Jump to content

  • Member Statistics

    17,609
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    NH8550
    Newest Member
    NH8550
    Joined

April 19th Severe Event

Bob's Burgers

By Bob's Burgers,
in Southeastern States

 Share

Recommended Posts

jojo762

jojo762

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, MattPetrulli said:

Man those high risk rumors are flying tonight on Twitter

Good lord, again? Can’t wait to see all the pissed off people when/if they don’t go high risk. Wx twitter has been a disaster lately. 
 

edit: allegedly was stated on the NWS chat, but nobody has actually verified this...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 460
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Moderately Unstable
Moderately Unstable

Short version, giant hodograph, high critical angle.  Longer version...When you're looking for a strong tornado, you look for that big right turning hodograph. There's also a decent amount of academic

jpeters3
jpeters3

Funny that the weenies were going nuts this morning about the lack of a High risk call from SPC.  Seems like another good forecast on their end, given the uncertainty. 

jpeters3
jpeters3

Issuing a high risk last weekend would have been irresponsible given the uncertainty.  And issuing a high risk this morning also would have been irresponsible, regardless of the outcome.   Yet

Posted Images

CryHavoc

CryHavoc

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, jojo762 said:

Good lord, again? Can’t wait to see all the pissed off people when/if they don’t go high risk. Wx twitter has been a disaster lately. 
 

edit: allegedly was stated on the NWS chat, but nobody has actually verified this...

I mean.... high risk would have absolutely verified last week....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jojo762

jojo762

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, CryHavoc said:

I mean.... high risk would have absolutely verified last week....

Just seems silly given the uncertainties with regard to convective evolution and storm mode. Tornadoes WILL happen, but there’s not a well defined corridor imo where the conditional probability would warrant a 30% sig-tor contour.

Seems like it would be issued as a result of recency bias due to last Sunday. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CryHavoc

CryHavoc

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, jojo762 said:

Just seems silly given the uncertainties with regard to convective evolution and storm mode. Tornadoes WILL happen, but there’s not a well defined corridor imo where the conditional probability would warrant a 30% sig-tor contour.

Seems like it would be issued as a result of recency bias due to last Sunday. 

Yeah.  I'm not trying to advocate for a HGH risk tomorrow, especially since the setup doesn't look as promising as last week.

However... all that said...

I think NWS is significantly too conservative in much of their predictions.  A lot of people died last week who were out of the MDT risk area.  I sincerely believe we are still years if not decades away from understanding the underlying synoptic conditions that make one event a bust and another an outbreak.  As someone who's spent much of his career attempting to protect people from harm, they take the under on a given day far too often.  I understand there's no easy solution here with respect to being a service who cries "wolf" too often, but it's my sincere belief that giving space to the best possible setup is far more important than trying to play it safe for fear of casting out a high risk on a bust day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Moderately Unstable

Moderately Unstable

Posted
Posted

Messy forecast. Could go either way. High end potential is there. Easy to bust. Some may depend on what you define high risk to be. Technical definition of probability of a tornado within certain distance, vs. large potential area of strong tors, multiple rounds and foci, and two modes (isolated cells, QLCS's). Clearly, going to be an active day for the south. The corrected HREF probabilities are sort of telling--a conservative model showing a very high cumulative risk. Conditionals favor a moderate, at any given time, BUT, overall setup favors a high. The risk at any single point in time may not meet the 30% guideline, but it is possible that the cumulative 24 hour period WOULD justify it. However... bust potential also high. So, do they issue a high tonight, or stay moderate and change it in the AM, as was floated last week but ultimately never done? Beyond the nerd factor, high risks get carried pretty widely across the media. You don't want to play boy who cried wolf, we've seen high profile high risk busts. So before issuing a high, you want confidence that basically sounding your red alert alarm is warranted. People won't pay attention if you overwhelm them with too many warnings. I think, if you're the SPC, given the data, high risk is justified here. It was justified last week too. But it's hard to argue keeping a moderate until the AM. 

 

Edit: Re crying wolf. Here's the thing, this is a philosophy question. The reason you don't over-warn, is because you get warning fatigue. I live in Philly. People DO NOT change their behavior when even a tornado warning is issued. At ALL. "Oh my phone just said there's a tornado warning *proceeds to go outside to go run x errand*". I've seen this a lot. When everything is a severe thunderstorm, nothing is, until it's on top of you and, oops. The public is constantly being distracted with many different stimuli. As with a tornado emergency, you can warn a tornado that may kill people, and is large, with an emergency, or pds warning. Death, however, does not justify issuing an emergency, or a high risk. They are not related concepts. Many things are deadly, and they are not related to probabilities. You can absolutely say, this storm is dangerous and may kill you.  That's quite different from a high risk of someone experiencing that in a given area. And that matters, because if 90% of your warning group sees nothing, they WILL NOT pay attention to the next one, which may NOT be so kind. Does not matter if 10% saw destruction, the 90% do not equate that to mean them. Similarly, tornado emergencies are best used when a big tornado is striking a large population center. A tornado warning, should be sufficient to tell people "take cover". Dixie alley is not a place to use your finite "pay attention to me" ammo, unless you really feel you need to. Otherwise, use a lower tier, and warn the heck out of that. In a nutshell: people dying is not sufficient for high risk (sad to say), and people will die tomorrow. Somewhere, in the south, a storm, in a 24 hour period, will kill someone. We don't know how many, or where. That's the truth. However, you risk more people dying in the future if you warn too strongly, and it doesn't pan out. Hence, this isn't just a forecast question. It's the trolley problem. Next Thursday remains another, uh oh, kind of possibility. Do not use your ammo, before you need to. Given who is writing the outlook, high risk is certainly likely. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Radtechwxman

Radtechwxman

Posted
Posted

Not discounting significant tornado potential tomorrow but I'm unsure if high risk probs will verify. Just shocked they're doing it at all esp tonight when we need to see how morning convection evolves. I think a lot of this is because of similar areas impacted. SPC outlooks do have a political aspect to them

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MississippiWx

MississippiWx

Posted
Posted

Seeing rumors of high risk upgrade here in Southeast Mississippi for tomorrow. I must say that is a shock. Instability seems to be greater than last week's event, but magnitude of shear seems to be less. While the total number of tornadoes may be lower than last week, the SPC may be thinking a more concentrated area of strong tornadoes is on the table. Color me unexcited. :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jojo762

jojo762

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Bob's Burgers said:

Next Thursday might be the Coup de grâce for the southeastNo photo description available.

Clicked on a few random point forecast soundings in the warm-sector on the Ukie, and good lord... Feels too far out to talk about specifics, but that'd be ugly. Good thing there isn't too much agreement on what will happen -- for now.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Moderately Unstable

Moderately Unstable

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, StormySquares said:

How do chasers or public get access to NWS Chat?

Quoting (they don't), bolding mine:

 

NWSChat
You are accessing a U.S. Government information system, which includes: 1) this computer, 2) this computer network, 3) all computers connected to this network, and 4) all devices and storage media attached to this network or to a computer on this network. You understand and consent to the following: you may access this information system for authorized use only; you have no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding any communication of data transiting or stored on this information system; at any time and for any lawful Government purpose, the Government may monitor, intercept, and search and seize any communication or data transiting or stored on this information system; and any communications or data transiting or stored on this information system may be disclosed or used for any lawful Government purpose.

NWSChat is an Instant Messaging program utilized by NWS operational personnel to share critical warning decision expertise and other types of significant weather information essential to the NWS's mission of saving lives and property.

This information is exchanged in real-time with the media and emergency response community, who in turn play a key role in communicating the NWS's hazardous weather messages to the public.

NWS partners can use NWSChat as an efficient means of seeking clarifications and enhancements to the communication stream originating from the NWS during a fast-paced significant weather or hydrologic event.

In order to participate in NWSChat, you must meet at least one of the following standards:

NWSChat Live!
Access NWSChat Live.
 
Access Online Tools
NWSChat Username (not handle) :
 @nwschat.weather.gov
Password:

 
 
Important Links
Change NWSChat Password
Request NWSChat Account - NWS Partners
Request Account - NWS Personnel
Documentation
Office Contacts
 
News and Notes RSS Feed
  • Be a member of the emergency management (EM) community with a need to actively participate in discussions with NWS on imminent weather or other hazards: Members of the EM community include public safety officials who serve as employees or contract agents of a government agency at the federal, state, local, or tribal level and are charged with protecting the public from hazards that are influenced by weather or weather-related events. Other members of this community include: safety and emergency personnel, from universities or other large entities with large populations, whose roles are functionally equivalent to the public safety officials described above, and Skywarn Net Control Operators, such as Amateur Radio Emergency Services (ARES) and Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Services (RACES).
  • Be a government partner of a NWS office: This includes Government partners who have missions that require close coordination with the NWS. Government partners include (but are not limited to) the FAA, and water and land management officials.
  • Be a member of the electronic media: Members of the electronic media are parties, and contract agents of parties who:
    • Have a need to actively participate in discussions with NWS Forecast Offices on imminent weather or other hazards, and
    • Operate systems that routinely and rapidly relay weather and water watches, advisories, warnings and forecast information to a significant part of the population served by an NWS office; via electronic information distribution such as radio, television, internet, cellular, and other wireless means.

Note: Individuals, companies, or other entities involved in ‘chasing’ weather events and posting or streaming text or pictures of the event, but do not otherwise have a need to communicate with NWS do not meet the qualifications for this Service, regardless of the number of ‘followers’ or recipients.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CryHavoc

CryHavoc

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, StormChaser4Life said:

Twitter is entertaining tonight. Apparently BMX talked SPC out of issuing the high risk. Can't confirm anything. Rumor mill a spinning hard tonight. Lol

I just don't get it. 

If we see 60+ tornadoes tomorrow, it's going to be two undersold predictions in a row, all in the name of trying to be careful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jojo762

jojo762

Posted
Posted

Given the reference of the greatest threat for a "cluster of tornadoes" in southeast MS to South-central AL, the idea that a high-risk was drawn up seems plausible -- given everything that was being said on twitter. It's all meaningless anyways, the atmosphere does not care what any of us think or say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Moderately Unstable

Moderately Unstable

Posted
Posted

Mkay, think this is a sound call. Few thoughts--this isn't wishcasting. There isn't enough confidence here to issue high right now. They can absolutely go high in the AM if they need to. Broad area of SOME risk, different than concentrated area of HIGH risk. Once we see how things shape up in the AM, there will be a better handle on the setup. I'm going to play the reverse card: if tomorrow is a bust, would you rather it was a high risk or moderate? You can always up your warning language, hard to go down. For the public, this will have the same warning language and be communicated effectively, and that's what matters. There is 0 chance anyone who hears about this, in the public, will act differently, because the risk is moderate (aka 4) instead of high (5). They don't know what that means. This is for emergency managers. And they can get the last update in the AM. No one is going to die because a moderate was issued instead of a high. The same person will or will not die. I hope that the rumors I read that Birmingham doesn't want a high period bc this isn't as severe as last week's setup, period, no matter what, isn't true though. That similarly shouldn't have any bearing here. Statistics are statistics. Either your probability is high enough or it isn't. However I'm guessing bc it covers some of the same area, they advocated that lower risk shouldn't be articulated as higher risk. Sigh. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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