• 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 WX Severe threat 3/30-3/31

From the NWS Louisville, KY earlier Monday afternoon, is stating this regarding Sunday.

"The exact timing, placement, strength of this system is quite uncertain for now, but the overall pattern does suggest that some severe weather could be possible in this time frame, perhaps in multiple waves. SPC has placed our entire area in a Day 7 Outlook, which largely seems to be aided by some of the latest machine learning runs. Will say that not all of the deterministic data is on board, so not overly confident at the moment. For example, the 24/00z ECMWF wasn't as impressed with the setup, and therefore there are no notable signals in that run of the EFI data for CAPE/Shear. Stay tuned to the latest forecasts as this system becomes more clear through the week."
 
andyhb said:
I'm confused. You say that the forecasts are not verifying first and that there might be some change in issuance policy because of politics (this is a touchy subject for me, admittedly). Then you say 4 times they have used them, they were fine? Your initial statement included none of the further context provided later, which does clear things up, but I don't really think I was taking things out of context with my initial responses.
Click to expand...

Edit: condensing my point now that I better understand where people are coming from.

To me, the word "Bu$t" indicates a lack of approval/disappointment for the original forecast, whereas "didn't verify" is a more objective viewpoint of an outcome that was always possible. The SPC doesn't deal in absolute certainty. A 100% risk doesn't exist. There has to be an objective way to view the ultimate outcome, that doesn't equate to degrading the world class work the SPC and NWS does... Right? Either way, I approve of the increased lead time for severe events, because ultimately it's better for public safety. It's that simple.
 
Last edited:
Another topic:

On March 20th weather soundings were reduced to one flight per day at Aberdeen, SD, Gaylord, MI, Grand Junction, CO, Green Bay, WI, North Platte, NE, and Riverton, WY. They were completely suspended in Omaha, Nebraska, Rapid City, South Dakota, and Des Moines, Iowa.

I'm pretty nervous about the northern part of this threat area as well as future Midwest risks.

The Oct 3, 1979 Windsor Locks, CT F4 killer tornado was completely missed because:

"No tornado watches or warnings were issued before the storm struck. This was later determined to be because of missing atmospheric sounding data, as well as an incorrect assessment of the height of the tropopause, which led to an underestimation of the strength of the thunderstorm which produced the tornado."
 
Todd said:
From the NWS Louisville, KY earlier Monday afternoon, is stating this regarding Sunday.

"The exact timing, placement, strength of this system is quite uncertain for now, but the overall pattern does suggest that some severe weather could be possible in this time frame, perhaps in multiple waves. SPC has placed our entire area in a Day 7 Outlook, which largely seems to be aided by some of the latest machine learning runs. Will say that not all of the deterministic data is on board, so not overly confident at the moment. For example, the 24/00z ECMWF wasn't as impressed with the setup, and therefore there are no notable signals in that run of the EFI data for CAPE/Shear. Stay tuned to the latest forecasts as this system becomes more clear through the week."
Click to expand...

Their neighbor (Paducah) states there will be plenty of shear in their afternoon update. I would say further West definitely looks more potent at the moment.
 
Grand Poo Bah said:
Well, that actually brings me to a final point I wanted to bring up. It's probably important this community establishes some distinction between storm systems "not verifying" and being "busts". The latter is an extremely negative and distasteful viewpoint about an event that threatens peoples' lives. The former is a net positive for everyone aside from maybe a few meteorologists who might feel like they raised a false alarm (which isn't justified because they provided the best possible forecast with the information they had). It's a great thing when severe weather doesn't verify. It means we got lucky and devastation was avoided. The word "busts" implies disappointment in a lack of devastation, and is a viewpoint that is never justified. It's a word I've never, and no one should ever use.

Maybe that helps explain my perspective. The politics I was referring to was in regards to them being dangerously understaffed, and maybe erring on the side of caution. I'm pleased there are more day 6/7 risks (but not with the understaffing) because the earlier awareness is raised to potential threats, the better it is for everyone. A 15% risk tells people to keep an eye on the weather because there's a small chance something bad is coming. It gives people the opportunity to plan around it, and spread the word, especially when the risk is during a weekend. However, it also equally predicts there's an 85% chance everything will be fine. It's not a negative when a 15% risk doesn't verify, because the 85% chance of no severe weather is an equally valid forecast. It's ok to tell people to pay attention to a rapidly evolving situation.

On the same note, I saw a lot of people ask about failure modes with the 03/15 storms, then when people provided it they were scolded for misinterpreting the data. It rubbed me the wrong way because I think it's important to look at both sides of a forecast, even as the severe side becomes more and more likely. I also saw the tone shift the day of the storm and some people were showing the disappointment you'd typically see with a "busts" attitude. So I can see how it has become a point of emphasis. The intent is the important part I think.
Click to expand...
There is no distinction between "not verifying" and "busting." "Not verifying" is a euphemism for "busting." If I say a system didn't verify, I'm saying it bu$ted. How can something not verify, but not bu$t? Maybe there is a difference in intention, but they mean the same thing.

I think some people are too quick to call bu$t (which I'll blame on the cesspool known as WxTwitter). This forum is full with amatuers, hobbyists, and experts. That's what makes it great. But some amatuers/hobbyists occasionally think they are experts. I love seeing people (and this includes me currently) that aren't experts try to dip their toes in the water of some of the more technical stuff, but I wouldn't listen too much to people who refuse to acknowledge the "fly in the ointment." They are basically wishcasting.

Sorry for the long reply and at this point we've already derailed this thread.
 
MMWX (FKA TornadoFan17) said:
There is no distinction between "not verifying" and "busting." "Not verifying" is a euphemism for "Forecasted Convective Amplification Deficiency." If I say a system didn't verify, I'm saying it Atmospheric Anti-Climax. How can something not verify, but not Forecasted Convective Amplification Deficiency? Maybe there is a difference in intention, but they mean the same thing.

I think some people are too quick to call Forecasted Convective Amplification Deficiency (which I'll blame on the cesspool known as WxTwitter). This forum is full with amatuers, hobbyists, and experts. That's what makes it great. But some amatuers/hobbyists occasionally think they are experts. I love seeing people (and this includes me currently) that aren't experts try to dip their toes in the water of some of the more technical stuff, but I wouldn't listen too much to people who refuse to acknowledge the "fly in the ointment." They are basically wishcasting.

Sorry for the long reply and at this point we've already derailed this thread.
Click to expand...

Yep, but thank you for acknowledging that. You're the first one who has. :) Great conversation, but if you guys could take it to a thread that's not specifically about the potential severe threat for this weekend, it would be appreciated.
 
andyhb said:
Uhh, all of those verified almost exactly to what a 15% risk for severe weather within 25 miles of a given point should. A 15% at D7 does not automatically mean "outbreak". It just means a higher confidence than usual of some kind of severe weather at that range. Those outlooks do not divide the percentages into specific kinds of severe weather.

There's a reason they do not outline significant severe areas that far in advance.
Click to expand...
And this is partially why you have the MET tag lol
 
We’re already at page 6 with over 100 replies and this is only day 7 before this risk comes. Here comes another 200+ page forum. (Let’s hope not, but it won’t surprise me :))

Anyways that was just a little joke and laugh. I do see this kinda being like last system. Having similarities like high moisture returns, widespread coverage. But finer details will of course have to come later.
 
MMWX (FKA TornadoFan17) said:
There is no distinction between "not verifying" and "busting." "Not verifying" is a euphemism for "busting." If I say a system didn't verify, I'm saying it bu$ted. How can something not verify, but not bu$t? Maybe there is a difference in intention, but they mean the same thing.

I think some people are too quick to call bu$t (which I'll blame on the cesspool known as WxTwitter). This forum is full with amatuers, hobbyists, and experts. That's what makes it great. But some amatuers/hobbyists occasionally think they are experts. I love seeing people (and this includes me currently) that aren't experts try to dip their toes in the water of some of the more technical stuff, but I wouldn't listen too much to people who refuse to acknowledge the "fly in the ointment." They are basically wishcasting.

Sorry for the long reply and at this point we've already derailed this thread.
Click to expand...

I understand now. Thanks for explaining.
 
CheeselandSkies said:
*The* largest, at least specifically for Day 7:

Click to expand...


Just for fun:

2. Double Moderates, southern Moderate didn't really pan out, but 30 tornadoes from mostly the Northern moderate.
3. Outbreak ended up being primarily the night before, as models sped up, with double enhanced, 32 tornadoes.
4. Moderate (wind-driven), but tornado event ended up over-performing, with 57 tornado reports, 617 wind reports.
5. High risk, 71 tornadoes. (Pretty confident its 5/29/2008, not 4/29)
6. Moderate (a very big one), 48 tornadoes, 400 wind reports.
7. Huge Enhanced, 10% Hatched tornado risk from Iowa to Texas. Big time over-performer with 149 tornado reports, multiple long-tracked.
8. Moderate, 37 tornado reports
9. Moderate, 26 tornado reports
10. Slight risk
 
2:30am NWS Paducah:

*Sunday* "There looks to be plenty of shear and instability to work with. Additionally model soundings from ECMWF and GFS show a pronounced elevated mixed-layer that may limit storm coverage until the afternoon. As it stands all hazards look possible, including tornadoes, large hail, and damaging winds."

"This has our attention and needs to be followed closely as details become clearer"

Not sure if you boys and girls know much about Paducah, but they don't talk like this more than 2 days out unless they see something they find impressive. Much more broad wording was used this far for the last outbreak that affected the Western part of their area. To be fair, they have had some staffing changes recently, so maybe things are changing more due to that, but usually their discussions beyond 3 days for anything severe is about as conservative and unspecific on hazards as it gets.
 
OhOkayThen said:
2:30am NWS Paducah:

*Sunday* "There looks to be plenty of shear and instability to work with. Additionally model soundings from ECMWF and GFS show a pronounced elevated mixed-layer that may limit storm coverage until the afternoon. As it stands all hazards look possible, including tornadoes, large hail, and damaging winds."

"This has our attention and needs to be followed closely as details become clearer"

Not sure if you boys and girls know much about Paducah, but they don't talk like this more than 2 days out unless they see something they find impressive. Much more broad wording was used this far for the last outbreak that affected the Western part of their area. To be fair, they have had some staffing changes recently, so maybe things are changing more due to that, but usually their discussions beyond 3 days for anything severe is about as conservative and unspecific on hazards as it gets.
Click to expand...
Yes that is pretty bullish wording from
KPAH , for this time frame for sure …
 
OhOkayThen said:
2:30am NWS Paducah:

*Sunday* "There looks to be plenty of shear and instability to work with. Additionally model soundings from ECMWF and GFS show a pronounced elevated mixed-layer that may limit storm coverage until the afternoon. As it stands all hazards look possible, including tornadoes, large hail, and damaging winds."

"This has our attention and needs to be followed closely as details become clearer"

Not sure if you boys and girls know much about Paducah, but they don't talk like this more than 2 days out unless they see something they find impressive. Much more broad wording was used this far for the last outbreak that affected the Western part of their area. To be fair, they have had some staffing changes recently, so maybe things are changing more due to that, but usually their discussions beyond 3 days for anything severe is about as conservative and unspecific on hazards as it gets.
Click to expand...
I don’t think i’ve ever seen Paducah be that descriptive with their forecast wording so far out in advance. The fact they are even saying this needs to be closely monitored is concerning to say the least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top