CheeselandSkies
Member
Washington County, AL tornado rated low-end EF3.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
3 significant tornadoes so far.Washington County, AL tornado rated low-end EF3.
that tornado pulled a smithville...digging up the ground and debarking trees immediately after touching down.The Caldwell County, Louisiana tornado from yesterday was also upgraded to a low-end EF3.
Just looked it up on Twitter after seeing your post, and yep, that thing sure did tear up that field.that tornado pulled a smithville...digging up the ground and debarking trees immediately after touching down.
It may have been stronger but some people suggest that maybe the tornado was able to scour that area easily and a violent tornado isn't required.pretty nuts. it also seemed to have lost most of it's strength very quickly too...never again reaching its former power
Looks like large swaths of the moderate risk area were devoid of severe reports.
While certainly not a busted event, I definitely expected higher-end supercell behavior and consistent severe weather/tornado production from at least 1 or 2 storms, something like the storm of the day on 12/10/21, storms A and B on 5/3/99, every storm on 4/27/11, etc.
A lot of moderate risks have overperformed when it comes to violent tornadoes although. Like March 13, 1990, and December 10th-11th 2021 for example etc.Besides the two EF3s, the EF2 that killed folks north of Montgomery, and the Lowndes County, MS EF2, we also have an EF2 southeast of Bay Springs, MS in Jasper County. That's five strong tornadoes already with surveys still ongoing, and that also doesn't count the weaker tornadoes that add to the total count. I think it's a matter of us needing to readjust our expectations some to what verified but not under-forecasted Moderate Risk days are really supposed to be like. For the most part, they shouldn't quite achieve violent tornadoes like any of the individual storms you mentioned (although that does happen in more than isolated cases for sure). The SPC risk system is completely probabilistically driven now and has been for several years, but back when it was reports-driven, for an area the size of roughly Oklahoma without the panhandle, the criteria for a Moderate Risk was 6 to 19 tornadoes. That isn't how they verify the risks anymore, but the probabilistic risks now are supposed to be smoothly comparable to historic risks from the reports-driven era (a MDT now should = a MDT from the 90s, etc). A lot of people don't realize it, but while the MDT on 12/10/21 was a good call because of the question marks ahead of time, it firmly would've verified a High Risk, both in strong/violent count and in total tornado count. Even the outbreak back on November 4th, for the concentrated area impacted, it would've firmly verified a High Risk as well.
And by very nature of them overperforming, that means that they have done more than what you should expect from such a risk day, as determined by how the whole system was designed to operate. It doesn't mean that's the caliber of event that the Moderate Risk is designed to depict. That means, for whatever reason (justified or otherwise), the event was actually under forecast in comparison to the actual results of the event.A lot of moderate risks have overperformed when it comes to violent tornadoes although. Like March 13, 1990, and December 10th-11th 2021 for example etc.
Probably, and that even the mid-level lapse rates didn't take long to get worked over. There's also the issue that we went almost the full first half of the event with hodographs on the area VWPs a good bit smaller than most model guidance had suggested. There's also the part where the event was primary directly tied with the subtropical jet, and that almost always means an event that doesn't end up being quite as bad as it otherwise could be, even if the forecasts for it are on point in the end.Thanks, @Fred Gossage . I didn't realize they'd changed the criteria, I still remember the 6-19 tornadoes for a moderate risk, 20+ for a high risk in an area of Oklahoma w/o the Panhandle from reading the SPC site in 2003 or so.
While certainly a destructive and dangerous event, something was clearly keeping a leash on the storms to some extent. Do you think it was the weak low level lapse rates some mentioned ahead of time, or something else?
We can honestly say the same thing about High Risk days too. A lot of heifers out here on this bird app and on this Facebag think that if the event isn't worse than 4/27/2011 and has a massive fatality count, then a High Risk wasn't needed, even if the event had 40 or 50-something tornadoes and like 7 or 8 of them were strong. Some of these over-performing MDT Risk days have skewed our perception a bit of what a MDT Risk was really designed to cover, just like 4/27/11 skewed a lot of people's perception (even in the degreed met community) of what verifies a High Risk or what constitutes a "tornado outbreak". I don't think any of it is truly intentional. I think it's a byproduct of going through some of the over-performing events.Besides the two EF3s, the EF2 that killed folks north of Montgomery, and the Lowndes County, MS EF2, we also have an EF2 southeast of Bay Springs, MS in Jasper County. That's five strong tornadoes already with surveys still ongoing, and that also doesn't count the weaker tornadoes that add to the total count. I think it's a matter of us needing to readjust our expectations some to what verified but not under-forecasted Moderate Risk days are really supposed to be like. For the most part, they shouldn't quite achieve violent tornadoes like any of the individual storms you mentioned (although that does happen in more than isolated cases for sure). The SPC risk system is completely probabilistically driven now and has been for several years, but back when it was reports-driven, for an area the size of roughly Oklahoma without the panhandle, the criteria for a Moderate Risk was 6 to 19 tornadoes. That isn't how they verify the risks anymore, but the probabilistic risks now are supposed to be smoothly comparable to historic risks from the reports-driven era (a MDT now should = a MDT from the 90s, etc). A lot of people don't realize it, but while the MDT on 12/10/21 was a good call because of the question marks ahead of time, it firmly would've verified a High Risk, both in strong/violent count and in total tornado count. Even the outbreak back on November 4th, for the concentrated area impacted, it would've firmly verified a High Risk as well.
Probably, and that even the mid-level lapse rates didn't take long to get worked over. There's also the issue that we went almost the full first half of the event with hodographs on the area VWPs a good bit smaller than most model guidance had suggested. There's also the part where the event was primary directly tied with the subtropical jet, and that almost always means an event that doesn't end up being quite as bad as it otherwise could be, even if the forecasts for it are on point in the end.