wx_guy
Member
- Messages
- 1,237
- Reaction score
- 4,443
- Location
- United States
- HAM Callsign
- KO4ZGH
- Special Affiliations
- SKYWARN® Volunteer
- ARRL Member
Hey this is interesting! Wonder what it'll mean moving forward. Hmmm.
-
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 -
Current Tropical Systems Melissa
Severe Weather 2025
- Thread starter KevinH
- Start date
Hey this is interesting! Wonder what it'll mean moving forward. Hmmm.
US_Highway15
Member
Unpopular opinion, but I believe that this will just make the general public even more confused, and will make it an extreme headache for local (and even national) meteorologists to explain when going over severe weather risks, especially if it's a "triple-hatch." This upgrade seems like it's tailored towards the weather geek and not the general public.
I'm still wary of this happening because SPC has made no official acknowledgement on their website of this change going forward.
US_Highway15
Member
Yeah, I hope that this doesn't happen. My hope (and my assumption) is that if this really is them, they're waiting for feedback from broadcast media on whether this is a good idea or not.
I wouldn't worry about it until SPC officially says something. I'm not sure where Vortix is getting that from
wx_guy
Member
- Messages
- 1,237
- Reaction score
- 4,443
- Location
- United States
- HAM Callsign
- KO4ZGH
- Special Affiliations
- SKYWARN® Volunteer
- ARRL Member
lol...so I got dbz and composite radar working on my WRF-ARW model and *somehow* I have no idea how, all of my run output files were deleted lol So I'll have the 12z 72-hour forecast hopefully in a couple hours. Later than I wanted it, but meh. Still excited to play with it.
wx_guy
Member
- Messages
- 1,237
- Reaction score
- 4,443
- Location
- United States
- HAM Callsign
- KO4ZGH
- Special Affiliations
- SKYWARN® Volunteer
- ARRL Member
I tend to agree with the idea that "triple hatched Level 4" or whatever is much more confusing than just a hatched Level 4. I mean at some point, the convolution just becomes silly, right?
"Here we have a tripled hatched, swirlified, black-highlighted, omega plus Extreme risk for the area today. May God have mercy on us."
All the details can be found here:
I remember this video's 2024 and 2023 versions were talking about this for a while so its been quite interesting to see the progression. The SPC (well Rich Thompson in this video) say they are hoping to get it out internally to NWS meteorologists and others later this year and then start public rollout around 2026 ish - leading on from the recent updates to MDs to include conditional intensity.
US_Highway15
Member
Thought I would pull up the NIU SPC Perfect Probs model from Wednesday's severe weather threat...and they definitely had some interesting numbers/results that's for sure. Maybe a little over the top (sarcasm)?
US_Highway15
Member
I like Rich Thompson's Zoom profile pic.
wx_guy
Member
- Messages
- 1,237
- Reaction score
- 4,443
- Location
- United States
- HAM Callsign
- KO4ZGH
- Special Affiliations
- SKYWARN® Volunteer
- ARRL Member
Ah, so it's real? Not sure how I feel about it. The MD update with conditional intensity is fantastic and a great clarity-booster for both the general public and weather aficionados, but I'm just not sold on extra levels of markings on an already-busy plot. Granted, for weather weenies like us it'll be nice to see "EF4+ tornadoes possible" shaded area or something, but for the general public, does it really matter? I think more focus could be put on explaining the true rarity of tornadoes beyond EF1 intensity to the public (and for that matter, the weather weenie-verse out there, too.) I mean EF2's are what, 6% or something of all tornadoes? The overwhelming majority are EF0 and EF1, so "significant" tornadoes mean just that...significant. So many people (weather nerds alike) here EF2 and are like "oh, it was only a 2 out of 5, meh" when in reality, it was stronger than approx 95% of all tornadoes. Crazy.
US_Highway15
Member
After seeing it explained and laid out by Rich, I actually don't dislike it as much as I used to. I was worried about the triple hatched moreso, but it seems like it would be really rare (for potential scenarios like another 4/27/11). I am really curious if they would've triple hatched last weekends event. I don't recall him talking about that scenario. I would imagine for the Illinois mini outbreak that was experienced on Wednesday, they would've issued a 5% single hatched if they were using the new system.
I am although still a bit concerned for the local meteorologists having to explain this (if they even would consider including the double and triple hatched).
wx_guy
Member
- Messages
- 1,237
- Reaction score
- 4,443
- Location
- United States
- HAM Callsign
- KO4ZGH
- Special Affiliations
- SKYWARN® Volunteer
- ARRL Member
I admit this is interesting, but it makes the map so darn busy. It might be better as a separate map altogether.
Ah okay. I missed that video. Thank you for this clarification.
Triple-hatched is either completely unnecessary or should be used for, as everybody stated above, 4/27/2011 days. Also, I don't doubt they will inevitably do this if it is implemented, but I agree with @wx_guy - that is really ugly and makes the map a complete headache to look at. I'm not as worried about meteorologists having to explain this to be honest, its just extra steps.
A separate map is definitely warranted for this. Honestly still not a big fan overall. The hatched risk on its own is completely fine and no one really thought it was an issue. The only issue that I could see this resolving is the fact that 5% tornado risks are, for some strange reason, incapable of containing a hatched as of now.
A separate map is definitely warranted for this. Honestly still not a big fan overall. The hatched risk on its own is completely fine and no one really thought it was an issue. The only issue that I could see this resolving is the fact that 5% tornado risks are, for some strange reason, incapable of containing a hatched as of now.
In all fairness and honesty, the SPC outlooks, etc. are more geared towards Meteorologists and EMA. I understand the first impressions of this not making sense and adding more confusion. It's up to the meteorologist to explain what this means. Just like we had to do with the Marginal and Enhanced implementation. There will be feedback once this gets implemented both good and bad. SPC will take all this into account and work to make it better. Like I'm not a huge fan of the Experimental NHC cone graphic, but to these EMA directors, it helps them. As long as it helps these EMA's, I'm all for it.
Yeah, the general public rarely sees the probabilities, they just see Level 1-5 and maybe some extra, hazard-specific colors that broadcast mets use (which are definitely not unified).
Also, it sounds like these changes are very much not finalized, per this comment by Elizabeth Leitman. They took a loooot of time to make changes to other things like adding Marginal and Enhanced (still hate the names, but I get why they named them like that, in order to fit them in with the other ones) as well as issuing D2 probability outlooks. Doubt they're gonna toss this in here willy-nilly either. Not too sure how I feel about it though; the nerdy part of me loves more lines and more information per square inch of map, but I can see how it could be hard to explain.
That's exactly what I thought when I saw the above tweet from Vortix. Like woe hang on
I remember reading a post somewhere last year saying the NIU Practically Perfect Forecast (hindcast) overstates the probabilities. The jist was that the model is built off a 50x50 km grid spacing due to the historic data they had to use - compared to the 25x25 for the actual SPC forecasts - and that while they use a method to try downscale it to the correct grid spacing, this doesn't actually fully correct the problem.
They also posted experimental forecast verifications that were done by the NSSL (here) that they said were based off the correct grid (unfortunately these are no longer being produced). The example they had, and a couple I examined myself, had significantly lower probabilities than the NIU PPFs.
Unfortunately I don't even remember the website where I read this, even though I saved the NSSL link and kept the issue in mind.
Last edited: