Jump to content

  • Member Statistics

    17,910
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Gilkian8980
    Newest Member
    Gilkian8980
    Joined

May 15-20 Severe Threat

MattPetrulli

By MattPetrulli,
in Central/Western States

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 870
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Buckeye05

Buckeye05

Posted
Posted
  On 5/18/2017 at 11:58 PM, Stebo said:

No offense but you brought up something that didn't even happen, I get why SmokeEater is calling you out on it. As for those events I don't remember it happening then outside of a couple non regular severe posters. You get randoms that come along but the rest of us don't do that nonsense.

Expand  

I realize it didn't happen and probably should have specified. Today had some impressive signatures. I was just saying I find those kind of posts more annoying than bust calls in general, not in relation to today's event. 

Again moving on...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stebo

Stebo

Posted
Posted
  On 5/18/2017 at 11:56 PM, jojo762 said:

With 15+ tornadoes now, this will classify as a regional "outbreak," just didn't get the type of higher-end tornadoes that were expected/possible, for a variety of reasons. Area VWPs while storms were discrete/semi-discrete were meager and unimpressive. As of now, VWPs at OUN and KFD are fairly impressive depicting good veering with height, but VNX and ICT are much less favorable, depicting a high amount of low/mid level meridional flow. 

Expand  

That is part of the issue with the risk categories, 30% probability for tornadoes in the HIGH risk, 12 of the reports fell in the HIGH. As for verifying the significant tornado part, you need a tornado to hit something appreciable for that to matter. The thing is people think of HIGH risks as 50+ tornadoes with a bunch of wedges. From a probability standpoint this actually would verify as a HIGH or very close to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stebo

Stebo

Posted
Posted
  On 5/19/2017 at 12:01 AM, Buckeye05 said:

I realize it didn't happen and probably should have specified. Today had some impressive signatures. I was just saying I find those kind of posts more annoying that bust calls in general.

Again moving on...

Expand  

I just don't see them happening enough to matter/care to be honest and something like that can easily be corrected during the thread discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MattPetrulli

MattPetrulli

Posted
  • Author
Posted
  On 5/19/2017 at 12:01 AM, Stebo said:

That is part of the issue with the risk categories, 30% probability for tornadoes in the HIGH risk, 12 of the reports fell in the HIGH. As for verifying the significant tornado part, you need a tornado to hit something appreciable for that to matter. The thing is people think of HIGH risks as 50+ tornadoes with a bunch of wedges. From a probability standpoint this actually would verify as a HIGH or very close to it.

Expand  

Probability wise, yes. But a 10% or a 15% would have verified too.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Quincy

Quincy

Posted
Posted
  On 5/19/2017 at 12:01 AM, Stebo said:

That is part of the issue with the risk categories, 30% probability for tornadoes in the HIGH risk, 12 of the reports fell in the HIGH. As for verifying the significant tornado part, you need a tornado to hit something appreciable for that to matter. The thing is people think of HIGH risks as 50+ tornadoes with a bunch of wedges. From a probability standpoint this actually would verify as a HIGH or very close to it.

Expand  

I wish CIPS still updated their PPF realtime page. Any event with a close cluster of reports could easily yield MDT/HIGH risk "verification". It seemed overdone to some. Especially storms impacting at least relatively populated areas. Or just spots with a lot of spotter reports. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MattPetrulli

MattPetrulli

Posted
  • Author
Posted
  On 5/19/2017 at 12:04 AM, Stebo said:

Very true, I don't know if SPC has changed to focus more on a probability standpoint which is why we have seen 4 HIGHs this year, which in all reality from probability standpoint only one of those busted.

Expand  

I look at risks as wording. Not a lot of people look at SPC risks as probabilities, but rather if there will be an outbreak and how significant will it be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stebo

Stebo

Posted
Posted
  On 5/19/2017 at 12:06 AM, Quincy said:

I wish CIPS still updated their PPF realtime page. Any event with a close cluster of reports could easily yield MDT/HIGH risk "verification". It seemed overdone to some. Especially storms impacting at least relatively populated areas. Or just spots with a lot of spotter reports. 

Expand  

Yeah I hear you on that. In this case too it was many storms that did produce. Not just one supercell going hard producing 20 reports along. That is where you will skew things from a probability standpoint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jojo762

jojo762

Posted
Posted
  On 5/19/2017 at 12:02 AM, MattPetrulli said:

Probability wise, yes. But a 10% or a 15% would have verified too.  

Expand  

Synoptically and with the progged ingredients in place, especially with what the 00Z NAM showed, the High risk made sense. Storms formed too soon to take advantage of the environment that was progged to be in place at 00z. Plenty of 00z and 12z CAMs did horrible with convective evolution  aside from early CI, regardless of whatever bull**** someone wants to spew, almost all unanimously showed rapid upscale growth into a line or broken-line shortly after CI, and that didn't happen whatsoever. We had several discrete cells between 19-23Z, along with a few clusters (especially further north), but nothing anywhere near a large convective line. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MattPetrulli

MattPetrulli

Posted
  • Author
Posted
  On 5/19/2017 at 12:06 AM, Quincy said:

I wish CIPS still updated their PPF realtime page. Any event with a close cluster of reports could easily yield MDT/HIGH risk "verification". It seemed overdone to some. Especially storms impacting at least relatively populated areas. Or just spots with a lot of spotter reports. 

Expand  

Some of it was overdone, it considered that March event in Illinois last year a high risk worthy event with about 9-10 tornadoes, 1 or 2 of which were strong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stebo

Stebo

Posted
Posted
  On 5/19/2017 at 12:06 AM, MattPetrulli said:

I look at risks as wording. Not a lot of people look at SPC risks as probabilities, but rather if there will be an outbreak and how significant will it be.

Expand  

Yeah I completely understand that, most people do. My discussion is more of a reason of validation for them since I know there will be people out there looking to crush SPC, saying OMGWTFBUST.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OceanStWx

OceanStWx

Posted
Posted
  On 5/19/2017 at 12:06 AM, MattPetrulli said:

I look at risks as wording. Not a lot of people look at SPC risks as probabilities, but rather if there will be an outbreak and how significant will it be.

Expand  

And SPC views them probabilistically. That way they don't issue too many high risks because it "feels like" a high risk day. They have hard numbers to back it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OceanStWx

OceanStWx

Posted
Posted
  On 5/19/2017 at 12:08 AM, jojo762 said:

Synoptically and with the progged ingredients in place, especially with what the 00Z NAM showed, the High risk made sense. Storms formed too soon to take advantage of the environment that was progged to be in place at 00z. Plenty of 00z and 12z CAMs did horrible with convective evolution regardless of whatever bull**** someone wants to spew, almost all unanimously showed rapid upscale growth into a line or broken-line shortly after CI, and that didn't happen whatsoever. We had several discrete cells between 19-23Z, along with a few clusters (especially further north), but nothing anywhere near a large convective line. 

Expand  

That is an important point too. Early initiation meant that the parameter space hadn't lined up with the most discrete storms. They were rather displaced enough to allow updrafts to begin interacting with each other as LLJ winds got going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Misstertwister

Misstertwister

Posted
Posted

You guys are funny. My wee wee is bigger than your wee wee!!! You guys arguing reminds me of my tee ballers  

 

I have to admit I have learned a lot from you guys on reading parameters and looking at model data days out.  I'm in no category like many of you all that actually know what you're looking at but I certainly appreciate all you guys do on this forum  I have told a lot of friends with no skill whatsoever about this website and they go to it a lot during tornado season. A couple even got subscriptions  I think. You have releived a lot of anxiety for many people if they know about this forum

But to say one model verified better than the other is just down right laughable. Bottom line is storms formed, there were tornadoes and possibly people lost some property. The models aren't exact just like the predictors at NWS. A HIgh Risk to us is different to many people. 

Us arm chair QB's don't have to worry about people or property like NWS does so there's no pressure on us to get the word out. We read the data and give our own interpretation of what will happen, when it happens and where it happens. From the safety of our couch, no one blaming us if we're wrong while we play D&D while drinking Mountain Dew and eating  Funions. I've lived in OK my entire life and yes we have had dangerous life changing tornadoes. But more often than not how many times do we see this happen. A highly volatile day where storms explode, cut off each other or merge and die out or go upscale. 

Anyways, I sincerely love seeing or rather reading you all S thoughts on possible days and will continue to learn from you. 

 

PS I too called the Patriots come back and Tiger Woods will get #19

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SmokeEater

SmokeEater

Posted
Posted
  On 5/19/2017 at 12:18 AM, SluggerWx said:
I'm not sure if I'm allowed to discuss couplet strength or not anymore 
But the TOR warned cell south of Alva and west of Cherokee, OK has strong winds, which appear to be moving in opposite directions.
And is tornado warned.


lol

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Quincy

Quincy

Posted
Posted
  On 5/19/2017 at 12:15 AM, Wmsptwx said:

Weird watching these storms conceal and some just deteriorate completely. 

Expand  

It's interesting what happens when a strongly unstable environment is fragmented like Swiss cheese, while shear profiles continue to improve.

It's like an increasingly small and randomized target on a dartboard. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...