I was wondering if this were true in the follow scenarios.

1. You live at 600 ft. above sea level and experience 100
thunderstorms on average per year. You then move to an area that is
1,600 ft. above sea level CLOSE to the area which is 600 ft. above sea
level.

Would your chances of severe weather go down with higher elevation in
this example or is this unrelated completely?

On Jan 28, 12:40*pm, Crackles McFarly wrote:
I was wondering if this were true in the follow scenarios.

1. You live at 600 ft. above sea level and experience 100
thunderstorms on average per year. You then move to an area that is
1,600 ft. above sea level CLOSE to the area which is 600 ft. above sea
level.

Would your chances of severe weather go down with higher elevation in
this example or is this unrelated completely?

At the relatively low elevations you mentioned, with
respect to thunderstorms, hail, tornadoes, high winds,
etc., I'd say the chances are basically the same. In
fact, you may experience somewhat higher winds at
higher elevations.

Cheers,
Russell

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:47:38 -0800 (PST), Russell
sayd the following:

On Jan 28, 12:40*pm, Crackles McFarly wrote:
I was wondering if this were true in the follow scenarios.

1. You live at 600 ft. above sea level and experience 100
thunderstorms on average per year. You then move to an area that is
1,600 ft. above sea level CLOSE to the area which is 600 ft. above sea
level.

Would your chances of severe weather go down with higher elevation in
this example or is this unrelated completely?

At the relatively low elevations you mentioned, with
respect to thunderstorms, hail, tornadoes, high winds,
etc., I'd say the chances are basically the same. In
fact, you may experience somewhat higher winds at
higher elevations.

I guess I was going by the fact that higher elevation means lower
temps and lower temps mean more stable air mass.

On Jan 28, 5:05*pm, Rodney Blackall
wrote:
In article
,
* *Russell wrote:

On Jan 28, 12:40 pm, Crackles McFarly wrote:
I was wondering if this were true in the follow scenarios.

1. You live at 600 ft. above sea level and experience 100 thunderstorms
on average per year. You then move to an area that is 1,600 ft. above
sea level CLOSE to the area which is 600 ft. above sea level.

Would your chances of severe weather go down with higher elevation in
this example or is this unrelated completely?
At the relatively low elevations you mentioned, with respect to
thunderstorms, hail, tornadoes, high winds, etc., I'd say the chances are
basically the same. *In fact, you may experience somewhat higher winds at
higher elevations.

I think the extra 1000 ft would INcrease the chances of snow and hail.

Yes, I live about 1000 feet above a nearby valley and we
do get more snow, in part because the valley is sometimes
just above freezing when we are just below, plus there can
be a bit of orographic forcing. The only difference in hail
occurrence might be in hail small enough to melt in an extra
1000 feet, but that size hail isn't "severe" according to NWS
definition. Larger hail could shrink a bit. Hail is rare
enough here that I have not heard of cases of either behavior
with respect to hail. Anyway it would be hard to tell because
small hail on the hill might just not happen a few miles away,
and differences between size wouldn't be definitive either.

I agree thunderstorm frequency is unlikely to change but the risk CG
lightning is INcreased.
Mean wind speed depends so much on the surrounding terrain that only a site
visit would offer valid advice.
Since tornado activity is more likely on the downslope side of a hill, your
risk of that may somewhat decreased, but again aspect is important.
Increased elevation would put you above valley fog, but into the stratus
formed when it lifted.

That does happen here.

In general it ought to be a little cooler by day and warmer by night.

Oh, there is a final point. If GW causes a big rise in sea level you are
better off high up!

--
Rodney Blackall (retired meteorologist)(BSc, FRMetS, MRI)
Buckingham, ENGLAND
Using Acorn SA-RPC, OS 4.02 with ANT INS and Pluto 3.03j

Cheers,
Russell

On Jan 28, 6:08*pm, Crackles McFarly wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:47:38 -0800 (PST), Russell
sayd the following:





On Jan 28, 12:40*pm, Crackles McFarly wrote:
I was wondering if this were true in the follow scenarios.

1. You live at 600 ft. above sea level and experience 100
thunderstorms on average per year. You then move to an area that is
1,600 ft. above sea level CLOSE to the area which is 600 ft. above sea
level.

Would your chances of severe weather go down with higher elevation in
this example or is this unrelated completely?

At the relatively low elevations you mentioned, with
respect to thunderstorms, hail, tornadoes, high winds,
etc., I'd say the chances are basically the same. *In
fact, you may experience somewhat higher winds at
higher elevations.

I guess I was going by the fact that higher elevation means lower
temps and lower temps mean more stable air mass.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There are two (at least) factors acting against that. One is
that stability, to a first approximation, depends on the rate of
vertical temperature change, so even coolish air at the surface
can be unstable if the air higher up is enough cooler. And
similarly even hot air at the surface may not be unstable. The
other factor is that thunderstorms are a function of the stability
structure over tens of thousands of feet rather than just the
first 1000 feet. Of course, if we look at, say, the Himalayan
plateau your reasoning might apply, but I'm not too familar with
the thunderstorm climatology of that region (I think they get some,
but I don't don't know how many or how severe), so I can't say for
sure.

Cheers,
Russell

Crackles McFarly wrote:
I was wondering if this were true in the follow scenarios.

1. You live at 600 ft. above sea level and experience 100
thunderstorms on average per year. You then move to an area that is
1,600 ft. above sea level CLOSE to the area which is 600 ft. above sea
level.

Would your chances of severe weather go down with higher elevation in
this example or is this unrelated completely?

We have 1 thunderstorm a year maybe. I'm at 1,790' AMSL, about 25 miles
from the ocean.

Being I live on a hill in just this sort of scenario, here is what I
observe:

Storms tend to "split" as they approach my location from the west. One
half will remain over lower terrain, while the other will head up into
higher terrain. The storms tend to not linger where there is an long-
term elevation change. To my south it is an average elevation of 1500
ft and increases towards PA, to my north, 650 ft and slowly decreases
to lake Ontario. My house is situated on one of the first hills (1300
ft) as you approach Bristol hills from the north, so it is low-lands
and fairly flat to the north, high land and hilly to the south.

It is interesting to watch a storm make like a curve-ball and head out
over the higher terrain away from my location as my gardens wither.
Bristol mountain is the usual target for many of these storms, as it
is one of the highest elevations around at over 2200ft.

The nastiest storms are immediately to my north, which is partly due
to the deeper atmosphere providing more energy, and partly due to
convergence between lake Ontario, Lake Erie, and over land.

In all, even though I am at a higher location, we are in a transition
zone, and more often than not, the storms miss us. In fact it is quite
frustrating as I enjoy a good storm. When we do get a storm, we get a
little more lightning activity, but 600 feet of change from average
topology does not mean much to a 2-mile long lightning stroke.

So to answer your question: There are many more factors than two point
locations that need to be taken into account to predict a trend. In my
location the lakes provide the greater influence over storm paths than
the hills do. Down in PA where they are far enough away from lakes,
the hills have more influence (plus they are larger).

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 06:15:37 -0800 (PST), LiquidSquid
sayd the following:

Being I live on a hill in just this sort of scenario, here is what I
observe:

Storms tend to "split" as they approach my location from the west. One
half will remain over lower terrain, while the other will head up into
higher terrain. The storms tend to not linger where there is an long-
term elevation change. To my south it is an average elevation of 1500
ft and increases towards PA, to my north, 650 ft and slowly decreases
to lake Ontario. My house is situated on one of the first hills (1300
ft) as you approach Bristol hills from the north, so it is low-lands
and fairly flat to the north, high land and hilly to the south.

It is interesting to watch a storm make like a curve-ball and head out
over the higher terrain away from my location as my gardens wither.
Bristol mountain is the usual target for many of these storms, as it
is one of the highest elevations around at over 2200ft.

The nastiest storms are immediately to my north, which is partly due
to the deeper atmosphere providing more energy, and partly due to
convergence between lake Ontario, Lake Erie, and over land.

In all, even though I am at a higher location, we are in a transition
zone, and more often than not, the storms miss us. In fact it is quite
frustrating as I enjoy a good storm. When we do get a storm, we get a
little more lightning activity, but 600 feet of change from average
topology does not mean much to a 2-mile long lightning stroke.

So to answer your question: There are many more factors than two point
locations that need to be taken into account to predict a trend. In my
location the lakes provide the greater influence over storm paths than
the hills do. Down in PA where they are far enough away from lakes,
the hills have more influence (plus they are larger).


Well I was comparing two cities near me and their storm activity and
recorded severe weather events.

Johnson city TN compared to Chattanooga TN.

JC is about 1,000 ft above sea level Higher than chattanooga, and it
bears out in the noaa data that JC gets far fewer severe events than
chattanooga.

The same goes for the data on the appalachian mountain cities.

It seems the more of a plateau or mountain you're on the less chances
of severe weather.

We have a tiny mountain in town but you could drive your car around it
in less than 5 minutes, so the differences in weather are not extreme
except for winter weather like snow.


Of course their is the odd thing I love about last night. It never
stormed, not even lightening or thunder YET we had a 'severe
thunderstorm warming' because of 58+ mph wind gusts.

Kinda like a flood warning in the desert and it's not been raining.
Weird stuff.

One day I'll get over my fascination with weather but I suspect I
won't realize it since I'll be dead.


Anyone has anything else to add PLEASE do so.

I hate the politico posts just like you do.

On Jan 30, 3:08*pm, Crackles McFarly wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 06:15:37 -0800 (PST), LiquidSquid
sayd the following:





Being I live on a hill in just this sort of scenario, here is what I
observe:

Storms tend to "split" as they approach my location from the west. One
half will remain over lower terrain, while the other will head up into
higher terrain. The storms tend to not linger where there is an long-
term elevation change. To my south it is an average elevation of 1500
ft and increases towards PA, to my north, 650 ft and slowly decreases
to lake Ontario. My house is situated on one of the first hills (1300
ft) as you approach Bristol hills from the north, so it is low-lands
and fairly flat to the north, high land and hilly to the south.

It is interesting to watch a storm make like a curve-ball and head out
over the higher terrain away from my location as my gardens wither.
Bristol mountain is the usual target for many of these storms, as it
is one of the highest elevations around at over 2200ft.

The nastiest storms are immediately to my north, which is partly due
to the deeper atmosphere providing more energy, and partly due to
convergence between lake Ontario, Lake Erie, and over land.

In all, even though I am at a higher location, we are in a transition
zone, and more often than not, the storms miss us. In fact it is quite
frustrating as I enjoy a good storm. When we do get a storm, we get a
little more lightning activity, but 600 feet of change from average
topology does not mean much to a 2-mile long lightning stroke.

So to answer your question: There are many more factors than two point
locations that need to be taken into account to predict a trend. In my
location the lakes provide the greater influence over storm paths than
the hills do. Down in PA where they are far enough away from lakes,
the hills have more influence (plus they are larger).

Well I was comparing two cities near me and their storm activity and
recorded severe weather events.

Johnson city TN compared to Chattanooga TN.

JC is about 1,000 ft above sea level Higher than chattanooga, and it
bears out in the noaa data that JC gets far fewer severe events than
chattanooga.

The same goes for the data on the appalachian mountain cities.

It seems the more of a plateau or mountain you're on the less chances
of severe weather.

We have a tiny mountain in town but you could drive your car around it
in less than 5 minutes, so the differences in weather are not extreme
except for winter weather like snow.

Of course their is the odd thing I love about last night. It never
stormed, not even lightening or thunder YET we had a 'severe
thunderstorm warming' because of 58+ mph wind gusts.

Kinda like a flood warning in the desert and it's not been raining.
Weird stuff.

One day I'll get over my fascination with weather but I suspect I
won't realize it since I'll be dead.

Anyone has anything else to add PLEASE do so.

I hate the politico posts just like you do.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Topography certainly can influence the weather, but as
LS points out it is due to more than just vertical
displacement alone. And one also needs to keep other
factors in mind when looking at things like storm statistics.
Without looking up the climate statistics, I'd guess Johnson
City and Chattanooga are in similar general climate regimes,
but they are separated by enough horizontal distance that
they might not be exactly comparable. Also Johnson City
is much smaller, at least by population and presumably also
somewhat proportionally by area, than Chattangooga, so
the "target" that each represents for severe weather may
be different. And larger cities will tend to be in the valleys,
so there is a potential sampling bias from that. And since
severe weather is comparatively rare, there are possible
statistical sampling differences, although those should tend
to go either way when looking at a large number of different
locations. I think that just how much such factors account
for differences is difficult to say without careful study. With
as many variables as there are in weather, it is sometimes
difficult to separate the various contributions.

Cheers,
Russell

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:30:32 -0800 (PST), Russell
sayd the following:

On Jan 30, 3:08*pm, Crackles McFarly wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 06:15:37 -0800 (PST), LiquidSquid
sayd the following:





Being I live on a hill in just this sort of scenario, here is what I
observe:

Storms tend to "split" as they approach my location from the west. One
half will remain over lower terrain, while the other will head up into
higher terrain. The storms tend to not linger where there is an long-
term elevation change. To my south it is an average elevation of 1500
ft and increases towards PA, to my north, 650 ft and slowly decreases
to lake Ontario. My house is situated on one of the first hills (1300
ft) as you approach Bristol hills from the north, so it is low-lands
and fairly flat to the north, high land and hilly to the south.

It is interesting to watch a storm make like a curve-ball and head out
over the higher terrain away from my location as my gardens wither.
Bristol mountain is the usual target for many of these storms, as it
is one of the highest elevations around at over 2200ft.

The nastiest storms are immediately to my north, which is partly due
to the deeper atmosphere providing more energy, and partly due to
convergence between lake Ontario, Lake Erie, and over land.

In all, even though I am at a higher location, we are in a transition
zone, and more often than not, the storms miss us. In fact it is quite
frustrating as I enjoy a good storm. When we do get a storm, we get a
little more lightning activity, but 600 feet of change from average
topology does not mean much to a 2-mile long lightning stroke.

So to answer your question: There are many more factors than two point
locations that need to be taken into account to predict a trend. In my
location the lakes provide the greater influence over storm paths than
the hills do. Down in PA where they are far enough away from lakes,
the hills have more influence (plus they are larger).

Well I was comparing two cities near me and their storm activity and
recorded severe weather events.

Johnson city TN compared to Chattanooga TN.

JC is about 1,000 ft above sea level Higher than chattanooga, and it
bears out in the noaa data that JC gets far fewer severe events than
chattanooga.

The same goes for the data on the appalachian mountain cities.

It seems the more of a plateau or mountain you're on the less chances
of severe weather.

We have a tiny mountain in town but you could drive your car around it
in less than 5 minutes, so the differences in weather are not extreme
except for winter weather like snow.

Of course their is the odd thing I love about last night. It never
stormed, not even lightening or thunder YET we had a 'severe
thunderstorm warming' because of 58+ mph wind gusts.

Kinda like a flood warning in the desert and it's not been raining.
Weird stuff.

One day I'll get over my fascination with weather but I suspect I
won't realize it since I'll be dead.

Anyone has anything else to add PLEASE do so.

I hate the politico posts just like you do.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Topography certainly can influence the weather, but as
LS points out it is due to more than just vertical
displacement alone. And one also needs to keep other
factors in mind when looking at things like storm statistics.
Without looking up the climate statistics, I'd guess Johnson
City and Chattanooga are in similar general climate regimes,
but they are separated by enough horizontal distance that
they might not be exactly comparable. Also Johnson City
is much smaller, at least by population and presumably also
somewhat proportionally by area, than Chattangooga, so
the "target" that each represents for severe weather may
be different. And larger cities will tend to be in the valleys,
so there is a potential sampling bias from that. And since
severe weather is comparatively rare, there are possible
statistical sampling differences, although those should tend
to go either way when looking at a large number of different
locations. I think that just how much such factors account
for differences is difficult to say without careful study. With
as many variables as there are in weather, it is sometimes
difficult to separate the various contributions.

Cheers,
Russell

I've read up on the severe storms, what ingredients need to be
present.
1. Steep lapse rates.
2, vertical shear
3. low pressure nearby
4. diving jet stream.

1,2,3 or all 4 is needed for severe storms that I've studied. Of
course you can just have excessive heat, 100F+, on a clear day and
have storms popup like mad.

With all those present it stills seems less severe, at least less
frequent, in places of higher elevation.

Am I catching on to this at all?


Perhaps I should pick 2 data points closer as you suggested.

How about Johnson City and Knoxville Tennessee. They're much closer
but the elevations are very different.

Any opinions?

Also you mentioned severe as being relatively rare but I seem to think
it's more common. Is this because of my location's experience, in
other words am I biased?

I know the overall odds of being killed by a tornado is 1 in 2 million
but if you live in tornado alley those odds approach more like 1 in
500,000

Again, am I getting any of this correct?

thanks for your time.