• Welcome to TalkWeather!
    We see you lurking around TalkWeather! Take the extra step and join us today to view attachments, see less ads and maybe even join the discussion.
    CLICK TO JOIN TALKWEATHER

Severe Weather 3/4 - 3/8

jackhutwx said:
how's it looking for the d3 threat? looking really interesting on rrfs a, but ik that one over does it sometimes (ne illinois).
Click to expand...
There’s a thread for more on that threat @jackhutwx .

CheeselandSkies

Thread 'Severe Weather 3/9 - 3/12'

Given the notable nature and resulting extensive discussion of the activity Thursday evening through yesterday, a number of people expressed support for the idea that the next round of severe weather for early-mid next week should be split off into its own thread.

Perhaps the title for @Sharpy's thread could be changed to 3/4 - 3/8 (continuing through tomorrow) and we'll pick up the discussion for Monday and beyond in here.

Tuesday 3/10 has been the main day of interest for some time, with a broad 15% Day 4 contour now outlined by SPC from south-central Texas northeastward to...
  • Like
 
One of the most unusual outbreaks in many years. I've been paying close attention to this stuff longer than some of you have been alive, and I can't think of one that's quite comparable going back to at least 1990.

Most of the worst tornadoes (except Friday evening's in eastern Oklahoma) occurred in areas well removed from where the greatest threat was thought to be. We had several tornado watches that were almost completely void of severe reports, let alone tornadoes (in particular the one issued for most of central and eastern Iowa Friday night).

It had an unusually high ratio of strong (EF2+) tornadoes to total tornadoes, and unfortunately also an unusually high ratio of killer tornadoes.
 
CheeselandSkies said:
One of the most unusual outbreaks in many years. I've been paying close attention to this stuff longer than some of you have been alive, and I can't think of one that's quite comparable going back to at least 1990.

Most of the worst tornadoes (except Friday evening's in eastern Oklahoma) occurred in areas well removed from where the greatest threat was thought to be. We had several tornado watches that were almost completely void of severe reports, let alone tornadoes (in particular the one issued for most of central and eastern Iowa Friday night).

It had an unusually high ratio of strong (EF2+) tornadoes to total tornadoes, and unfortunately also an unusually high ratio of killer tornadoes.
Click to expand...
Good words. Yeah mostly centered on Oklahoma. Texas had a couple, Arkansas had one, Kansas had a few, Kentucky had one, and Michigan with 4. Just kinda odd and spread out isolated events.
 

"Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s office on Sunday called for a federal investigation into why no tornado watch was issued before a deadly storm struck southwest Michigan.

Whitmer's office questioned whether the lack of a tornado watch alert could be attributed to the Trump administration's funding cutbacks at the National Weather Service.

'The National Weather Service exists to monitor conditions and inform Americans of severe weather in their communities. The fact that the (National Weather) Service did not issue a tornado watch is troubling, especially with the loss of life in Michigan,' Whitmer spokeswoman Stacey LaRouche said in a statement. 'While tornadoes can be hard to predict, the federal government should investigate whether the failure to issue a watch was related to federal cuts.'

The News has reached out to the White House for comment."
 
buckeye05 said:
Everything considered, that’s a fair outcome. Not at all out of the question this thing was violent, but it’s tough to make a case for rating it as such based on poorly anchored cottages.
Click to expand...

Hear me out. We use damage to rate tornadoes because, for the most part, we usually don't have more evidence to go off of, right? So, when stronger and more conclusive evidence exists we should definitely be using that. We have a half dozen highly detailed videos of the tornado. Why not use those to decide the rating?

It makes no sense to say "there isn't strong enough evidence for a higher rating because the homes weren't built well enough." When we can look right at the tornado and make our judgement based on that.

If you have clear video evidence of someone comitting a crime, you don't ignore it and throw out the evidence because "the fingerprints were smudged." That's exactly what we're doing here. We have clear video evidence the tornado had very high-end winds. The argument, "the damage isn't enough to prove it" doesn't work, because we already have the proof we need. We don't even need the damage. It's the less useful evidence in this case.
 
Last edited:
Grand Poo Bah said:

"Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s office on Sunday called for a federal investigation into why no tornado watch was issued before a deadly storm struck southwest Michigan.

Whitmer's office questioned whether the lack of a tornado watch alert could be attributed to the Trump administration's funding cutbacks at the National Weather Service.

'The National Weather Service exists to monitor conditions and inform Americans of severe weather in their communities. The fact that the (National Weather) Service did not issue a tornado watch is troubling, especially with the loss of life in Michigan,' Whitmer spokeswoman Stacey LaRouche said in a statement. 'While tornadoes can be hard to predict, the federal government should investigate whether the failure to issue a watch was related to federal cuts.'

The News has reached out to the White House for comment."
Click to expand...
Seems like a stretch lol. That was one tornadic storm, a freak event.
 
Kds86z said:
Seems like a stretch lol. That was one tornadic storm, a freak event.
Click to expand...
It does. Which is why I find it so laughable that it's even being questioned. It's happened down here a few times and no one said boo. It just happens sometimes in the right conditions.
 
Grand Poo Bah said:
Hear me out. We use damage to rate tornadoes because, for the most part, we usually don't have more evidence to go off of, right? So, when stronger and more conclusive evidence exists we should definitely be using that. We have a half dozen highly detailed videos of the tornado. Why not use those to decide the rating?

It makes no sense to say "there isn't strong enough evidence for a higher rating because the homes weren't built well enough." When we can look right at the tornado and make our judgement based on that.

If you have clear video evidence of someone comitting a crime, you don't ignore it and throw out the evidence because "the fingerprints were smudged." That's exactly what we're doing here. We have clear video evidence the tornado had very high-end winds. The argument, "the damage isn't enough to prove it" doesn't work, because we already have the proof we need. We don't even need the damage. It's the less useful evidence in this case.
Click to expand...

With the exception of photogrammetry, the rating system does not work on the basis of the visual appearance or video of the tornado. In fact, with the exception of a few old cases that are largely disregarded, that’s actually never been the case. The reality of the situation is that tornadoes are rated based on damage, they’ve always primarily been rated based on damage throughout history, and you’re trying to put forth an idealistic personal perception-based version of the rating process that isn’t shared by anyone in the meteorological field, has never really existed, and therefore is not worth discussing. You can scream about the way you want things to be as much as you want, but it doesn’t change reality, and I’m only interested in having a conversation either within the confines of the current reality of the scale, or within the confines of the possible future of the scale. I’m not interested in discussing immeasurable visual perception-based concepts that aren’t realistically applicable, have no academic or scientific basis, and by all indications never will.

In an nutshell, an argument that essentially boils down to “that tornado looked crazy though” simply does not have any substance in terms real world scientific application, and if it’s not applicable, there’s nothing to discuss.
 
Last edited:
Grand Poo Bah said:

"Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s office on Sunday called for a federal investigation into why no tornado watch was issued before a deadly storm struck southwest Michigan.

Whitmer's office questioned whether the lack of a tornado watch alert could be attributed to the Trump administration's funding cutbacks at the National Weather Service.

'The National Weather Service exists to monitor conditions and inform Americans of severe weather in their communities. The fact that the (National Weather) Service did not issue a tornado watch is troubling, especially with the loss of life in Michigan,' Whitmer spokeswoman Stacey LaRouche said in a statement. 'While tornadoes can be hard to predict, the federal government should investigate whether the failure to issue a watch was related to federal cuts.'

The News has reached out to the White House for comment."
Click to expand...
Not to get political in this thread, but the Gaylord tornado back in 2022 came out of a severe thunderstorm watch with 20/5 tornado probs...

I didn't see Whitmer blaming the president back then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top