Thunder Road Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 The tornado watches issued were "low" for.strong tornadoes. (Not that anyone knows what that means) SPC actually has a very specific definition for what that means. The "Low" category contains probability values ranging from less than 2% to 20% (F2-F5 tornadoes), less than 5% to 20% (all other probabilities), I believe the percentages apply the same way as they do elsewhere: they are the chance of a particular event happening within 25 miles of a point within the aforementioned area. http://www.spc.noaa.gov/products/watch/ww0191.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Unfortunately I'm too young to remember 5/3/1999, but a prof I had this semester said that that day was also a somewhat ambiguous set-up, and not a major tornado-producing day. Seems like today was very similar, no? Although it sounds like SPC handled it better this time around. I think the prof said that the morning outlook on 5/3/1999 was only a SLGT? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Oklahoma_tornado_outbreak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoosier Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 The sad reality is these types of tornadoes do damage that some structures simply can not withstand. "Just" a moderate risk, as clearly mentioned by brettjrob and Cumet, more than covered the risk potential for today. Even events like today, which were not the evident, classic High risk outbreaks like April 27th, can produce devastating tornadoes. An isolated strong tornado, which in some ways was slightly freakish given the overall synoptic storm environment in that location, does not warrant an SPC High risk. It was clear today had potential for a few isolated strong tornadoes, and the SPC had a very strongly worded day 3 risk that mentioned potential for a regional severe weather outbreak, a day 2 moderate mentioning potential for strong tornadoes, and NWS Norman had talked about it for days as well. The "warning" and risk "potential" were clearly laid out. Well said. There are days where a major tornado outbreak is synoptically evident, and then there are days like this where there's a fluke monster that just happens to hit a populated area. As bad as today was, the thing I'm even more concerned about is that someday a massive tornado hits a densely populated area outside of the classic tornado alley when there has not been much awareness about tornadoes leading up...basically something like what happened in Plainfield, Illinois in 1990. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SluggerWx Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 The tornado watches issued were "low" for.strong tornadoes. (Not that anyone knows what that means) And I think this is the point - not the level of risk that's updated a half dozen times a day - but when an active watch is issued, I hope all the research/modeling can improve to where we can at least forecast a higher probability of a significant tornado once a watch is issued. They are two separate numbers, with a specific area to call out 'strong' tornadoes. Despite the many things done well at the NWS and SPC, this is one failure I recognize from today. The watch probabilities in OKC did not accurately account for the risk - despite issuing a watch in a 'hatched' area, in the middle of the day, with an eroded cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mempho Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 As stated earlier in the thread, it takes money the schools don't have to build shelters. Even FEMA shelters (they pay up to 75% of the cost) aren't fully covered and the school district has to come up with 'matching funds' to have the shelters built. Getting matching funds usually involves raising property taxes, and that usually requires a vote of the people in the district to raise their taxes. Since many schools are never hit by a tornado, people see that as wasteful spending. Maybe having 3 in 14 years will be enough to raise those "matching funds" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dljuly3 Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 The point is that this stuff doesn't necessarily protect the public. I'm not sure what you are getting at. The information was communicated pretty clearly through the media that the chance existed. You can't artificially bump up your warnings; when you do this, you run the risk of false alarms, which in turn makes the public trust you less. SPC actually has a very specific definition for what that means. I believe the percentages apply the same way as they do elsewhere: they are the chance of a particular event happening within 25 miles of a point within the aforementioned area. http://www.spc.noaa.gov/products/watch/ww0191.html Yeah, aware, was just giving a more general overview. I find that most people don't really understand percentages (hence why we use the "low", "slight", "high", etc. terminology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 How? Should they have closed school for hundreds of thousands of kids across Kansas, OK, TX, etc? You can't pin down where a violent tornado will strike with that kind of lead time. It's not like it's a huge synoptic kind of storm like a Nor'easter, hurricane, etc, that can be forecasted and impacts charted up to several days ahead of time. You react to a tornado in a matter of minutes. Great post! What if this tornado didn't happen anywhere today and the schools all decided to at least have early release? People would find a reason to complain about it and not really care the next time around if it did happen. It's a damned if you did, damned if you didn't decision and I think everything was done correctly for an area such as Oklahoma (tornado alley). As you mention synoptic, mesoscale is getting so good lately. The 4KM Meso models did amazing for various cells 24 hours before they popped, and in some cases even more lead time. I think NOAA is onto something with these Hi-Res Meso models, even if they aren't the best for us Winter lovers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 I'm a little behind. Just got back into Norman, and just got internet back. Here's a good radar loop of the storm. Sorry if already posted http://i.minus.com/iluhrlDRbUSAQ.gif Do you have or happen to know where one could obtain the whole life of this twister for GRLEVEL2AE? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Kinda sad and disturbing and sobering all at the same time when twitter and FB are being used for parents to call phone numbers about their kid being found safe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brettjrob Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Unfortunately I'm too young to remember 5/3/1999, but a prof I had this semester said that that day was also a somewhat ambiguous set-up, and not a major tornado-producing day. Seems like today was very similar, no? Although it sounds like SPC handled it better this time around. I think the prof said that the morning outlook on 5/3/1999 was only a SLGT? Yes and no. 5/3/99 was ambiguous only because it was conditional on initiation (breaking the cap). Once storms formed, the environment was absolutely primed over a huge area, and the results spoke to that. Today, initiation was certain, but the environment was questionable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mempho Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Trust me when I say I'm as emotional as you are in looking for a solution to this problem but honestly tell me what you do with a dozen buses of school children stranded away from their families without provisions for possibly days? And with communication lines cut, how would parents know where to find their children? The staff at this school did everything they could. If you want more, lobby your congressman for more funding for public education so that they can build safe rooms in each classroom. Well- I was just in the area for work and I love Oklahoma (except for the Thunder)- so perhaps I do have a bit of anger about it- but there has to be a better way then what we're seeing here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dljuly3 Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 And I think this is the point - not the level of risk that's updated a half dozen times a day - but when an active watch is issued, I hope all the research/modeling can improve to where we can at least forecast a higher probability of a significant tornado once a watch is issued. They are two separate numbers, with a specific area to call out 'strong' tornadoes. Despite the many things done well at the NWS and SPC, this is one failure I recognize from today. The watch probabilities in OKC did not accurately account for the risk - despite issuing a watch in a 'hatched' area, in the middle of the day, with an eroded cap. The first part I agree with. The last, anything but. The watch probabilities perfectly outlined the risk. The media and the forecast offices highlighted that it could happen. Once again, you can't artificially bump up your probabilities simply to scare people. This day very well could have produced nothing but minor tornadoes. Also, having an eroded cap speaks to the thunderstorm risk, but speaks very little to the other parameters for a tornado risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dsnowx53 Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Before any discussion gets going, let's keep global warming out of this thread. We have the Climate Change subforum for such discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 This. We were tragically unlucky today. From a completely objective, meteorological standpoint, there wasn't anything that special (on an observable and forecastable scale, in any case) about today's severe weather setup that stands out in comparison to many other events, and in fact, those days you brought up were obviously more conducive days for significant/violent tornadoes. This is important to keep in mind for those wondering why the SPC didn't issue a high risk/PDS watch or things of that nature. The best you can say is that there still exists the potential for a few significant tornadoes, which could have a big impact depending on where they track, which even I said being one of the more conservative voices in forecasting for today. I agree with you, +10! If there were multiple high end EF-3-EF-5 type twisters hitting multiple areas of dense population, then and only then could we even think of questioning NOAAS decision along with other's. But just like NOAA, none of us could have guessed that Moore would be in the wrong place at the wrong time for something that wasn't even promised to happen at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ensō Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Do you have or happen to know where one could obtain the whole life of this twister for GRLEVEL2AE? http://hurricane.ncdc.noaa.gov/pls/plhas/has.dsselect You may have to wait 'til tomorrow before it's posted though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jm1220 Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Well said. There are days where a major tornado outbreak is synoptically evident, and then there are days like this where there's a fluke monster that just happens to hit a populated area. As bad as today was, the thing I'm even more concerned about is that someday a massive tornado hits a densely populated area outside of the classic tornado alley when there has not been much awareness about tornadoes leading up...basically something like what happened in Plainfield, Illinois in 1990. I don't know the Midwest very well, but I feel that this kind of event has been overdue for quite some time, particularly given the growth of even traditional Tornado Alley cities like Lincoln, NE or Kansas City, Tulsa, Dallas, etc. These events like today are just impossible to predict on a small scale. Even here in NYC, i.e. Brooklyn and my own Nassau County have had EF2's, imagine what Indianapolis, Chicago, St. Louis, or a similar city could face pretty much any day during the spring months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 This discussion is honestly going into a topic (warning lead times, etc.) that I seriously do not believe warrants this much attention for this particular event. EF4/EF5 tornadoes hitting populated areas, by their definition, do catastrophic damage. This was no exception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CUmet Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Unfortunately I'm too young to remember 5/3/1999, but a prof I had this semester said that that day was also a somewhat ambiguous set-up, and not a major tornado-producing day. Seems like today was very similar, no? Although it sounds like SPC handled it better this time around. I think the prof said that the morning outlook on 5/3/1999 was only a SLGT? In addition to brettjrob's excellent response, I'll add that the result of the 5/3/1999 event was MUCH bigger than today's. That event was a legit major tornado outbreak, and would still be notable if the Moore tornado never happened, which is not the case for today's event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyhb Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 This discussion is honestly going into a topic (warning lead times, etc.) that I seriously do not believe warrants this much attention for this particular event. EF4/EF5 tornadoes hitting populated areas, by their definition, do catastrophic damage. This was no exception. This, no matter where it is. If you add up the tornadoes for both days (Sunday/Monday), and if you put them all on one day, then you might have something that rivals 5/3/99, but just today or just Sunday apart from each other in terms of the extent of the potent storms doesn't match 5/3/99 like CUmet mentioned. Regardless, this is going to be a red-letter day in severe weather history, and particularly OK severe weather history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 As the WFO in Chicago today stated, a "slight" risk does not mean the storms are going to be "slightly" damaging. I believe this is a common misconception held by the public. You know, this is a good point. Maybe the public would listen better if the word "slight" was changed? Good future discussion topic for sure if not already done. http://hurricane.ncdc.noaa.gov/pls/plhas/has.dsselect You may have to wait 'til tomorrow before it's posted though. Thank you very much! I forgot all about the NOAA level 2 data site! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amped Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Watches and warnings were put out on time. That being said I don't think anyone expected today to turn out as bad as it did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunder Road Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Oklahoma_tornado_outbreak So the prof is not totally correct (or I misunderstood) in that it was more of an "outbreak" than today was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jm1220 Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 I agree with you, +10! If there were multiple high end EF-3-EF-5 type twisters hitting multiple areas of dense population, then and only then could we even think of questioning NOAAS decision along with other's. But just like NOAA, none of us could have guessed that Moore would be in the wrong place at the wrong time for something that wasn't even promised to happen at all. The NWS/SPC made the best decisions it could today. It's impossible to predict beyond minutes whether a metro area will be affected by a devastating tornado when certain parameters are in place over several states. That's the risk of living in Tornado Alley-metro areas like in the Northeast can fairly accurately be predicted several days in advance for events such as Nor'easters, blizzards, etc. Even Sandy was known a threat for us 5 days out. I wouldn't envy a Plains forecaster on a day like today. It's pretty much like playing Russian Roulette. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunder Road Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Do you have or happen to know where one could obtain the whole life of this twister for GRLEVEL2AE? http://hurricane.ncdc.noaa.gov/pls/plhas/has.dsselect You may have to wait 'til tomorrow before it's posted though. To add... http://www.lakeeriewx.com/TechnicalReference/GRLevelArchivedImages.html (I assume it's the same for Level II data...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 So the prof is not totally correct (or I misunderstood) in that it was more of an "outbreak" than today was. Yes, definitely. May 1999 had a ridiculous ceiling, and the slight, from what I understand, was due to quite a bit of uncertainty regarding a southern stream anomaly and the associated cirrus field--and the effects on CINH. Today had potential for isolated strong tornadoes, but the ceiling never looked High risk (well..not within the last 2-3 days). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyhb Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Watches and warnings were put out on time. That being said I don't think anyone expected today to turn out as bad as it did. I'm going to admit that I thought today would be more focused along the Red River Valley, especially with some of the WRFs that performed excellently on Sunday keying in on that area. That said, when I (and I'm sure others) saw that supercell developing around Bridge Creek, it looked so eerily similar to the big storms on Sunday when it was developing that it just had that look of trouble from the beginning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SluggerWx Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 I also hope that with over 9 EF-5 tornadoes since 2007, we can identify a way to allocate focus away from large scale events and find more precursors to specifically target large, violent tornadoes. We have so much data now, and there needs to be a larger 'out-of-the-box' discussion about EF-4 and EF-5 tornadoes and why they do what they do. Because right now, we don't have an answer for the problem - and we can't just give up and say 'it's weather man, it's going to happen.' There are commonalities and scientific explanations for why these nine communities were destroyed by EF-5 tornadoes: Greensburg Parkersburg Philadelphia (MS) Hackleburg Smithville Rainsville Joplin El Reno Unconfirmed: Moore (unconfirmed) Tuscaloosa/Birmingham (one survey team, I believe, did rate this EF-5) There are populations that were affected by all of the above tornadoes - that's a commonality. They're all in the CONUS - that's a commonality. There is a scientific discussion - and a debate that needs to happen, with perhaps outside the box thinking, to explore why EF-5 tornadoes happen - period. We must not throw out ideas because they disagree with current scientific thought process - the current scientific thought process has no explanation on how to predict an EF-5 tornado, or, how to tell when something will go from an EF-3 to an EF-5. My outside-the-box thought is that two things add to rapid intinsification: 1) automobiles as projectiles 2) the common day power grid/electric transformers 1) I think our developed power grid may enhance the strength/intensification of a 'strong' tornado and puts it over the edge...the EF-3 to EF-5 gap. My thought is that the kinetic energy from a blown transformer has something to do with it. 2) Automobiles sit on inflated tires and become incredible projectiles that can disrupt the structure/foundation that allows vortex airflow to further dismantle a structure - moreso than if the same structure was hit without an automobile also impacting said structure. Any thoughts/ideas can't be dismissed or laughed out of the room - that's not the spirit of scientific discovery. What is in the spirit is putting ideas out there. We can make a structure that can withstand winds, but the whole research equation is thrown out the door when the experiment is marred or invalidated by an outlier (a flying, tumbling car). If the integrity of the structure is damaged from a car that lands in the center of a room, a well-built structure can go from an anchored, wind-withstanding dwelling to a vulnerable series of mini-structures that are now all operating/depending on their own structural integrity (not the entire integrity of the frame/combined materials) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 For reference, May 3, 1999 NARR. Greensburg, KS 2007 also had a similar looking height field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 I'm going to admit that I thought today would be more focused along the Red River Valley, especially with some of the WRFs that performed excellently on Sunday keying in on that area. That said, when I saw that supercell developing around Bridge Creek, it looked so eerily similar to the big storms on Sunday when it was developing that it was trouble from the beginning. That cell that basically sat still around Comanche (Texas).. does anyone know why that cell sat for so long and caused such a flood? I think it was tor warned for at least half it's life cycle and at least two different areas of rotation at many points? In fact, the rotation got extremely strong on the front end at times, and I noticed not much talk about it. Just over rural area? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyhb Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 For reference, May 3, 1999 NARR. Greensburg, KS 2007 also had a similar looking height field. The next day, 5/4/99 (also a high risk), actually looked a lot like 4/26/91 in the 500 mb department, IIRC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.