I don’t mind it and I like it actually. Controversial though for sure.
They introduced it last week and bam the chance to see what it’s like quickly with the Thur/fri system.
I agree, the SPC has access to a bunch of advanced models (and skilled forecasters!) that we do not, and I don't see why anyone would be complaining about more detail from them. For the average person the ENH/MDT/HIGH/etc system is good enough, and as always local weather people can translate the new detail into something digestible for the general public.
Man, seeing that little red bullseye right over Chicago sure is ominous.
Contrast that with a chaser like this
And yes I am guilty for posting his, but as time has gone on I’ve realized it’s just gotten to me at breaking point.
“I drove 1000 miles for a bird fart needle tornado that lasted 2 minute “ wah wah wah
Yeah and some of the models have the first round hitting right at the tail end of rush hour. Really not a good combination.
if thats chicago, i'm 6'0
I actually love it and think it’s the best change that the SPC has made in a long, long time. The products the SPC puts out are not intended to be consumed by the standard person. The SPC in the past had the same level of “warning” in their graphics when they thought the ceiling was EF-2s as they did when they expected EF-4s. It made no sense. I think today’s graphics are much, much clearer and much better at conveying the actual risk. Can the general public understand them? Probably not but they arent intended for them. Further, the general public certainly didn’t understand the old ones when it was the same for every “sig” event and we actually had to read the entire discussion full of very meteorological jargon to see what the threat actually was.
Personally, I'd say its worth considering an upgrade to a small TOR driven MDT from north central IL to northwestern IN
I wouldn't be surprised if a small MDT is introduced at 1630z, but it really depends on who's at the desk.
Oh yeah it is a little South, so not an exact bullseye. If you have to zoom to see that, though it's still too close for comfort. Plus, a city that size has dense suburbs stretching on all sides for 50 miles.
Absolutely 100% agree here. I originally wasn't a fan but I've since came around to it, especially since it isn't for the general public to look at unless they have some sort of baseline understanding of things from a meteorological perspective. We needed the ability to incorporate hatching into risks that constituted a less than 10% since it's honestly not that uncommon of an occurrence at this point, and like you said, seeing the same level of hatched for a day like 4/27/11 being compared to a day like 3/5 this year is hilariously wrong.
I think the idea is something that was bound to be instituted at some point–it’s just the way it was done that could be a bit confusing for civilians.
