Kent 2W (Eric Wertz) -  May 2005 was characterized by slightly below normal precipitation and cooler than normal temperatures.  measurable precipitation occurred on 14 days with a trace of snow and snow pellets on the 2nd and another trace of snow on the 3rd.  temperatures were particularly cold during the 1st week with temperatures as low as 28°F, on the 5th, and 29 on the 4th.  Only 1 day saw a high temperature of 80° which was the 9th.  Thinderstorms were noted on 7 days, but were relatively weak.  Total precipitation for May was 2.06".  Fog was noted on the 10th and 2 watches and 1 warning were issued during the month.  Wind gusts were below normal.  Lake Erie warmed from 47 to 55.

Kidron 1N (Ronald Hahn) -  May was about 3 degrees below average in temperature and 2.19" below normal in precipitation.

Ottawa 4E (Phil & Bonnie Higley) -  A very dry & cool month.  Started out very cool with record setting low on the 4th.  Then toward the middle of the month it warm up.  With a Hi's tempearture for the month being on the 13th., then cooling back down again by the end of the month.  Ende up being 1.1F below normal for the month & 2.13" below normal in rainfall..That jet stream just doesnt't seem to know what to do...

Perrysville 4W (Katie Gerwig) -  May was slightly cooler and drier than normal.  Although at least a trace of rain fell on 11 days, amounts were small for a toatl of 2.3".  Therer were thunderstorms on the 11th with a tornado warning in the area at 8pm.  the sky behind the leading edge of the storm was a luminescent orange/pink.

Ravenna 1SE (Gary Locke)  -  May was a pretty boring month weather wise.  My average temp was about 6 degrees cooler than last May (2004).  This May was also much less stormy, with only 5 thunderstorm days, as compared to 12 last May.  I did not observe any severe weather during the month.

Springfield (Dick Groeber) - The first third of the month saw ten consecutive dates without measurable rainfall. This was also the period of the highest and lowest temperatures. The middle third saw the bulk of the rain total along with gusty winds. The last third saw cool temperatures along with scatteredlight rainfall.

Thompson 5SW (Vance Lunn)-  May opened up on a rather wintry note with snowbanks and snowdrifts remaining from the last great storm of April.  Some of these persisted a week into the month.  In addition, periodic snowshowers and sleet showers occured for the first four days, although only one day actually had measurable snowfall.  That was the 2nd.  A trace of snow depth was also recorded that morning.  There were 2 mornings of below freezing weather during that first week.  The remainder of the month saw relatively cool and dry spring weather.  Six days had thunderstorms, 2 days had fog, and 2 days saw sleet.

Wooster 7N (Jack Sisler) -  It was Spring by name only during May, 2005. It was the second coldest May on record since records were kept at this location starting in 1991. The mean temperature (54.6 degrees) was more than three degrees below normal. I tied a record low on the 5th and set a record low on the 9th both previously set in May, 1994. Precipitation was almost two inches below normal for May but keeping the yearly total still above normal. I had a trace of snow on the 3rd making it the latest snowfall ever recorded for the season.


 

 = Airport

 Date: Sun May 1, 2005 9:23 pm
Subject: Snowbanks, drifts, and trace new snow

Although all the naturally accumulated snow from last weekend's storm
is gone, there are still many piled up snowbanks from plowed parking
lots remaining, as well as a couple natural drifts still on the ground
as we open this month of May. Also I observed a few wet snowflakes
mixing in with the rain just after midnight this morning and some sleet
pellets mixing with rain this evening for a trace of snow for the day
so far.

Vance
Thompson 5 SW


Date: Mon May 2, 2005 9:41 am
Subject: snowfall for Thompson 5 SW 9am 5/02/05
 

As of 9am, We've had 0.2" snowfall here at Thompson 5 SW. The
measurable amount has mostly fallen in a couple of brief sleet showers
that laid a brief, slushy layer on colder surfaces. We've also had
some wet snowflakes mixing with sleet and also with rain.

Vance
Thompson 5 SW (northern Geauga Co.)


Date: Mon May 2, 2005 2:29 pm
Subject: Snow
 

Hi:
I thought my eyes were deceiving me but it is snowing in Brunswick. We had a few
minutes of snow
yesterday too.
Amber

Date: Mon May 2, 2005 8:41 pm
Subject: Statistics for Ravenna 1SE
 

Hi Everyone:

Was hoping that winter was over but no such luck (I said the same thing
last month and I am getting tired of repeating myself). Saw some
snowflakes here today and find it thoroughly disgusting. Here are my
stats for April, 2005:

Mean High Temp - 64.17
Mean Low Temp - 36.70
Mean Temp - 50.43
High Temp - 84 on 4/18/05
Low Temp - 30 on 4/2/05
Total Precip - 4.61
Total Precip Days - 13
Thunderstorm Days - 1
Total Snowfall - 11.8"
Highest 24 hr Rainfall - 1.00 on 4/1/05
Highest 24 hr Snowfall - 5.6" on 4/24/05

Seasonal snowfall: 78.3"

April was wetter than March and significantly warmer (except for the
snow days). There was a threat of severe weather on the 20th and a
severe thunderstorm warning was issued for Portage County. No severe
weather was observed at my location, however. The highest temperature
of 84 degrees was the highest temperature recorded since September 5, 2004.

Gary Locke
Ravenna 1SE
OWON #121


Date: Tue May 3, 2005 1:22 am
Subject: snow/sleet update
 

We had another 0.1" snow, mostly sleet, during the day for a total
0.3". Also heard a rumble of thunder this evening.

Vance
Thompsn 5 SW (norhtern Geauga Co.)


Date: Tue May 3, 2005 8:22 am
Subject: Spring?
 

I figured I might as well voice my frustrations (opinions) on this
spell of weather also. Yesterday I tried to take advantage of the
window of opportunity to get the lawn mowed. No sooner did I get
finished did a snow/sleet shower come blasting through. Living in the
country I have a good view to the west so one could see it coming.

To add insult to injury, my grandson had a baseball game last evening.
My wife and I both had our winter gear on along with blankets. It
looked more like people attending a football game instead of a
baseball game and the main drink being served from the concession
stand was hot chocolate.

What's wrong with this picture?

Jack
Wooster 7N


Date: Tue May 3, 2005 8:32 am
Subject: Re: [OhioWx] Spring?
 

Jack:

I couldn't agree more. From the weather forecast on Sunday and yesterday I
had chosen today to mow the grass. To my chagrin upon checking the forecast
this morning at NOAA - snow flurries for today. Sheesh!

Amber

Date: Tue May 10, 2005 5:39 am
Subject: April's Weather Data for Centerville 1W
 

Weather statistics for the month of April for Centerville 1W.
High Temp (Date) ... 81o / 18th
Low Temp (Date) ... 30o / 23rd & 24th
Mean High .. 65.3o
Mean Low .. 42.4o
Monthly Mean ... 53.9o
Total Precipitation ... 3.99"
Max 24 hr Precipitation (Date) ... 1.44" / 23rd
Number of Precipitation Days... 9
Total Snowfall... 0.4"
Max 24 hr Snowfall (Date) ... 0.3" / 23rd
Max Snow Depth at time of observation ... 0"
High Wind Gust (Date) ... 46 MPH / 2nd
Thunderstorm Days ... 1
Highest Barometer (Date) ... 30.50" / 16th
Lowest Barometer (Date) ... 29.46" / 23rd
Average High Wind Gust... 21.9 MPH
Year To Date Precipitation . 17.77"
Robert Flory - KA5RUC
Centerville 1W
Southeast Montgomery County
Ohio Weather Observer Network #82
Wilmington NWS Skywarn ID OMT405


Date: Thu May 12, 2005 2:03 pm
Subject: Yesterdays Weather
 

I had my first 80 plus degree high for the year yesterday around 1 p.m
then a thirty degree temperature drop from then until around 8 p.m.
when the storms began. Nothing severe and only about a quarter inch of
rain.

With the cooler temperatures this month it's kept much of the severe
weather away. Tomorrow, however, may get interesting as a couple of
frontal boundaries will moving through and a surface low will be just
to our west. SPC's 17z convective outlook still has most of Ohio in a
slight risk area for tomorrow.

Jack Sisler
Wooster 7N


Date: Thu May 12, 2005 4:18 pm
Subject: Re: [OhioWx] Yesterdays Weather
 

Yesterday I did something stupid.

I storm-chased.

Okay, I knew there wasn't anything severe reported, and that the
distant storms that caught my eye as I left work were probably too cold
to produce anything other than torrential rain, but still... I took the
long way home from University Circle... I-77 to Akron, I-76 across to
Lodi and then I-71 back north to the west side of Cleveland.

While doing this, I put myself right in the path of the storms that
were almost perfectly following the I-76 corridor across Medina and
Stark counties. By 7:35 PM I was in torrential rain - nearly whiteout
conditions from rain! Lightning was mostly cloud-to-cloud but I did
see a few spectacular CGs. I didn't see any hail and the wind was
light at ground level except for a few minor gusts (I can feel stronger
gusts in my car.)

What impressed me the most was the low-level inflow to these storms.
Scud and small cumuli traveled south-southeast over my head at a rapid
rate. Guessing that they were at 1,000-3,000 ft. I would have to
estimate the speed at close to 100 mph (judging when I stood outside at
a rest stop some distance from the storm line.)

Why did I do it? I guess I was just in the mood for a spring drive,
and I had never been on that stretch of I-76 before. It was worth it.

Elizabeth Stapleton - bandimal@yahoo.com


Date: Sat May 14, 2005 1:21 am
Subject: actual liquid precipitation

Well, thunderstorms rolled through here, giving us 0.40" rainfall
today. This is the largest single day of rain in the 2 1/2 weeks
sinche the large snowstorm ending Apr. 25. In fact, in this very
unusual Spring, MOST of the precipitation during April and May has come
in the form of snow. The periods between the large snow events have
been very dry.

Vance
Thompson 5 SW


Date: Sat May 14, 2005 8:46 am
Subject: Active Night
 

It looks like it was a pretty active night starting yesterday evening
throughout the state. As of 8 a.m. according to SPC's Storm Reports,
there was 20 hail reports and 21 wind reports for Ohio. Summit County
had a report of 1.25 inch hail and a few wind reports of semi trucks
being blown off the road.

The first round of storms started here around 8 p.m. I had a wind gust
of 42 m.p.h. with some pea-size hail. A second round of storms came in
during the night but nothing severe. I had almost 0.9" between the two
rounds.

Jack Sisler
Wooster 7N
Wayne County


Date: Sat May 14, 2005 9:30 am
Subject: Re: Yesterdays Weather

 

Liz,

I wouldn't call it stupid. I think you kept your senses and used
good judgment by doing most of the observing at the rest stop
instead of parking your car in the middle of the highway somewhere
like some I've seen. Sometimes ones reactions try and takeover
common sense.

Storm chasing in Ohio is quite different than being in the Plains
states for several reasons; visibility and terrain are a few of the
things that go against you around here. You can see a large storm or
supercell in the Plains states up to 200 miles away. Speed of the
storms is also against you. If that storm is moving at 40 or 50
m.p.h. in this area you'll never catch up to it. One thing to
remember; always leave yourself an escape route in case things
change at the last minute.

Jack


Date: Sat May 14, 2005 9:56 pm
Subject: Storm Event - 5/13-14/2005: RainTotal / Lightning...
 

Storm Event - 5/13-14/2005:

SouthEast Medina County:

North Wadsworth StormTotal:

.85"

Between 7:45-8pm, SkyScan revealed very little
CTG lightning within a 40 mile radius, as the
line of storms approached the area.

As the the storm swept by, it indeed was tame.




- Patrick


Date: Sun May 15, 2005 9:20 pm
Subject: Re: [OhioWx] 2004-'05 Seasonal Snowfall
 

Hello Jim;
Newcomerstown received 30.9" of snowfall from October 1st 2004 through April 30th, 2005. Not sure if you
can use that report to put on your map since we are in southwestern Tuscarawas county and not in your
WFO jurisdiction, but there it is all the same. Take care.
Don Keating #106
Newcomerstown 1S
Tuscarawas County

Date: Mon May 16, 2005 1:43 am
Subject: Re: 2004-'05 Seasonal Snowfall
 

Jim already has my snowfall total, but for the group here, I had a
final seasonal tally of 232.6".

Vance
Thompson 5 SW



Date: Thu May 19, 2005 1:13 pm
Subject: T.S. Adrian
 

Hi:
Just curious. How rare is it for a Pacific T.S./hurricane to cross into the Atlantic? I don't remember it
happening. Also, once it crosses into the Atlantic - will they give it an Atlantic storm name?
Amber

Date: Fri May 20, 2005 12:55 pm
Subject: Re: T.S. Adrian
 

Amber:

It is quite rare but not unheard of. A few years ago Atlantic
tropical storm Larry made landfall in Mexico and several days later
re-emered in the Pacific as a tropical depression. It made it to 35
mph but didn't quite re-gain tropical storm stregnth. This was
rather amusing to me. I have an uncle Larry. The next Pacific name
would have been female resulting in a tropical storm sex change!
But, yes, the storm would be re-named.

Ron
Cincinnati


Date: Fri May 20, 2005 5:49 pm
Subject: Re: T.S. Adrian
 

Amber,

I think Ron pretty much answered your question. I was somewhat in
doubt, however, because I did hear one national news source say that
if Adrian kept tropical characteristics after crossing the
penninsula into the Caribbean it would keep the same name. Unless
something was changed, however, I knew this wasn't correct. The same
thing would apply if a named tropical system would cross from the
Caribbean into the eastern Pacific across Central America.

Jack


Date: Mon May 23, 2005 9:12 am
Subject: Possible NWS broadcast restrictions - U.S. Senate Bill
 

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=773123&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/walsh051205.html

The bill's sponsor, Rick Santorum, represents the State of Pennsylvania
and was asked to promote this legislation by AccuWeather.

I'll restrict my own comments about this.



Elizabeth Stapleton - bandimal@yahoo.com


Date: Mon May 23, 2005 10:34 am
Subject: Re: Possible NWS broadcast restrictions - U.S. Senate Bill

Liz,

Interesting. I think if one reads the paragraph where it states
AccuWeather has contributed almost $ 14,000 to him and the
Republican Party says it all. I'm willing to bet there is more to it
than that. Sounds like Senator Santorium has his hand in the cookie
jar.

I guess I'm just as much of a critic as anyone else on some of the
issues the NWS comes out with. I think to privatize the NWS would be
a big mistake, however. Look what happened to the postal service. If
you don't think AccuWeather wouldn't raise their rates substantially
were this to happen you better think again.

Jack Sisler
Wooster 7N


Date: Mon May 23, 2005 12:05 pm
Subject: Re: [OhioWx] Re: Possible NWS broadcast restrictions - U.S. Senate Bill
 

Jack & group,

Now that you've commented, I think I'll add my own.

I don't think the point of this is to privatise the NWS - rather, it's
ostensibly to prevent the government's program from competing with free
enterprise. In other words, Santorum's bill attempts to allow
AccuWeather and other private companies to handle all of the
non-emergency broadcasting.

I disagree with this idea. Weather forecasting is difficult enough; I
wouldn't want the government to have a full monopoly, either. But
cutting out an entire source of weather broadcasting simply to allow
competition doesn't make sense when we're dealing with an inexact
science in the first place. I am sure that I'm not the only one who
consults multiple weather forecasting sources to come up with as
complete a picture as possible.

I actually think this is *dangerous.* I worry that if people stop
relying on NWS feeds (and NOAA weather radio, perhaps?) because they
don't broadcast 24/7, that people are going to miss the real warnings.
I worry that the private forecasting services will not be as quick as
the NWS to alert people. I worry that the "complete picture" won't be
available anymore.

I urge anyone who cares about having this access, to contact Sens.
Voinovich and DeWine, and maybe even Sen. Santorum himself. Make this
bill die in committee or conference.


Regards,
Liz


Date: Mon May 23, 2005 12:09 pm
Subject: Santorum's opinion on NWS
 

http://santorum.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.View&Conte
ntR\
ecord_id=1219&CFID=16674380&CFTOKEN=40107420

This is Santorum's weekly column which proceeded introduction of the
Senate bill.

I'm disgusted from the first paragraph. How dare he say that NWS isn't
focusing on Lake Effect?

*shaking head* Sheesh...

Elizabeth Stapleton - bandimal@yahoo.com


Date: Mon May 23, 2005 6:50 pm
Subject: Re: Possible NWS broadcast restrictions - U.S. Senate Bill
 

Liz,

I guess to clarify what I'm trying to say is this. Why pay for
additional funding to a private weather service when we, as tax
payers, are already paying a portion of the funding to have these
same services done now?

I did send an email to Senator Santorum's website. If you look up
Rick Santorum you should find his website on any search engine. You
do have to provide your name and address.

Jack


Date: Mon May 23, 2005 7:18 pm
Subject: Re: [OhioWx] Possible NWS broadcast restrictions - U.S. Senate Bill

Liz and Group:

Accuweather should worry more about how they raised prices on their
customers than NWS. I used to subscribe to their service until they
raised the price, at which point, I dropped the service. I won't get
political here but this is just another example of how the conservative
private sector, abhors government regulation but then attempts to use it
to feather their own nest. Sorry for the unpaid political announcement.

Gary L
Ravenna


Date: Tue May 24, 2005 7:20 am
Subject: Re: Possible NWS broadcast restrictions - U.S. Senate Bill
 

The NWS broadcasts have, in my opinion, been going downhill for a
while. The computer generated voices which drone on and on are a
horrible way to disseminate information in a timely fashion. I have
noticed that even the current day forecasts on the computer don't
match what is on the weather radio. Before we get too upset maybe
we should consider if this is really bad. When I read discussions
on this board I hear private sources quoted as much as the NWS.

Ron Rothhaas


Date: Wed May 25, 2005 2:17 pm
Subject: Re: Possible NWS broadcast restrictions - U.S. Senate Bill
 

I have to chime in here! No, this is bad, quite bad as a matter of
fact. This is coming from someone who is actively working for a
PRIVATE weather forecasting service :)!!!

The NWS still provides the best, most timely weather information
available to the public today. Accuweather, and any other profit-
seeking identity, can't do the job correctly. Why? Money talks, not
human safety & concern! In order to establish a successful,
PROFITABLE, weather forecasting service you MUST diversify your
client base. This means taking clients from ALL parts of the
country, for example, Cleveland, Cincinnati, San Diego, New York,
Miami, Minneapolis and servicing them the best way you can given
specific needs, time permitting. When you diversify, you can't watch
a particular city's weather as closely as you'd like (and trust me,
you can't!). Forecast updates are less reliable and less frequent
and in general the quality of the product goes to hell over time.

Having the NWS with its diverse number of reporting and forecasting
stations can provide the individual attention needed to each specific
location. This means more reliable and higher quality products.
Granted, budget cuts within the NOAA framework have targeted the NWS
over at least the past two decades and this has had a devastating
effect on the quality of the outputs generated by the NWS today. As
a good example for those who remember there was a time back in the
1960's and 70's where the NWS did a FABULOUS job given the tools they
had at the time by employing HUMAN resources to the job and not
chiefly on technology.

While I'm a fan of free enterprise and it GENERALLY works, it is not
necessarily the best approach in all markets. Do I think that
further weakening or eliminating the NWS infrastructure will spur new
weather forecasting services on a local level? Probably not. Again,
money talks and a small, LOCAL, weather forecasting firm would have
trouble finding the business & resources to keep itself going in the
long haul without being forced to diversify and losing local focus.

Just my opinion,
From liberal, happy Lakewood!
Matt


Date: Thu May 26, 2005 4:12 pm
Subject: Re: Possible NWS broadcast restrictions - U.S. Senate Bill
 

Matt:

To be clear I am not familiar with the intricacies of the bill in
question and do not have a definative positive or negative position
on it.

I do not agree, however, that the info the NWS is providing is as
wonderful as you claim. Some of it is. I probably use weather.gov
more than any other source for real time info.

However, the forecast products are going downhill, and this
corresponds to the re-organization of the NWS and the automation. I
don't even bother with NOAA weather radio during a severe outbreak
anymore. Wilmington covers 88 counties, I think, and heaven help
you during a big event that covers a lot of counties. By the time
Forrest Gump gets around to broadcasting your tornado warning you're
dead!

Yes, I am in a big media market so we have wall to wall coverage
during a severe weather event. In Cincinnati the TV stations blow
the NWS out of the water in the presentation of a usable end product.
Yes, they do hype things too much, but the automated system is a
joke for timely warning dissemination.

If you miss the initial broadcast it may be 10 minutes before you
hear it again. How far can a tornado travel in 10 minutes? Also,
the local system has always been slow. A warning is issued for
Hamilton County when the storm moving at 50 mph is in the west-
central part of the county. Often by the time the warning is out
the storm is moving into a county not warned.

I can't tell you how often a live TV broadcast has shown a warned
county with little or no remaining activity while an adjacent
unwarned county is getting nailed. Live TV, and that TV station
just scooped the NWS.

Also, I work in a weather sensitive industry. I depend on timely
and accurate nowcasts. The NWS does not do well with these. Often I
am reduced to tracking down someone who can look up a radar on a
computer.

Again, I don't know about the bill, but this is what I have observed.


Ron
Cincinnati


Date: Fri May 27, 2005 12:50 pm
Subject: Re: Possible NWS broadcast restrictions - U.S. Senate Bill
 

I think that the NWS is one of the relatively few government agencies
that should be kept. I actually like the situation as it is now with
both public and private forcasting services. We have a choice.
That's that way America should work. We get one of the best bangs
for our tax buck with the National Weather Service becuase it is
mainly staffed by scientists who see a "profit" from the science
itself and so does not need as much monetary incentive as do poeple
working in other fields where the preservation of the government
beaurocracy takes precedent over quality of service or effecient use
of tax dollars. In those fields, private capitalistic enterprise is
the better way to go. Another government agency that works pretty
well is NASA for the same reasons that the NWS works. Since both
these agencies give us a big bang for the buck, and niether one
attacks private citizens through unecessary regulation (the elected
Congress should make the laws), then I advocate their continued
funding. I also advocate the continued presence of private
companies. These can fill niches such as for certain localities or
forcasts taylored to certain activities that are not filled be the
NWS.

Vance


From: Patrick  
Date: Sat May 28, 2005 12:34 am
Subject: NWS - CLE: The Tornado Outbreak of May 31, 1985
 

http://www.ERH.NOAA.Gov/cle/office/localinterest/1985Tornado/1985Tornado.html


Date: Sat May 28, 2005 6:31 am
Subject: Re: Possible NWS broadcast restrictions - U.S. Senate Bill
Remove Author | Ban Author

I am not familiar with the proposal details. Is it to cut back
funding and partially privatize or eliminate?

Ron


From: "E. Stapleton"  
Date: Tue May 31, 2005 9:13 am
Subject: Re: [OhioWx] Re: Possible NWS broadcast restrictions - U.S. Senate Bill
 

None of the above. The bill intends to prevent the NWS from
duplicating broadcasts of forecasting information that can be provided
by private sources. Weather alerts such as watches and warnings will
still be broadcasted, but Santorum aims to prevent run-of-the-mill
forecasts from being disseminated.








 

Return to OWON Summaries