How do we define a 'busted' SPC watch.

[Ed Lizard]

I, personally, as an amateur end product consumer, will call a severe weather watch a bust if a box is issued and no severe storms occur within it.

This has happened to me, been inside a tornado watch box, and no tornadoes occured in the box during the issuance time. Irregardless of the probability table in the watch box for various modes of severe, its a complete bust IMHO if there is no severe weather of any type, and a mild bust if there are only a few marginal hail and wind reports.

Central/SE Texas seems to fall victim to this often, cursed by low clouds caused by high dewpoint air from the Southern Gulf coming over cooler near shore waters and the Mexican highlands to our Southwest...

[AtticaFanatica]

You wouldn't be polluting. I realize this is a controversial subject, which is why I brought it up for discussion.

[weatherwiz]

I'm not sure if a watch can really be a bust, unless somewhere within the watch it states there is a 100% chance severe hail, severe wind or tornadoes. A watch just indicates that the potential exists for these sort of developments b/c the atmospheric conditions present for the development is there. So unless the probs in the probability table are 100% I don't think they can be classified as a bust if no severe wx occurs.

[mnweather]

I'm not sure if a watch can really be a bust, unless somewhere within the watch it states there is a 100% chance severe hail, severe wind or tornadoes. A watch just indicates that the potential exists for these sort of developments b/c the atmospheric conditions present for the development is there. So unless the probs in the probability table are 100% I don't think they can be classified as a bust if no severe wx occurs.

I agree. A watch does not mean it will happen. Just good potential is there.

[Ed Lizard]

I'm not sure if a watch can really be a bust, unless somewhere within the watch it states there is a 100% chance severe hail, severe wind or tornadoes. A watch just indicates that the potential exists for these sort of developments b/c the atmospheric conditions present for the development is there. So unless the probs in the probability table are 100% I don't think they can be classified as a bust if no severe wx occurs.

I suppose one can marry a probability scheme so that technically no forecast can ever really bust. I know an 80% chance of rain in the local forecast means theoretically there is a 20% chance it doesn't rain, but if I know when I see that someone is just ensuring they can't be considered wrong and are pretty sure it is going to rain.

I can see the value of a 5% or 10% probability of something w/i 25 miles in a SWO, and the number of events divided by 25 squared pi doesn't have to be exactly 5 or 10% for the probability to be useful, but when one issues a watch box covering thousands of square miles and nothing ever happens...

I know the difficulty, if one has a capping inversion, and if it goes, it will go in a big way, but even then, it seems like SPC tries to limit bust potential by waiting for evidence of building cu or RUC point soundings indicating the cap is becoming negligible. Not a slam on an SPC, a watch issued that doesn't really verify would seem preferable to issuing a watch because severe weather is already occuring in the watch area.

[AtticaFanatica]

I suppose one can marry a probability scheme so that technically no forecast can ever really bust. I know an 80% chance of rain in the local forecast means theoretically there is a 20% chance it doesn't rain, but if I know when I see that someone is just ensuring they can't be considered wrong and are pretty sure it is going to rain.

I can see the value of a 5% or 10% probability of something w/i 25 miles in a SWO, and the number of events divided by 25 squared pi doesn't have to be exactly 5 or 10% for the probability to be useful, but when one issues a watch box covering thousands of square miles and nothing ever happens...

I know the difficulty, if one has a capping inversion, and if it goes, it will go in a big way, but even then, it seems like SPC tries to limit bust potential by waiting for evidence of building cu or RUC point soundings indicating the cap is becoming negligible. Not a slam on an SPC, a watch issued that doesn't really verify would seem preferable to issuing a watch because severe weather is already occuring in the watch area.

Naturally, this brings up the subject of "hedging." Some might interpret a probabilistic forecast as a hedge, and that is not an unreasonable position, from at least some viewpoints. However, what we are concerned with regarding "hedging" in verification is a tendency to depart from a forecaster's best judgement in a misguided effort to improve verification scores. The example just given is just such a foolish attempt; although doing so would improve the "reliability" score (perhaps), it also would increase the RMSE, and other measures, to the overall detriment of the results. In what has been referred to as a "strictly proper" verification system, a forecaster obtains his or her best verification scores when making a forecast equal to his or her best estimate. Many forecasters believe that any verificaiton system can be "played" to achieve optimal results ... if a forecaster does this, then the only real loser is the forecaster, because then the benefits to the forecaster associated with the verification exercise are lost. It is indeed possible to hedge forecasts in this way, even with a strictly proper scoring system, but when the scoring is strictly proper it is easily shown that the forecaster does more poorly overall this way than by going with the his or her best judgement.

http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/users/brooks/public_html/prob/Probability.html

[baroclinic_instability]

Great discussion/question here--and it is both very important and "controversial" for a reason. From a statistical point of view--and taking into consideration weather variability--probabilities are really the only way to go. From a "usability" standpoint--very few if any users enjoy looking at probabilities in a forecast. In private weather--a lot of companies have dumped "POPS" and mainly use "impact" based forecasts combined with careful wording. From a maintenance managers standpoint, for instance, he/she needs to make a decision regarding staffing, potential impacts etc. More often than not--the forecaster is going to be right--and they will react accordingly if the trust level is there. During high impact events, for instance, a forecaster may use much stronger wording than normal and relay higher confidence using words such as "likely" or "probable". In more marginal events careful wording is also used to relay confidence--but a potential "impact forecast" is still given. You will also see this in SPC meso discos, for instance. Personally--I think using probabilities is the way to go from a pure "meteorological" perspective, but from a public user perspective, it really isn't a "perfect" way to forecast and relay information since the public really has no idea how to use probs. When they see "70% chance of rain" the average public user doesn't know how to interpret that. It is a big issue all mets deal with--and social sciences is becoming big in the NWS for a reason--to understand how the public uses the products and how they react to them. The NWS and all forecasting organizations ride a fine line between public confidence while also relaying pertinent weather information in a timely manner. Busting is not something that can happen often owing to public confidence issues--but waiting too long until the storm is verifying does no good either and defeats the purpose of having weather organizations.

[VAwxman]

I'm not sure if a watch can really be a bust, unless somewhere within the watch it states there is a 100% chance severe hail, severe wind or tornadoes. A watch just indicates that the potential exists for these sort of developments b/c the atmospheric conditions present for the development is there. So unless the probs in the probability table are 100% I don't think they can be classified as a bust if no severe wx occurs.

Well that being the case, technically it can never bust, nor can it verify.

[AtticaFanatica]

Well that being the case, technically it can never bust, nor can it verify.

If your talking about the watch probabilities, a large sample of watches can be assessed, but not an individual watch. That's the point of the probabilities.

[baroclinic_instability]

Great discussion/question here--and it is both very important and "controversial" for a reason. From a statistical point of view--and taking into consideration weather variability--probabilities are really the only way to go. From a "usability" standpoint--very few if any users enjoy looking at probabilities in a forecast. In private weather--a lot of companies have dumped "POPS" and mainly use "impact" based forecasts combined with careful wording. From a maintenance managers standpoint, for instance, he/she needs to make a decision regarding staffing, potential impacts etc. More often than not--the forecaster is going to be right--and they will react accordingly if the trust level is there. During high impact events, for instance, a forecaster may use much stronger wording than normal and relay higher confidence using words such as "likely" or "probable". In more marginal events careful wording is also used to relay confidence--but a potential "impact forecast" is still given. You will also see this in SPC meso discos, for instance. Personally--I think using probabilities is the way to go from a pure "meteorological" perspective, but from a public user perspective, it really isn't a "perfect" way to forecast and relay information since the public really has no idea how to use probs. When they see "70% chance of rain" the average public user doesn't know how to interpret that. It is a big issue all mets deal with--and social sciences is becoming big in the NWS for a reason--to understand how the public uses the products and how they react to them. The NWS and all forecasting organizations ride a fine line between public confidence while also relaying pertinent weather information in a timely manner. Busting is not something that can happen often owing to public confidence issues--but waiting too long until the storm is verifying does no good either and defeats the purpose of having weather organizations.

Honestly the same goes with SPC. They are going to be prone to the same user issues as any other forecaster/organization will. The simple fact is, while probabilities and categorical outlooks etc. are not a guarantee of any kind of weather event--if SPC issues a high risk for tornadoes and/or wind and there are only a few localized reports--almost anyone will consider that a "bust" even if it isn't meant to be used that way. SPC forecasters know this--and you can often times see usage of careful wording in their forecast discos/meso discos for a reason.

[VAwxman]

If your talking about the watch probabilities, a large sample of watches can be assessed, but not an individual watch. That's the point of the probabilities.

Agreed.

Just was commenting more on the individual watch, as Ed was referring to in the beginning.

[AtticaFanatica]

Honestly the same goes with SPC. They are going to be prone to the same user issues as any other forecaster/organization will. The simple fact is, while probabilities and categorical outlooks etc. are not a guarantee of any kind of weather event--if SPC issues a high risk for tornadoes and/or wind and there are only a few localized reports--almost anyone will consider that a "bust" even if it isn't meant to be used that way. SPC forecasters know this--and you can often times see usage of careful wording in their forecast discos/meso discos for a reason.

Again, I may be wrong on this, but the categorical part of the convective outlook has specific parameters for verification like watches do. So, I believe they are not strictly probabilistic in nature. The probabilistic aspect of one forecast, though, is a different story. That being said, I think it's much more useful to evaluate a large sample of outlooks like was done here.

[weatherwiz]

One issue regarding this sort of stuff I think is sometimes people are just to into calling a forecast a bust or calling it a success, while it's extremely important and obviously every forecasters goal to make as successful of a forecast as possible IMO sometimes there is more to just a forecast than whether it is a bust or not. This is just my own "uneducated" opinion so perhaps this is totally incorrect.

Just like Attica mentioned above the SPC likely does have ways in which they determine the success rate of the watches issued and whether or not the forecast was a bust or whatever you want to call it. They likely use this data and the results along with studying of the systems and extensive research to work on increasing the success rate of watch issuances.

However, I think in the case of convective watches, at least right now there is more to the point of whether the watch is a success or a bust. The idea behind a watch is to increase and heighten the alert from the public. When dealing with severe wx (or just wx in general) the number one goal is public safety and public awareness. As mentioned above all a watch indicates is that the atmospheric conditions in place are favorable for the development of severe wx (or tornadoes if it's a TOR watch). A watch does not guarantee you will see this weather but it does mean there is a pretty good chance of at least something occurring at least somewhere in the outlined area.

One example I like to use, basically b/c I was in the affected area is from last summer, June 5th and 6th, 2010. It was a pretty crazy weekend here in the Northeast as we actually had two consecutive days with tornado watches which is pretty freaking rare. Sunday was actually the more "impressive" day as tornado watch boxes stretched from like VA up to ME...that's a pretty damn large aerial coverage. Now that Sunday produced ZERO confirmed tornadoes within that watch box...also pretty impressive given the aerial coverage of it. However, there was a great deal of severe wx within that box and multiple storms showing great rotation and prompting Tornado Warnings (including my own county...in which I saw a funnel cloud and have video ). Now after this was all said and done people left and right were calling bust and what not. However, in my eyes it wasn't a bust...there was not one forecast that stated tornadoes are going to happen.

In fact, I think it was a success in a way...why? It certainly heightened the alert of people and tornado watches also include other forms of severe wx (hail/damaging convective winds). As all of us who tracked this know atmospheric conditions were certainly ripe for tornadoes but just a few things went wrong.

As we know forecasting severe wx and tornadoes is still very challenging although forecasting on this subject has improved significantly over the past few decades. There are still lots of questions as to why some setups will produce more tornadoes than others or why one will produce a massive tornado or one will produce several of them. knowing this it's nearly impossible to include a forecast stating a tornado WILL occur and where exactly...yeah there are setups where you know there will be tornadoes but sometimes not in the locations where it will seem likely.

With all this said I just don't think it's really right for any one person to justify and call a watch a bust just b/c something did not occur. To reiterate what I said above watches just mean that certain conditions are present for the possible development, it's not guaranteed. Some may think this is an easy way out of it if the forecast is "bad" but in reality it isn't. The main goal is public safety and making the public aware of any life threatening potential.

[baroclinic_instability]

Again, I may be wrong on this, but the categorical part of the convective outlook has specific parameters for verification like watches do. So, I believe they are not strictly probabilistic in nature. The probabilistic aspect of one forecast, though, is a different story. That being said, I think it's much more useful to evaluate a large sample of outlooks like was done here.

I am agreeing with you pretty much every step of the way Attica--I was just saying it is a different ballgame once the end users/public start using the information. Even trained mets who understand the SPC probs (or don't) will likely call "bust" if, for instance, a high risk threat is diagnosed and only a few reports trickle in. Typically these high risk events are well publicized too--so a "non-event" will generally be highly criticized--no different than a winter storm warning or blizzard in winter that "busts". I think the way SPC does things is great given the fickle nature of convection--and given that most forecasters are not severe weather experts--it is great having a stable of highly trained severe weather experts doing these general severe weather forecasts.

[AtticaFanatica]

I am agreeing with you pretty much every step of the way Attica--I was just saying it is a different ballgame once the end users/public start using the information. Even trained mets who understand the SPC probs (or don't) will likely call "bust" if, for instance, a high risk threat is diagnosed and only a few reports trickle in. Typically these high risk events are well publicized too--so a "non-event" will generally be highly criticized--no different than a winter storm warning or blizzard in winter that "busts". I think the way SPC does things is great given the fickle nature of convection--and given that most forecasters are not severe weather experts--it is great having a stable of highly trained severe weather experts doing these general severe weather forecasts.

Yeah, I agree.

[isohume]

Watches = Warnings

[SnowGoose69]

Every single tornado watch issued in the states of Oklahoma and Kansas in 2005, 2006, and 2007.

[Ed Lizard]

Then, of course, tornado watches versus thunderstorm watches. Thinking the first tornado watch the other day in the Arklatex, plenty of severe, but no tornadoes.

As far as watches versus warnings, a tornado warning for a radar indicated possible tornado, whether it actually touches down or not, safe is better than sorry. I don't know if local offices have a criteria for what the radar shows to issue a warning or not, and it'd be over my head, anyway.

A convective warning seems nowcast-ish, ditto flash flood warnings and the such, whereas a winter type warning is actually a type of short range forecast. Don't see how that can be helped. Can't wait until snowfall reaches an inch and hour in a city to pop the warning, I suppose.

[My Weather Today]

I, personally, as an amateur end product consumer, will call a severe weather watch a bust if a box is issued and no severe storms occur within it.

This has happened to me, been inside a tornado watch box, and no tornadoes occured in the box during the issuance time. Irregardless of the probability table in the watch box for various modes of severe, its a complete bust IMHO if there is no severe weather of any type, and a mild bust if there are only a few marginal hail and wind reports.

Central/SE Texas seems to fall victim to this often, cursed by low clouds caused by high dewpoint air from the Southern Gulf coming over cooler near shore waters and the Mexican highlands to our Southwest...

What's wrong Ed? You still feeling the sting from the March 18, 2008 PDS Tornado Watch non-event for Southeast Texas? After reading a AFD like this you would think you would at least get a good thunderstorm or two out of the forecasted event.

AREA FORECAST DISCUSSION

NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE HOUSTON/GALVESTON TX

519 AM CDT SAT MAR 15 2008

THE WEATHER TO GET MORE INTERESTING MONDAY AS UPPER TROUGH OVER AZ

COMES EAST AND HEIGHTS FALL OVER TX WITH A VERY DEEP SOUTHEAST TO

SOUTH FLOW THAT DEVELOPS TAPPING INTO MOISTURE OVER THE BAY OF

CAMPHECHE AND THE YUCATAN REGION...ALOFT SW FLOW TAPS MOISTURE

OVER THE PACIFIC. BREEZY CONDITIONS SHOULD PREVAIL MONDAY. AS THE

ASSOCIATED SURFACE LOW MOVES EAST EXPECTING TO SEE STORMS DEVELOP

NEAR THE DRYLINE WELL TO THE WEST OF THE REGION...BY MONDAY NIGHT

LLJ ACROSS SETX WILL RUN 50-65 KNOTS AND EXPECT TO SEE BREEZY

CONDITIONS WITH WINDY CONDITIONS ON THE COAST. IF ANY

THUNDERSTORMS DEVELOP IN THIS ENVIRONMENT EXPECT THEM TO GO SEVERE

QUICKLY.

TUESDAY...SEVERE WEATHER. THE MAIN ACTION SHOULD BE EARLY TUESDAY

MORNING THROUGH THE EARLY EVENING HOURS. ON TUESDAY 130 KNOT SSW

UPPER JET WILL CONTINUE TO DRAG IN LL MOISTURE WITH NEAR RECORD

SETTING PW CURRENTLY BEING FORECAST BY BOTH GFS/NAM AT 1.95" FOR

MARCH. THE BIG ISSUE WILL BE THE SEVERE WEATHER THREAT AS THE

EXTREME LL WINDS THAT VEER WITH HEIGHT YIELD UP HELICITY VALUES

500-700M2/S2!!! INSTABILITY WILL BE PRESENT WITH CAPE RUNNING 500

TO 1800 J/KG AND NO CAP. THIS LOOKS LIKE AN OUTBREAK AND HAVE

ALREADY BEGUN THE MENTION OF SEVERE TUESDAY 06Z THROUGH TUESDAY

EVENING. I DONT THINK I AM GOING OUT ON LIMB TO SAY THIS MAY BE

SIGNIFICANT TORNADO OUTBREAK FOR TX...SETX...AND POINTS EAST. WILL

TRY TO DO A SPECIAL WEBCAST BRIEFING LATER THIS MORNING THAT WILL

RUN ON THE HGX WEB FRONT PAGE.

Even with models backing off on the magnitude of the severe weather outbreak across Southeast Texas you still expected to get a few good robust T-storms before all was said and done after reading this from the SPC the day of...

URGENT - IMMEDIATE BROADCAST REQUESTED

TORNADO WATCH NUMBER 131

NWS STORM PREDICTION CENTER NORMAN OK

1100 AM CDT TUE MAR 18 2008

THE NWS STORM PREDICTION CENTER HAS ISSUED A

TORNADO WATCH FOR PORTIONS OF

SMALL PART OF SOUTH CENTRAL ARKANSAS

PARTS OF NORTHERN AND WESTERN LOUISIANA

LARGE PART OF SOUTHEAST TEXAS

COASTAL WATERS

EFFECTIVE THIS TUESDAY MORNING AND EVENING FROM 1100 AM UNTIL 700

PM CDT.

...THIS IS A PARTICULARLY DANGEROUS SITUATION...

DESTRUCTIVE TORNADOES...LARGE HAIL TO 2 INCHES IN DIAMETER...

THUNDERSTORM WIND GUSTS TO 80 MPH...AND DANGEROUS LIGHTNING ARE

POSSIBLE IN THESE AREAS.

THE TORNADO WATCH AREA IS APPROXIMATELY ALONG AND 90 STATUTE

MILES EITHER SIDE OF A LINE FROM 55 MILES WEST SOUTHWEST OF

COLLEGE STATION TEXAS TO MONROE LOUISIANA. FOR A COMPLETE

DEPICTION OF THE WATCH SEE THE ASSOCIATED WATCH OUTLINE UPDATE

(WOUS64 KWNS WOU1).

REMEMBER...A TORNADO WATCH MEANS CONDITIONS ARE FAVORABLE FOR

TORNADOES AND SEVERE THUNDERSTORMS IN AND CLOSE TO THE WATCH

AREA. PERSONS IN THESE AREAS SHOULD BE ON THE LOOKOUT FOR

THREATENING WEATHER CONDITIONS AND LISTEN FOR LATER STATEMENTS

AND POSSIBLE WARNINGS.

OTHER WATCH INFORMATION...CONTINUE...WW 130...

DISCUSSION...AS STRONG UPPER SYSTEM APPROACHES SRN

TX...THUNDERSTORMS WILL RAPIDLY INCREASE IN NUMBER AND INTENSITY

AHEAD OF COLD FRONT NOW MOVING EWD ACROSS SRN TX. VERY STRONG DEEP

LAYER SHEAR PROFILES COUPLED WITH A DEEP MOIST MDTLY UNSTABLE AIR

MASS SUPPORTS TORNADIC SUPERCELLS. POTENTIAL FOR STRONG TORNADOS TO

OCCUR GIVEN THE STRENGTH OF THE WINDS FIELDS AND FAVORABLE

THERMODYNAMICS.

Well, long story short, though I can't speak for everyone in Southeast Texas, I barely got any rain out of this event, let alone tornadoes, heavy rain, or severe thunderstorms. So yes Ed I feel your pain too. Here's a good summary from HGX the next day...

AREA FORECAST DISCUSSION

NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE HOUSTON/GALVESTON TX

257 AM CDT WED MAR 19 2008

.DISCUSSION...

UPPER LEVEL TROUGH CONTINUES TO PUSH NE ACROSS N TX THIS MORNING.

A FEW WRAP AROUND SHOWERS WILL BE POSSIBLE THROUGH THE MORNING

HOURS OVER THE NORTHERN HALF OF SE TX. WHILE THE POTENTIAL WAS

THERE...SE TX WAS SPARED OF A SEVERE WEATHER OUTBREAK. LOOKING

BACK AT THE TUE 12Z...18Z AND WED 00Z SOUNDINGS FROM CRP AND

LCH...THE CAP DID INDEED ERODE...BUT PROBABLY NOT QUITE ENOUGH.

THE UPPER LEVEL TROUGH WAS ALSO A LITTLE SLOWER MOVING INTO TX

WITH THE GOOD JET STREAM DYNAMICS OUT OF PHASE WITH LOW LEVEL

FORCING ALONG THE FRONT. ALL SAID...HAD A LINE OF STORMS PUSH

ACROSS SE TX LATER IN THE DAY WITH THE COLD FRONT RESULTING IN

SOME BRIEF HEAVY DOWNPOURS IN A FEW AREAS. COLLEGE STATION BROKE

A RECORD FOR RAINFALL BUT MOST AREAS SAW LESS THAN AN INCH OF

RAINFALL.

Just trying to be funny while messing with Ed. Ok, in all seriousness, I understand where Ed is coming from. Personally, I don't really have a major problem with the whole 'busted' forecast situation. Things happen. Sometimes the atmosphere does things that are not forecasted beforehand. The only issue I kinda have is when I don't get an explanation of why things didn't pan out the way forecasters and computer models advertised. From my illustration above on 03/18/2008, the HGX WFO had advertised a good chance of heavy rain along with a chance of severe thunderstorms. (Even the SPC thought the situation warranted a PDS Tornado Watch for the area.) Well, as it turns out, besides one hail report, we didn't see anything close to what was forecasted within the HOU CWA. But if you notice the next day, the HOU WFO does offer an explanation on why we didn't see the type of weather they had initially forecasted. I would like to see more WFO's do this when the forecast don't pan out for forecasted high impact events. Are they required to offer us this type of explanation everytime a forecast 'busts', if you want to call it that? Not necessarily, though, time permitting, I think it would be nice. I've seen a few WFO's forecast an high impact event for their respective CWA, but the event never materializes as advertised. The very next AFD looks ahead at the next forecast period without mentioning why things didn't go as thought. Personally I would like more NWS WFO's to take a little extra time to do what HGX did after the event described above.

As far as the SPC is concerned, I wonder if they have the time to develop some type of post-storm discussion archive for events where Moderate or High Risk Outlooks were issued. I can imagine most of their effort has to be put forth in looking ahead. However, I have to admit it would have been nice to see a brief discussion from the SPC after 03/18/2008 detailing why we didn't see any high winds, large hail, or tornadoes within the PDS Tornado Watch they issued for us. Though I understand the 'potential' l was there, as someone who watches the weather daily, I would like to know why this situation turned out not to be particularly dangerous. Again, I don't know if this would be feasible or not, especially in these days of 'budget cuts'. However, I think such discussions, especially from the SPC, may help all of us learn when forecasted events verify or 'bust'.

[Analog96]

I would say that if a watch is issued and not a single severe thunderstorm occurs anywhere within the box, that watch is a bust.

But what about a bust the other way?

What about if there's a significant area with severe thunderstorms over a good portion of the area and no watch is issued?

[Ed Lizard]

TWC had Mike Seidel in College Station for that.

SETX is the worst place in the world, outside Nome, AK, for lack of t-storm action*, because of the dreaded warm dry layer off the Mexican higlands and low clouds caught under the inversion from our cold near shore waters that prevents surface heating. The land of wasted CAPE

http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=42035

Dewpoint 5ºF warmer than SST. A recipe for heartbreak

*Tiny exagerration.

[Ed Lizard]

In the "in and near" the watch area we have tornado warnings inside and just outside a severe t-storm watch.

REMEMBER...A SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WATCH MEANS CONDITIONS ARE

FAVORABLE FOR SEVERE THUNDERSTORMS IN AND CLOSE TO THE WATCH

AREA. PERSONS IN THESE AREAS SHOULD BE ON THE LOOKOUT FOR

THREATENING WEATHER CONDITIONS AND LISTEN FOR LATER STATEMENTS

AND POSSIBLE WARNINGS. SEVERE THUNDERSTORMS CAN AND OCCASIONALLY

DO PRODUCE TORNADOES.

The watch has what I believe is standard language about severe storms producing tornadoes plus 'in and close to the watch'.

No confirmed tornadoes yet that I know of, so maybe this watch is almost pinpoint.

But again, something, to an amateur end user of the product (well, not in Missouri), seems not quite right.

[Analog96]

In the "in and near" the watch area we have tornado warnings inside and just outside a severe t-storm watch.

The watch has what I believe is standard language about severe storms producing tornadoes plus 'in and close to the watch'.

No confirmed tornadoes yet that I know of, so maybe this watch is almost pinpoint.

But again, something, to an amateur end user of the product (well, not in Missouri), seems not quite right.

It's not a tornado watch.

[Ed Lizard]

It's not a tornado watch.

Exactly.

Photobucket image just stolen from Tornado Tony...

[AtticaFanatica]

.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

[Ed Lizard]

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Multiple tornado warnings inside and outside a severe t-storm watch. (Not a tornado watch) Using language/modifiers/legalese boilerplate and probabilities, someone can claim the watch verified, but in real world non-met space a lot of people don't think about tornadoes, especially when outside the areal outline of a severe t-storm watch.

[AtticaFanatica]

Multiple tornado warnings inside and outside a severe t-storm watch. (Not a tornado watch) Using language/modifiers/legalese boilerplate and probabilities, someone can claim the watch verified, but in real world non-met space a lot of people don't think about tornadoes, especially when outside the areal outline of a severe t-storm watch.

Anyone can claim anything. What's your point?

[Analog96]

Multiple tornado warnings inside and outside a severe t-storm watch. (Not a tornado watch) Using language/modifiers/legalese boilerplate and probabilities, someone can claim the watch verified, but in real world non-met space a lot of people don't think about tornadoes, especially when outside the areal outline of a severe t-storm watch.

But will they verify tornadoes? And even if a tornado or two is spotted, I believe the SPC usually contains this wording in a svr watch:

SEVERE THUNDERSTORMS CAN AND OCCASIONALLY DO PRODUCE TORNADOES.

For a Tor Watch, you need widespread coverage.

[Ed Lizard]

Anyone can claim anything. What's your point?

That a disinterested amateur observer/end user of the product could assert when multiple tornado warnings are issued, inside and outside the aereal outlines of a watch, the watch was somwwhat less than perfect.

I guess if both warned cells produce confirmed tornadoes, we just need four more watches like this with none at all and probabalistically, it verified perfectly.

I wans't looking for a huge argument. Really.

Probability of 2 or more tornadoes

Low (20%)

[Analog96]

That a disinterested amateur observer/end user of the product could assert when multiple tornado warnings are issued, inside and outside the aereal outlines of a watch, the watch was somwwhat less than perfect.

I guess if both warned cells produce confirmed tornadoes, we just need four more watches like this with none at all and probabalistically, it verified perfectly.

I wans't looking for a huge argument. Really.

And if those warnings don't produce tornadoes, then the watch was perfect.