I'd say a lot of people think anything less than 4/27 on a high risk day is a Forecasted Convective Amplification Deficiency.
to the SPC's credit, they did react during the event this time and move the high risk to the correct area. the initial high risk area was well placed based on what the models were showing at the time, so it's not entirely fair to criticize it ex post facto. they made a good decision with the information they had available, it just happened that the information they had wasn't good. they deserve credit for making the adjustment once they had better information rather than sticking to their guns when the data was telling them otherwise.
and that's a really bad way to think about it, because 4/27/11-type events are probably a once 30 or 40 years thing. it's not realistic to expect even days with exceptional parameters like yesterday to produce 300 tornadoes and 4 EF5s because that almost never happens, even in high risks that verify very well. model errors/biases and mesoscale fluctuations are always a hazard. this kind of goes back to my point from the 3/17 thread, that people don't understand probability and uncertainty very well and that's a major problem for something like weather forecasting, where there's an inherent level of uncertainty. I don't know how you fix public perceptions of that aside from improving the scientific and mathematical literacy of the general population that doesn't pay attention to the weather, which...yeah, good luck with that.
Yesterday felt closer to, say, 4/8/1998 than 4/27/2011 or 4/3/1974. I tend to consider the former to be a more appropriate (though still rather high-end even for a High Risk) "typical storm" example for a High Risk-worthy event.
Yeah, I mean, historically that's what most high risk days have been: several supercells that produce significant tornadoes with one or two "storms of the day" that get going in the best environment and produce violent tornadoes. It's not realistic to expect a dozen long-track supercells that produce multiple violent tornadoes because that almost never happens even in high-end events.
I know that wx is fickle. I respect the SPC and wx forecasters. Honest question. Does the SPC individuals get supervised and graded like most individuals that do with their jobs? I believe the SPC is throwing out moderate and high risks wo even thinking of the consequences. Many people get upset and anxiety when they see a moderate or high risk. Also schools closing and businesses. Daily lives are affected by their outlooks. Also the wording they used yesterday and last week were terrifying. I believe what needs to change is the perception of what each outlook means and when it should be issued. I don’t believe a high risk should be issued until the event is happening. Like issuing a tornado emergency. Moderate to me should be the high risk to issue day of if needed. To me these 2 outlooks should be used for knowing there will be mostly EF3 or stronger tornadoes that day. If the average is going to be closer of having EF0–3 tornadoes then stair step it up. Marginal mostly EF1-2. Enhanced EF1-3. Slight EF0-1. Yes letting public know there could be a stronger one. To me Moderate is used way to much. High risk is joining that thinking. I also think outlooks at 4 days or more needs to stop. 3 should be max. That’s plenty of time to get word out. I mean for real an enhanced already? To me the outlook for tomorrow should be slight and adjusted tonight or early morning if need be.
On the flip side, I just saw a Tweet from a guy complaining about how Newnan was only under a slight risk but was hit by a significant tornado. Thankfully someone pointed out that Newnan had been under a Tornado Watch for hours before they were hit. Personally I think SPC should stop using the marginal, slight, enhanced, etc. terminology and use numerical levels like hurricane categories. When people hear "Slight Risk," they a probably thinking an outside chance of a thunderboomer with some wind. There is no easy answer because many people don't really pay attention.
You are correct. They are working towards using Threat levels 1,2,3,4,5. You can see this on many NWS graphics packages from yesterday. I am with ya!
Only heard of one so far, hopefully it stays that way.
You do realize that the high risk last week was the first one issued since 2019, which was the only one issued since 2017? So before last week, we had 1 high risk in the last 3 years.
