• 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 Threat 5.22-5.24.24

slenker

Member
Messages
219
Reaction score
490
Location
Columbus, OH
Greenfield didn't get a TORE either, which I think is inexcusable. It had a debris ball the size of the town before it even entered the town.
It’s pretty stupid that some tornado in Texas with no debris signature gets a TORE because of a lying spotter, but Greenfield with a monstrous debris ball that was showing no signs of slowing down and had every single box checked in terms of radar indication doesn’t get it. I just don’t understand.
 

jiharris0220

Member
Messages
932
Reaction score
2,622
Location
Wichita Falls
It’s pretty stupid that some tornado in Texas with no debris signature gets a TORE because of a lying spotter, but Greenfield with a monstrous debris ball that was showing no signs of slowing down and had every single box checked in terms of radar indication doesn’t get it. I just don’t understand.
The thing is both of those situations could’ve been avoided if the NWS simply had a set standard for issuing a Tor E.

If they actually followed those set standards, it wouldn’t matter if there were lying d$ck heads or an actual significant tornado heading towards a low populated area.

That chart they posted in response to Barnsdall immediately fell flat on its face the next day, clearly it didn’t matter.
 

Maxis_s

Member
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
2,138
Location
Canada
The thing is both of those situations could’ve been avoided if the NWS simply had a set standard for issuing a Tor E.

If they actually followed those set standards, it wouldn’t matter if there were lying d$ck heads or an actual significant tornado heading towards a low populated area.

That chart they posted in response to Barnsdall immediately fell flat on its face the next day, clearly it didn’t matter.
Yeah, that's just a meme now.
 
Messages
521
Reaction score
601
Location
Canton, GA
I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again, the majority of the general public doesn’t understand or doesn’t care about the tags on warnings. You all may get upset or excited about its use, because you know about it and care how it’s applied. They hear the warning on their weather radio, mass notification system, or app, see if it affects them, then either take action or turn up the tv volume.

I’ve talked a few times about the TORE wording. There is guidance for it, and it’s generally applied across the board. But there are differences much like the EF scale.
 

Tennie

Member
Messages
1,065
Reaction score
959
Location
Tennessee

Sawmaster

Member
Messages
699
Reaction score
1,007
Location
Marietta SC
Special Affiliations
  1. SKYWARN® Volunteer
@Tennie Very good to see this happening, thanks for bringing us the news :D
With my not-so-good colorvision it looked like it had winds from ~40m/s positive and ~40m/s negative for a total force of ~80m/s. Or am I reading that radar wrong? Anyway 80 m/s converts to 178MPH so now I wonder what the EF rating was?

I've always said that it's really all about the winds where buildings and people are so I'm glad they're focusing on that now. I hope they get lots of safe intercepts with clear sacns.
 
Back
Top