of budget basics with this quick guide from the AMS Policy Program.
Science, Policy, and the Budget
Scientific insights can influence policy and help improve it—this is one major way that science matters to society, whether we’re determining how to manage reservoirs or what we are going to do about climate change. But however you slice it, the decisions made by policymakers and politicians also affect how we practice science. Perhaps the most prominent way is through funding for research—determining what gets funded, and how much.
For our purposes, the two key components of the U.S. federal budget are revenue (taxes and fees taken in by the federal government) and spending.
Mandatory spending is required by existing public law or statute. Nearly two-thirds of government spending comes from existing laws—such as those that fund Social Security and Medicare along with payments on the nation’s debt.
Discretionary spending has to be funded each year or at other regular intervals through an act of Congress. Many government agencies (including scientific ones) rely on discretionary spending.
The annual budget process is how the U.S. Government determines its discretionary spending. The budget is a highly political document. It is one of the places where big philosophical questions play out about who should pay for what, the size and role of the federal government, and different approaches to debts, deficits, and surpluses. Increased spending in any one area requires more taxes, taking funding away from something else, or deficit spending (and adding on debt). Decreased spending requires difficult decisions about what programs or benefits get cut.
The Budget Process: Resolutions, Reconciliation, and Appropriations, Oh My!
The U.S. government runs on a fiscal year that starts on October 1 of the previous calendar year (so FY 2024 begins October 1, 2023). Our current budget framework is outlined in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The U.S. House and Senate together hold the purse strings for the federal budget, but the executive branch has the first go at things. Here’s how the process works in a “typical” year.
The president develops a detailed budget request. This request is managed by the Office of Management and Budget and developed in concert with federal agencies, and is due to Congress on the first Monday in February prior to the start of the next fiscal year.
The Senate and the House of Representatives develop a joint congressional budget resolution that specifies overall tax and spending levels, providing a top-line budget number. The budget resolution can also include “reconciliation”—legislation that can address revenue or spending issues affecting the overall budget, including in ways that significantly change existing laws.
The House and Senate vote on the budget resolution. Note: Both the budget resolution and any reconciliation measures need only a simple majority vote in the Senate and aren’t subject to the vote-stalling technique known as a filibuster (which requires 60 votes to break). Reconciliation measures are sometimes used to pass controversial legislation that wouldn’t receive 60 Senate votes—including the Bush-era tax cuts, fixes for the Affordable Care Act, and the American Rescue Plan of 2021.
The budget resolution, once passed in both the House and the Senate, establishes overall discretionary funding for the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations; this is known as a 302(a) allocation. The main function of the Appropriations committees is to provide discretionary funding to government operations including federal agencies.
The House and Senate Appropriations Committees each parcel the funding out to twelve Appropriations subcommittees (each of which receives a 302(b) allocation). The House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees develop more detailed spending plans based on the allocations received.
Each of the subcommittees can pass a separate funding bill, but they are often passed as a single “omnibus” bill covering some or all of the 12 appropriations. The House and Senate must come to agreement on and pass identical versions of these funding bills. Unlike the original budget resolution, this requires a 60-vote majority in the Senate to avoid a filibuster. Any provisions in the bill(s) that would exceed the allotted budget are also subject to filibuster.
The House and Senate must pass the budget bill(s) and get them signed by the president (or override the president’s veto) by the time the fiscal year begins.
Subcommittees Funding Science
Several appropriations subcommittees deal with science-related agencies (for example, the defense budget funds a lot of science research). However, the three subcommittees that have the greatest science focus are likely Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (budgets for NOAA, NASA, the NSF, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, among others), Energy and Water Development (which includes the Department of Energy and its Office of Science), and Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies (which includes both USGS and EPA).
That’s the idea—in practice, it’s often a lot more complicated. For example, when FY 2014 started without an agreed-upon budget, the government shut down for 16 days. In mid-October, Congress passed a “continuing resolution” to allow the government to reopen using the previous year’s budget levels. The final omnibus budget wasn’t signed until January 2014, more than three months into the fiscal year.
As you can see, the politics of funding the U.S. government makes for a major challenge, requiring a lot of work, diplomacy, and give-and-take—far more than we can get into in a blog post. If you’d like to explore the topic further, a more thorough rundown on the budget is available in this AMS webinar recording: “The U.S. Federal Budget and Policy Process.” And don’t forget to follow the AMS Policy Program for more ways you can learn about—or get involved in—the policy process!
The Policy Program promotes understanding and use of science and services relating to weather, water, and climate. Our goal is to help the nation, and the world, avoid risks and realize opportunities associated with the Earth system.
A Research Spotlight from the 14th Annual Fire and Forest Meteorology Symposium, 2–4 May, 2023
The Yarnell Hill Fire the day it began, June 28, 2013. Image credit: USDA
Arizona’s Yarnell Hill Fire ranks among the U.S. wildfires with the most firefighter fatalities. On June 30, 2013, members of the interagency Granite Mountain Hotshots were entrapped in a canyon by fire due to rapidly shifting wind conditions. Many attempted to take shelter but were overwhelmed. Nineteen firefighters died and the fire, fed by the strong winds, blazed out of control. The tragedy and damage devastated the community of Yarnell, Arizona.
A joint team at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University and North Carolina A&T State University has been using simulations to help understand exactly what happened. A recent presentation by Michael Kaplan et al. May 2, 2023 in the first session of the 14th Fire and Forest Meteorology Symposium broke down the events at the meso-γ (2–20 km) scale leading up to the tragedy, the latest in a series of analyses starting at large scales and moving towards ever-finer resolution. They found that a density current (a flow of denser air that intrudes underneath less-dense air) and its secondary circulations drove the winds that forced fire into the canyon where the Granite Mountain Hotshots were located.
Firefighters near the Yarnell Hill Fire on June 28, 2013. Image credit: USDA
A squall line that developed over the Colorado Plateau on the morning of the 30th moved southwestward rapidly, strengthening over the Black Hills and Bradshaw Mountains on the way, until it died out further to the southwest over the Weaver Mountains near Yarnell. From this dying squall line developed a density current that produced unusual air circulation patterns in combination with the area’s complex terrain. Simulations by the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model suggest that the fading density current created conditions in the Weaver Mountains that were highly conducive to downward air motion. This resulted in a series of strong localized downdrafts similar to microbursts near the fire site.
Earlier in the day, the fire had been moving towards the northeast, driven by southwesterly winds. Within 1–2 hours in the late afternoon, the winds shifted and intensified rapidly, becoming northwesterly, then northeasterly, blowing at 45 miles per hour and driving the fire (now blazing at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit), in a southwesterly direction. Kaplan called these shifts “dramatic, remarkable changes.”
Wind direction and speed (blue arrows) and direction of Yarnell Hill fire motion (red lines) at 3:30–4:30 p.m. and 4:30–5:30 p.m. local time on June 30, 2013. Image: State of Arizona Serious Accident Investigation Team
In the end, “The entrapment of the Granite Mountain Hotshots was likely the result of very, very intense redirected winds” that continued over a longer than expected period, Kaplan said. “Even after they got the initial surge of northeasterly flow [due to the density current] the Hotshots had to deal with more surges of high momentum” from the series of microbursts. He noted that despite the Granite Mountain Hotshots’ high level of experience, “This is something firefighters may not have really been [expecting] to occur.”
Vertical cross-section of potential temperature and isotachs from 3:15 to 3:35 p.m. Arizona time on June 30, 2013, showing new cells forming behind the density current near Yarnell, associated with microburst downdrafts. Image courtesy of Michael Kaplan
Kaplan’s team will continue to work on their simulations of conditions associated with the Yarnell Hill Fire, with the hope of providing information that can help prevent similar entrapments, and deaths, in the future.
About 14Fire Meteorology and wildfires are intimately interconnected—and wildfires are becoming increasingly severe and frequent in many parts of the United States. From local residents and firefighters on the ground to planners and insurers, to people hundreds of miles away breathing wind-driven smoke, society relies on our ever-improving ability to understand and forecast the atmospheric conditions relating to wildfire. The American Meteorological Society’s 14th Fire and Forest Meteorology Symposium brought together researchers and fire managers to discuss the latest science.
Climate change is an unseen force behind maritime piracy, with opposite impacts on two of the world’s major pirate hotspots, according to a paper just published in the American Meteorological Society journal Weather, Climate, and Society (WCAS). The study, by Bo Jiang, PhD (University of Macau), and Gary LaFree, PhD (University of Maryland, College Park), examines 20 years’ worth of data, demonstrating that years with warmer ocean temperatures see increased piracy off the coasts of East Africa, but decreased piracy in the South China Sea.
The reason is fish. South China Sea fisheries see better catches in warmer years, but in East Africa (bordering countries like Somalia), warmer temperatures have a negative effect on fisheries. This means lean times for fishing communities—which in turn means fishermen are more likely to take up piracy to supplement their income. “When there’s less fish there’s more piracy; when there’s more fish there’s less piracy,” Jiang says. Damage to fish stocks lessened the time between successful pirate attacks, and increased the likelihood that any given attack would succeed. “[This is] like a natural experiment, because we are looking at two regions of the world that have opposite effects. And these two are the hotspots of piracy around the world.”
A Pirate’s Life (for Now?)
The view of piracy as an economic decision—rather than a personal identity—has important implications for addressing crime on the seas. “The public generally looks at people as either criminal or not criminal,” says LaFree. “This looks much more like people drift into it depending on the other opportunities they have. And drift out of it, I think that was an important part.”
People in areas prone to piracy often have names for this phenomenon. In Singapore, where Jiang grew up, fishermen who turn to piracy when fish production is low are called “standby pirates” or “part-time pirates.” This is one of the first studies in criminology to quantitatively examine when these standby pirates are most likely to engage in illegal activities. To tease out the effects of climate from those of other factors, Jiang and LaFree carefully examined the potential effects of other factors—like the presence of private security guards on board, and the regional “misery index” of local economic stress. Holding all other variables constant, they still found a significant relationship between sea surface temperature and piracy.
Jiang and LaFree were surprised at how rapidly and strongly climate was affecting fisheries. They believe part of the reason is how sensitive fish are to small changes in sea-surface temperature (SST), as poikilothermic (cold-blooded) animals. “There are climate change winners and losers among fish,” says Jiang. “Even if there’s [just] a small increase in the SST, the fish are the first ones to feel it, so they are just going to migrate somewhere either warmer or cooler.”
Where climate change is harming fisheries, the economic incentives for piracy are likely to grow stronger as temperatures increase. What’s more, even in the South China Sea where fisheries currently benefit from warming, there are likely threshold temperatures past which fish stocks won’t respond so positively.
“The important question, based on our paper, is how to decouple the link and break the connection between legitimate and illegitimate activities,” says Jiang. “Climate change is going to continue into the foreseeable future, so governments around the world, especially in these two regions, need to devise policies that are going to take such empirical evidence into consideration.”
Global Forces: Crime and Climate Change
It’s not just down to individual governments, either. As LaFree points out, crime is a global endeavor, whether it’s piracy or terrorism. “We’re making a big pitch in some of the work we’re doing right now that … globalization is really important for solving these sorts of problems that cut across national boundaries.”
This paper is the first in a series of collaborations between Jiang and LaFree examining climate change, globalization, and crime—including homicide, terrorism, and civil conflict. Qualitative studies have already shown that when climate change devastates livelihoods, conflict and terrorist recruitment may follow; but criminology often suffers from a lack of complete data or differences in reporting among different countries, making it hard to get the full picture. Being able to use satellite observations of variables like temperature—which can provide reliable data for anywhere in the world—is a major boon to those examining large-scale trends in crime. The authors hope such scientific advances will help counter the world’s worsening social and environmental problems.
Climate researchers and criminologists don’t tend to overlap much, so there is a wealth of opportunity for research on climate change and crime. Jiang and LaFree called for more collaboration in the future to unleash the power of interdisciplinary science on two of the world’s most global and intractable challenges. “From a science standpoint, it’s kind of like the best of times-worst of times,” says LaFree. “Hopefully our technology will be better than the problems.”
Severe thunderstorms are expected to erupt late this afternoon in the upper Midwest and, according to the Storm Prediction Center (SPC), they could organize into a single, large bowing line capable of widespread damaging winds called a derecho tonight. Last summer a very destructive derecho blitzed Iowa with wind gusts over 100 mph.
SPC Convective Outlook
SPC’s Day 1 Convective Outlook has a large part of Wisconsin in a moderate risk of severe storms, with enhanced and slight risk areas surrounding it extending northwest into Minnesota and southeast into northwest Ohio. Supercell thunderstorms are expected to blossom across northern Minnesota late this afternoon with the threat of large to very large hail and tornadoes as well as damaging winds.
Storms then may grow into a derecho capable of producing a wide swath of wind gusts greater than 75 mph hurricane force as it races southeast across western and southern Wisconsin late today and overnight. Milwaukee is in its potential path and it’s possible the line may reach Chicago before it begins to weaken.
SPC has outlooked the moderate risk area with 45% odds of wind gusts exceeding 50 knots (58 mph), and surrounds that area with a 10 percent probability of wind gusts over 65 knots (74 mph) all the way into southwest Michigan and extreme northern Indiana.
While SPC notes in their morning discussion that there’s uncertainty how far southeast the danger will extend, “activity should expand into an MCS (mesoscale convective system) capable of severe gusts and tornadoes across … southern/eastern Wisconsin this evening, shifting into the southern Lake Michigan and lower Michigan vicinity tonight. A derecho may occur, with embedded channels of hurricane-force gusts.”
But just what exactly is a derecho? And can they be predicted? SPC notes in the same discussion, “Whether or not the timing/location of the upscale storm transition permits the event to be classified officially as a derecho in hindsight, there is strong concern it will have that kind of intense and destructive wind impact for at least a few hours.”
Defining Derechos Is Complicated–Even for Meteorologists, as we noted in a detailed blog post on The Front Page last summer after Iowa’s widespread and costly damaging wind event. They aren’t “inland hurricanes” as they are often described, the post explains, but they can mimic the type of widespread damage seen with hurricane winds.
In their midday Convective Outlook update, SPC cautions that while “most guidance suggests the MCS will weaken late tonight as it moves into a slightly less moist/unstable air mass over MI/IN/OH … if mesoscale organization is sufficiently high, the complex could persist longer than model depictions.”
He was boots on the ground after Hurricane Michael slammed the panhandle as a Category 5 with 160 mph winds on October 10, 2018, assisting the Tallahassee NWS office with surveying the widespread wind damage that extended well away from the coast. Because Michael was intensifying at landfall as well as accelerating, its extreme winds spread deep inland, across the panhandle and well into southwest and southern Georgia.
The Donalsonville, Georgia, airport northeast of Marianna, Florida, and about 90 miles inland, recorded a wind gust to 115 mph, while Marianna had a gust to 103 mph in Michael. Both as well as Blountstown, Georgia, suffered significant damage to structures as well as trees.
Track and power outage extent map from Hurricane Michael overlaying a map of Houston. What 95% of the Houston Metro area without power would equate to.
Evans overlaid maps of Michael’s track, wind swath, and areal power outages on Houston to show the extent of its damage potential. The entire Houston metro area with 7.1 million people would suffer; 6.9 million would lose power. And damage to homes and devastation to the landscape would mimic the widespread destruction he observed in the Florida panhandle and southern Georgia where entire forests were virtually flattened.
Evans said that as an NWS meteorologist responsible for warning the Houston area if such a scenario threatened he would have a lot of trouble following the standard hurricane mantra, “Run from the water, hide from the wind.”
Rice University in the Houston Metro area is about the same distance from the coast as Blountstown, Florida, which was blasted by Hurricane Michael.
“Telling people inland to stay put in such extreme wind conditions is not something I would want to do,” he says.
But, he adds, telling them to get out could prove just as deadly in the mass exodus.
“When you start talking about storms, such as Rita, with 130 mph winds or higher, it’s a spontaneous evacuation.” More than 50 people died just from the evacuation of Houston ahead of that storm, he says
It’s been 37 years since a storm brought a significant wind threat to the Houston area. Hurricane Alicia in 1983 was the last. Hurricane Harvey in 2017 was a widespread catastrophic flood event. Hurricane Ike in 2008 was primarily a surge storm.
“The population in and around Houston has doubled during that time,” Evans says. A 2015 American Community Survey showed more than 130,000 people in just Harris county who live in mobile homes, with thousands more in the surrounding counties.
He conducted the research to raise awareness of a “Michael-like” storm and the immense challenges it would represent.
“In summary, it’s going to be bad.”
That’s how Jeff Evans with the NWS in Houston/Galveston began Wednesday’s presentation, “What if Hurricane Michael Struck Houston? An Examination of Inland Wind Damage,” at the AMS 100th Annual Meeting in Boston.
He was boots on the ground after Hurricane Michael slammed the panhandle as a Category 5 with 160 mph winds on October 10, 2018, assisting the Tallahassee NWS office with surveying the widespread wind damage that extended well away from the coast. Because Michael was intensifying at landfall as well as accelerating, its extreme winds spread deep inland, across the panhandle and well into southwest and southern Georgia.
The Donalsonville, Georgia, airport northeast of Marianna, Florida, and about 90 miles inland, recorded a wind gust to 115 mph, while Marianna had a gust to 103 mph in Michael. Both as well as Blountstown, Georgia, suffered significant damage to structures as well as trees.
Track and power outage extent map from Hurricane Michael overlaying a map of Houston. What 95% of the Houston Metro area without power would equate to.
Evans overlaid maps of Michael’s track, wind swath, and areal power outages on Houston to show the extent of its damage potential. The entire Houston metro area with 7.1 million people would suffer; 6.9 million would lose power. And damage to homes and devastation to the landscape would mimic the widespread destruction he observed in the Florida panhandle and southern Georgia where entire forests were virtually flattened.
Evans said that as an NWS meteorologist responsible for warning the Houston area if such a scenario threatened he would have a lot of trouble following the standard hurricane mantra, “Run from the water, hide from the wind.”
Rice University in the Houston Metro area is about the same distance from the coast as Blountstown, Florida, which was blasted by Hurricane Michael.
“Telling people inland to stay put in such extreme wind conditions is not something I would want to do,” he says.
But, he adds, telling them to get out could prove just as deadly in the mass exodus.
“When you start talking about storms, such as Rita, with 130 mph winds or higher, it’s a spontaneous evacuation.” More than 50 people died just from the evacuation of Houston ahead of that storm, he says
It’s been 37 years since a storm brought a significant wind threat to the Houston area. Hurricane Alicia in 1983 was the last. Hurricane Harvey in 2017 was a widespread catastrophic flood event. Hurricane Ike in 2008 was primarily a surge storm.
“The population in and around Houston has doubled during that time,” Evans says. A 2015 American Community Survey showed more than 130,000 people in just Harris county who live in mobile homes, with thousands more in the surrounding counties.
He conducted the research to raise awareness of a “Michael-like” storm and the immense challenges it would represent.
An exceptionally high resolution simulation of a supercell thunderstorm fascinated conferees Tuesday at the AMS 100th Annual Meeting in Boston. Leigh Orf of the University of Wyoming presdented imagery and animations of the simulation that ran on the Blue Waters Supercomputer. With a 10 m grid spanning 11,200 X 11,200 X 2,000 (251 billion) grid volumes, the 270 TB subdomain contains the entire life cycle of the tornado, including 10 minutes prior to tornado formation.
Absolutely mesmerizing quarter-trillion gridpoint resolution tornadic supercell simulations from Dr. Leigh Orf from @UWCIMSS!
Image created with VAPOR3 of a 10-m supercell simulation. (a) Volume rendered cyclonic vertical vorticity, highlighting the 3D structure of the tornado shortly after formation. The 2D surface field traces the maximum surface cyclonic vertical vorticity, providing a representation of the tornado’s path. The view is following the tornado’s path. (b) As in (a), but later in the simulation when the tornado exhibits a multiple vortex structure. (c) Volume rendered cloud mixing ratio, with parameters chosen to present a quasi-photorealistic view of the cloud field. The 2D surface field traces the minimum pressure found in the tornado’s path. (d) As in (a) and (b), but a different, wider view and utilizing different opacity and color map choices. The vortex to the left, which merges with the tornado later in the simulation, is weaker than the nascent tornado as evidenced by the vortex’s more transparent and darker visual presentation and path.
