Promet Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 I think we way overwarn for thunderstorms. Any thunderstorm can cause a lightning fire of a house or tree or topple branches or trees depending on many NON weather factors such as drought, tree health, wet root zone. Back when I was a kid (and weather fanatic then too) we just had thunderstorms, sometimes we had thunderstorms with hail and strong winds that blew things down or around. We didn't have a warning, but they were forecast. We knew what thunderstorms were and what they were capable of, just like we knew how to dress for cold weather and what to do during a heat wave. Now we have special weather statements, significant weather alerts, and any thing on radar with a tiny red dot for 5 minutes gets a warning. Part of the nanny state... and maybe it helps justify budgets and staffing. As a broadcast met I know the public (my listeners and viewers) and my friends and neighbors and colleagues have grown complacent ho-hum about them and rightfully so. Any thing less than "a killer tornado on the ground warning gets a big YAWN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 I think we way overwarn for thunderstorms. What do you believe should be the new objective criteria to issue an SVR then? SVRs are likely to verify, in fact, they are twice as likely to verify than not verify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoosier Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 What do you believe should be the new objective criteria to issue an SVR then? SVRs are likely to verify, in fact, they are twice as likely to verify than not verify. We discussed this a little bit in the Central forum I think (or somewhere on this board). Someone mentioned raising the wind criteria to 70 mph so that it would eliminate all of the warnings we see for "damaging winds in excess of 60 mph." I'm not sure I'd fully support that but I can see the argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 We discussed this a little bit in the Central forum I think (or somewhere on this board). Someone mentioned raising the wind criteria to 70 mph so that it would eliminate all of the warnings we see for "damaging winds in excess of 60 mph." I'm not sure I'd fully support that but I can see the argument. Significant damaging (tree falling) winds begin around 58 mph tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoosier Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Significant damaging (tree falling) winds begin around 58 mph tho. Granted my thoughts are largely personal/anecdotal, but it seems like the overwhelming majority of trees can withstand some 60 mph gusts unless they are in a weakened condition or the soil is extremely wet. Branches falling is another story and that of course presents some hazard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Granted my thoughts are largely personal/anecdotal, but it seems like the overwhelming majority of trees can withstand some 60 mph gusts unless they are in a weakened condition or the soil is extremely wet. Branches falling is another story and that of course presents some hazard. I've seen less wind knock down trees. Marginal storms we only had an SPS on. You're always going to find subjective cases around an objective criteria level. There is no way around that. Anyway...the FAR speaks for itself. SVRs are not over-warned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoosier Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 I've seen less wind knock down trees. Marginal storms we only had an SPS on. You're always going to find subjective cases around an objective criteria level. There is no way around that. Anyway...the FAR speaks for itself. SVRs are not over-warned. I agree about verification...the FAR is certainly much better than it is for tornadoes. My post was more about whether the criteria should be raised which is straying a little off subject I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 I agree about verification...the FAR is certainly much better than it is for tornadoes. My post was more about whether the criteria should be raised which is straying a little off subject I suppose. If you account for all outliers...one could make a logical case for having the objective criteria raised or lowered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.