BeauDodson

They batted about 80% last year with long-range outlooks. They have come a long way since their infancy years ago. Their farm and garden videos, GFS analysis, and EC analysis videos are excellent. They have an amazing team of meteorologists. Years ago, I felt the same way. But, over time, they have become a great company!

You can see where the ridge set up shop over the last three weeks. The haves and have-nots. Too much rain and too little rain.

Our long-range team has a great video today about July's weather. A bit of a nail-biter for the Ohio Valley. We will have to see where the ridge sets up. Would not be surprised to see the MCS train produce pockets of ten or more inches of rain. These videos can be viewed on our www.weathertalk.com app. If you don't live in our area, then choose any given county and then download the app to view the daily videos.

It appears the GOV is closing most roads at 4 PM. That shuts me out. Disappointed, but it is what it is. I have to be at NWS conference this morning. Otherwise, I would have left last night. Be careful, everyone. Enjoy the white gold. Looking forward to the photos and videos.

What Discord room is that? Thanks

Hoping I can come in from the south tomorrow afternoon. Sounds like they will close it. Unsure another way in.

What are you driving once there?

Interesting setup for LES. I remember the 2000 event. Incredible totals. Quite a bit of thundersnow. I'm thinking about chasing this one.

Is this the correct thread for the Buffalo area? Thanks

Hi JoMo, I thought about you on the anniversary of the tornado. It is hard to believe that it has been ten years. It seems like yesterday. I don't come on the forums very often, but was browsing it this morning and noticed this thread was still active. I hope you are doing well. I can't imagine the amount of trauma associated with an event like this. I can only compare it to what I saw after Katrina and Rita. It is hard to fathom so much destruction and loss of life.

Thank you

It is amazing how many days many areas have been at or above flood stage. Over one-hundred days in many areas. Is this the main Barry thread?

CIPS analogs are showing some decent events. http://www.eas.slu.edu/CIPS/ANALOG/DFHR.php?reg=MV&fhr=F084&rundt=2019050512&map=thbPPF This is the near perfect forecast graphic set. Wednesday and Thursday have some potential but, as always, is highly dependent on what happens with the dying MCS's. So far this year, our region has had numerous conditional events. Meaning, the forecast has been low confidence because of ongoing rain and clouds. The two tornado events were poorly forecast. One tornado event did not have a watch and was in the general thunderstorm forecast zone. Our last tornado event was on May 2nd. That was under-forecast, as well. It will be interesting to see if we can pull off a region-wide event this week. Most of the events have been localized, thus far.

Love your site.

Was thinking about you today. Popped into the forum to see if this thread was still alive and well. I see that it is. I agree, it is hard to believe that it has been five years. Hope you are doing well.

Weather Brains had an interesting guest on recently. Dr. Jason Persoff. He recounted his experience in Joplin immediately after the tornado struck the city. http://weatherbrains.com/weatherbrains/?p=2138

I agree 100%. I have caught errors on this subject more than once. It is a concern. I am going to bring it up again with our local office. Especially after the answer I was given earlier this year.

Although I can't answer for him I find the service assessments extremely valuable. I read them all - have them all printed out - keep them here on hand for review. I think the NWS, emergency management, media, and others read them - utilize them - take them for what they are. I learn something from each assessment and make changes accordingly. From talking with others - they do the same. The process isn't perfect - it is evolving - will continue to evolve. The more we learn - the more we realize we have a lot to learn.

Unfortunately this book is being sold in many outlets - to the public. I am not sure how someone outside of the meteorological community would view this. It makes the NWS look incompetent. I do agree with Mike on some of the topics brought up within the book. Some of them are the same concerns raised in the service assessments. Of course service assessments are not read by the general public. If this publication was for internal purposes then I would view it as a severe lashing against the NWS, some in the media (although they are excused somewhat in the book because they were parroting what the NWS said), and emergency management officials who didn't blow the sirens properly. For a publication like this to be sold to the public - not sure it is helpful or useful. It does strongly promote their private warning service. I am not sure how many times their private warning service was mentioned - but several times. Emphasis was added that they got the track right and the NWS got the track wrong. Critique is important within the weather community - there are several private and semi-private forms to do just that. Critique can be important in moving everyone forward - improving products issued for the public - improving siren policies - other. However, I would agree with some others with the same sentiment that the book is a bit disappointing in the approach. When one group/agency makes another group/agency look like fools - with little mercy - then eyebrows are raised that there is some sort of agenda at hand. I am afraid this is what the book left me wondering. The book raises some important points - valid concerns - items of interest. The approach, though, was disappointing. The NWS had a very difficult job that day - emergency management had a very difficult job that day - the manner in which the storm formed, exploded, evolved made for a perfect storm of sorts. Unfortunate and so was the outcome.

It was a very small area with EF4 damage.

If is funny you should say that - because One of the NWS meteorologists, from the St Louis, Missouri - National Weather Service Office, did a presentation (last fall - at the big NWA conference) in Birmingham, Alabama on their EF4 tornado event. She said that the reasons there were not more fatalities in the EF4 St Louis tornado was - wait for it and drum roll - LUCK She had a list - but LUCK was, if I remember correctly, number 5 on the list. This is what was on her slide presentation

I am not sure a tornado emergency would have mattered. Maybe for the on-air people? Unsure. We will never know. Of course now we have the new warning system = Springfield is one of the offices using the new terminology that attempts to predict how much damage a tornado will or won't do. It would not have mattered in this event. It was too late - not to mention that I don't think hey had enough time. I have seen some meteorologists that focus on "their idea" of where a storm should track and if radar is showing something different they still seem to not catch on. In school this is called tunnel-vision. I said it must be going northeast and it must be heading to town A B and C. By the time you realize it isn't happening as you expected then it is too late. Not saying that is what happened here - but the evidence stacked up by Mike in his book does suggest that concept. At least as a potential. It is too bad there was such a delay in the tilt scans. Had they had the phased array radar then this would have likely ended a lot differently. This is where local radars - owned by television stations - can be of some value. It is too bad the NWS can't zero in on a storm and get faster updates.

Mike brings up that subject, as well.

Not sure the DOC allows me to post the logs - I have them. Just not sure if I can post them or not? They are interesting because they show a lot of communication about what is happening to the City of Joplin and before Joplin. From the logs there appears to a lot less confusion as to what is/was going on - at least when you compare then to the statements that were actually put out by the NWS for the public.

This is a problem. I hope this issue has been addressed within the NWS. I am a bit alarmed by the incident a few weeks ago in my local area - afternoon reading your comments and this book. If a computer is spitting out these names and errors and the NWS isn't "catching it" - then we have a problem. I don't know if this is a bigger issue or not. It is a question worth discussing. Surely the NWS can correct the storm movement based on what they were seeing. Or - perhaps in this case - it was simply just a bad error.