TalcottWx Posted July 28, 2014 Author Share Posted July 28, 2014 Outflow boundary of some sort ripped through medford as I was heading home. Windy for a few minutes. Can see it coming south on velocity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HIPPYVALLEY Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Warning here that is quite the line segmant Cell SE of Rumford looks potent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dryslot Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Cell SE of Rumford looks potent. Yes, That cell is, Heading NE towards Chisolm, Thunder off in the near distant now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dryslot Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Buddy of mine at IZG on the North end of Long lake just told me they had dime's with that cell that moved thru Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdxken Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Near Boston College this morning - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoarfrostHubb Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 I bet Maine pulls an EF0 out of this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dendrite Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 ferocious. Couldn't pay attention for a couple hours. What a line Fun evening for NNE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dryslot Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Nice light show Frequent CTC and CTG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT Rain Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Blogged a bit about today's storm here --> http://ryanhanrahan.com/2014/07/28/thoughts-on-todays-tornado/ The Revere tornado brings up interesting questions about how we should be communicated tornado debris signatures and such. Also, this is another example of a TDS that appeared in the NE that hasn't been mentioned by the NWS in warnings or statements - not sure if there is a reason why that is (i.e. they're not using a TDS as confirmation or just not seeing it). There was never going to be any lead time for this TOR given the quick nature of how it spun up and spun down. The 2 hours of watching Boston media tweet about "was it a tornado???" was maddening when the TDS confirmed that it was already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan11295 Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 65 Buildings were damaged per the mayor of Revere. 12 uninhabitable. Sure it was fairly weak and wasn't on the ground long, but you drop anything like that in a city in Metro Boston area you are going to have damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nittany88 Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Blogged a bit about today's storm here --> http://ryanhanrahan.com/2014/07/28/thoughts-on-todays-tornado/ The Revere tornado brings up interesting questions about how we should be communicated tornado debris signatures and such. Also, this is another example of a TDS that appeared in the NE that hasn't been mentioned by the NWS in warnings or statements - not sure if there is a reason why that is (i.e. they're not using a TDS as confirmation or just not seeing it). There was never going to be any lead time for this TOR given the quick nature of how it spun up and spun down. The 2 hours of watching Boston media tweet about "was it a tornado???" was maddening when the TDS confirmed that it was already. I'm pretty sure its against policy to use the word "confirmed" unless it was visibly seen by spotters, photos, tv crews, emergency manasgers, etc. But I may be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 I'm pretty sure its against policy to use the word "confirmed" unless it was visibly seen by spotters, photos, tv crews, emergency manasgers, etc. But I may be wrong. If it meets polarmetric debris sig criteria it's used as confirmation or radar confirmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapturedNature Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 I'm pretty sure its against policy to use the word "confirmed" unless it was visibly seen by spotters, photos, tv crews, emergency manasgers, etc. But I may be wrong. I agree to the extent that I think it would be wrong to say that it was confirmed when in fact it had not been confirmed officially yet. "tweets" are one thing but I'm wondering what was said in live discussions o behind the scenes. After all, they are meteorologists and I would think that they know how to read signatures just as well as anyone else who has had training. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapturedNature Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 If it meets polarmetric debris sig criteria it's used as confirmation or radar confirmed. Sure, but if it had not been officially confirmed than is it acceptable to say that was officially confirmed? I wasn't able to watch the coverage live but I wonder if there were subtleties of language being used waiting for "official" confirmation from the official source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT Rain Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 I'm pretty sure its against policy to use the word "confirmed" unless it was visibly seen by spotters, photos, tv crews, emergency manasgers, etc. But I may be wrong. I've seen "radar confirmed tornado" from other offices. WDTB training also says a TDS is more accurate conformation than a spotter report! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nittany88 Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 I've seen "radar confirmed tornado" from other offices. WDTB training also says a TDS is more accurate conformation than a spotter report! Okay yeah I think "radar confirmed" would be okay. Have to make sure the radar part is in there though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT Rain Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Sure, but if it had not been officially confirmed than is it acceptable to say that was officially confirmed? I wasn't able to watch the coverage live but I wonder if there were subtleties of language being used waiting for "official" confirmation from the official source. The own training for the NWS says a TDS " guarantees a tornado has touched down".., that's good enough for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT Rain Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 I agree to the extent that I think it would be wrong to say that it was confirmed when in fact it had not been confirmed officially yet. "tweets" are one thing but I'm wondering what was said in live discussions o behind the scenes. After all, they are meteorologists and I would think that they know how to read signatures just as well as anyone else who has had training. Why? They reference a "confirmed tornado" when a spotter sees a tornado - why wouldn't you say "confirmed tornado" when radar shows one. The literature shows that a TDS "guarantees" a tornado on the ground... and the NWS own training documents say a TDS is more reliable than a spotter report of a tornado. If you say "Radar confirmed a tornado over Revere moving northeast at 25 mph" or something like that I think that gets the message across. The 2 hours of waiting for them to say it "was a tornado" is ridiculous IMO. There was no question it was a tornado by 9:35 a.m. Why wait until 11:40 to say it when radar guaranteed a tornado did in fact touchdown? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamarack Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Great 60-minute light show here, with about 15 strikes/minute for the first half and 30+ for the 2nd. Heaviest rain came in the 2nd 15 minutes, after a quarter hour of near constant gusts 25-35, far from svr but much longer lasting than most TS of my experience. Rain lightened up during the best lightning display, with storm total just over 0.7", and 1.45" for the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbutts Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 So did any TV station ID the TDS and cover the storm before the NWS warning went out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT Rain Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Okay yeah I think "radar confirmed" would be okay. Have to make sure the radar part is in there though. Was just going back and looking at old warnings and it's apparently pretty common practice (especially in the central region) to call a storm with a TDS a "confirmed tornado" and then put the source (radar confirmed) in a subsequent line. I know they're doing the impact based stuff there... but there's no ambiguity with the fact they're using the phrase "confirmed tornado" when there's a TDS. Why the discrepancy between regions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JC-CT Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Was just going back and looking at old warnings and it's apparently pretty common practice (especially in the central region) to call a storm with a TDS a "confirmed tornado" and then put the source (radar confirmed) in a subsequent line. I know they're doing the impact based stuff there... but there's no ambiguity with the fact they're using the phrase "confirmed tornado" when there's a TDS. Why the discrepancy between regions? I noticed it all the time this year in Tornado Alley warnings. When there was a TDS, it said that exact wording "at X:XX, a confirmed tornado was heading...Source: radar confirmed tornado." But even more appalling about today's tornado with respect to radar: http://dutchsinse.tatoott1009.com/7282014-boston-massachusetts-another-international-airport-hit-with-a-tornadoa/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powderfreak Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 I noticed it all the time this year in Tornado Alley warnings. When there was a TDS, it said that exact wording "at X:XX, a confirmed tornado was heading...Source: radar confirmed tornado." But even more appalling about today's tornado with respect to radar: http://dutchsinse.tatoott1009.com/7282014-boston-massachusetts-another-international-airport-hit-with-a-tornadoa/ What in the Sam hell is that? Man-made or radio wave induced tornados? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT Rain Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 So did any TV station ID the TDS and cover the storm before the NWS warning went out? I don't think so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT Rain Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 What in the Sam hell is that? Man-made or radio wave induced tornados? It's scary that people believe that stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radarman Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Lol. Where can I get one of them tornado inducing radars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoarfrostHubb Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Oh noes...radars is causing twistahs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JC-CT Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 What in the Sam hell is that? Man-made or radio wave induced tornados?I searched Google for "revere tornado debris signature," first two hits were Ryan's blog, the third one was that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powderfreak Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Lol. Where can I get one of them tornado inducing radars? That's what I was thinking... wouldn't you think if that were true, we'd have those things set up in like eastern Montana, playing around with making tornadoes for fun? haha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christina311 Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.