Ellinwood Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Remember, we're talking about wording for SEVERE weather. If its a squall line, but only isolated cells will produce severe weather, then isolated would be the way to go. However, if you are expecting a widespread derecho, then you'd want to go with that. Anyway, this is my thinking. I like it. When I talk to my clients, I will usually say something like "scattered storms expected, with isolated severe" when such a situation arises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewxmann Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Remember, we're talking about wording for SEVERE weather. If its a squall line, but only isolated cells will produce severe weather, then isolated would be the way to go. However, if you are expecting a widespread derecho, then you'd want to go with that. Anyway, this is my thinking. A few isolated supercells have much more destructive potential than a marginally severe squall line. The isolated, scattered, widespread wording doesn't quite catch that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebo Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Remember, we're talking about wording for SEVERE weather. If its a squall line, but only isolated cells will produce severe weather, then isolated would be the way to go. However, if you are expecting a widespread derecho, then you'd want to go with something higher. Anyway, this is my thinking. I see your reasoning now, I like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famartin Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 A few isolated supercells have much more destructive potential than a marginally severe squall line. The isolated, scattered, widespread wording doesn't quite catch that. Also remember, I'm not proposing changing the current guideline of how to rate these, which is severe weather within a certain radius (I forget the mileage off-hand). If you are sure you are going to get destructive supercells within said radius, you would rate it high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewxmann Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Also remember, I'm not proposing changing the current guideline of how to rate these, which is severe weather within a certain radius (I forget the mileage off-hand). If you are sure you are going to get destructive supercells within said radius, you would rate it high. I may have misunderstood then... my bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMo Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Remember, we're talking about wording for SEVERE weather. If its a squall line, but only isolated cells will produce severe weather, then isolated would be the way to go. However, if you are expecting a widespread derecho, then you'd want to go with something higher. Anyway, this is my thinking. I also like this better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billgwx Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Arrrgh...I hate that "Enhanced" category. There must be a better word to define what comes between Slight and Moderate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT Rain Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Oh I know. Not that the public really needs to understand all the details, but that's where the media could do more to educate if they are going to use the graphics. Totally agree with this. I don't see any reason to show these graphics to the public unless you spend a lot of time educating. Many TV mets couldn't tell you what they mean... yet are using them on TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superstorm93 Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 In my honest opinion, an "Enhanced Risk" sounds like something one step above a "High Risk" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyhb Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 In my honest opinion, an "Enhanced Risk" sounds like something one step above a "High Risk" It almost sounds like a variable risk that could be between any risk or above a high (although "extreme" tends to be the word that comes to mind when I think about above high), sort of in a similar way to hatching denoting potentially significant svr wx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMo Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Our local NWS and some others around here uses the following for the Hazardous Weather Outlooks: None, Limited, Elevated, Significant, Extreme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSUBlizzicane2007 Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 I think it is clear from the discussion in this thread that the wording is confusing. To me, Moderate sounds less extreme than Enhanced, but at the same time, Enhanced sounds like it could mean "slightly more than marginal". The best thing would probably be to take out Enhanced entirely and adjust the bars to be along the following categorisations: Thunder Marginal Slight Moderate High Extreme/Exceptional Where a "Moderate Risk" could be part of the proposed "Enhanced Risk" area, while the new "High Risk" is lower than the previous definition for High. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
somethingfunny Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Slight is the worst word given what it actually means in this context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famartin Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I think it is clear from the discussion in this thread that the wording is confusing. To me, Moderate sounds less extreme than Enhanced, but at the same time, Enhanced sounds like it could mean "slightly more than marginal". The best thing would probably be to take out Enhanced entirely and adjust the bars to be along the following categorisations: Thunder Marginal Slight Moderate High Extreme/Exceptional Where a "Moderate Risk" could be part of the proposed "Enhanced Risk" area, while the new "High Risk" is lower than the previous definition for High. Slight and marginal seem to mean the same or might even be in reverse order in many people's minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phlwx Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Arrrgh...I hate that "Enhanced" category. There must be a better word to define what comes between Slight and Moderate. low? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSUBlizzicane2007 Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Slight and marginal seem to mean the same or might even be in reverse order in many people's minds. This is possible as well. I suppose slight is a bad word as well, though I like the introduction of marginal... it makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Its interesting to see some of the comments here. Most of the people I talked to at the meeting weren't exactly thrilled with the wording but thought it was a step in the right direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billgwx Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Its interesting to see some of the comments here. Most of the people I talked to at the meeting weren't exactly thrilled with the wording but thought it was a step in the right direction. I agree. We really have to make sure the words convey their intended meaning and that people act accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
somethingfunny Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 I would limit it to words that play up the fact that severe storms are more likely today than they are in any random afternoon popcorn scenario. Slight risk is a bad word and really needs to be eliminated altogether; Marginal is as bad as Slight. Moderate really isn't a great word either, since "moderation" implies "not too much, we're keeping it conservative." Enhanced or Elevated might do well as a lowest-risk-tier phrase. High ought to be the phrase for the middle tier, and the highest tier really needs to convey something apocalyptic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tornadotony Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 I would limit it to words that play up the fact that severe storms are more likely today than they are in any random afternoon popcorn scenario. Slight risk is a bad word and really needs to be eliminated altogether; Marginal is as bad as Slight. Moderate really isn't a great word either, since "moderation" implies "not too much, we're keeping it conservative." Enhanced or Elevated might do well as a lowest-risk-tier phrase. High ought to be the phrase for the middle tier, and the highest tier really needs to convey something apocalyptic. You can't change high risk from what it is now. It's too much the vernacular in some parts of the country (such as where I live right now). If you start calling high risk something less than it is right now, people are going to get very confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nwohweather Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 One of my first thoughts is that, with Marginal and Enhanced included now, they might be better off removing Slight Risk completely to avoid confusion. Just a quick thought based off a first look at things. One of the problems is that the general public interprets these terms dramatically different than meteorologists or even weather hobbyists. This! I remember in the midnight tornado outbreak here in June 2010 many friends and family seemed to downplay the threat because it was only a slight risk. Instead we get numerous strong tornadoes, such as the one F4 just east of Perrysburg and people were completely stunned. It seems like the word slight puts people's guard down instantly and as a student majoring in Emergency Management I can tell you that is the absolute worse thing the public will ever do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg ralls Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 Did anything ever come of this? I'm assuming we still have the traditional risk categories for 2013. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teru Teru Bozu Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 Did anything ever come of this? I'm assuming we still have the traditional risk categories for 2013. Seems that way. We're headed into prime severe weather season for most areas of the country, so I'd assume that the lack of anything about this sort of change on SPC's website thus far means we won't be seeing the new system for a while yet. They're http://www.spc.noaa.gov/exper/SELhazard/'>tweaking the format of weather watch bulletins a bit starting in mid-April and the announcement about that has been up for a couple of months now, for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellinwood Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 Here's something new from the SPC: Area affected in square miles and population listed below the risk maps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrisrotary12 Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 Ian, please check PMs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PottercountyWXobserver Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 March so far has been incredibly quite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weathergy Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 I think maybe it's time to be a bit more descriptive, and actually say what these terms mean. In layman's terms, this is how I interpret the categories. Slight -> Severe storms possible Moderate -> Severe storms likely High -> Dangerous severe storms likely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtticaFanatica Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 They're based directly on probability. http://www.spc.noaa.gov/misc/prob_to_cat_day1_seetext.jpg http://www.spc.noaa.gov/misc/prob_to_cat_day2_seetext.jpg http://www.spc.noaa.gov/misc/prob_to_cat_day3_seetext.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 They're based directly on probability. http://www.spc.noaa.gov/misc/prob_to_cat_day1_seetext.jpg http://www.spc.noaa.gov/misc/prob_to_cat_day2_seetext.jpg http://www.spc.noaa.gov/misc/prob_to_cat_day3_seetext.jpg Sometimes the Internet seems like a bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyhb Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 I think maybe it's time to be a bit more descriptive, and actually say what these terms mean. In layman's terms, this is how I interpret the categories. That's what the convective outlook text is for... Usually with high risks or moderate risks, you'll see a header reading something along the lines of... "A POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT SEVERE WEATHER OUTBREAK IS EXPECTED THIS AFTERNOON AND EVENING ACROSS X LOCATIONS." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.