• 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 April 1-4

Didn't believe the sigtor hype in IL for that warm front. Got a birdfart of a rope out of it, and had a weak, multi vort tor in NW MO I'm sure with that discrete cell earlier.

All in all, not a very productive day so far

I think it's undeniable that the CIG system does more bad than good for verification as a whole, and also the lack of downgrading risks sometimes hurts the SPC. i thin a slight today would've done just fine. QLCS tor potential maybe soon when mode clusters unless some of these discrete cells in SE KS can do something
 
WeathermanLeprechaun said:
Didn't believe the sigtor hype in IL for that warm front. Got a birdfart of a rope out of it, and had a weak, multi vort tor in NW MO I'm sure with that discrete cell earlier.

All in all, not a very productive day so far

I think it's undeniable that the CIG system does more bad than good for verification as a whole, and also the lack of downgrading risks sometimes hurts the SPC. i thin a slight today would've done just fine. QLCS tor potential maybe soon when mode clusters unless some of these discrete cells in SE KS can do something
Click to expand...
It was pretty close to something strong but it kinda just gave up (weirdly reminiscent of Pontiac). I still don't think the Illinois storms are finished however (albeit tor risk is now gonna be with the western ones).
 
WeathermanLeprechaun said:
Didn't believe the sigtor hype in IL for that warm front. Got a birdfart of a rope out of it, and had a weak, multi vort tor in NW MO I'm sure with that discrete cell earlier.

All in all, not a very productive day so far

I think it's undeniable that the CIG system does more bad than good for verification as a whole, and also the lack of downgrading risks sometimes hurts the SPC. i thin a slight today would've done just fine. QLCS tor potential maybe soon when mode clusters unless some of these discrete cells in SE KS can do something
Click to expand...
Illinois is cooked IMO. You’ve had two supercells do everything BUT produce an established tornado.
 
I don’t think it’s necessarily fair to blame the CIG system, I think it’s the way it is being used right now. My question is, why is the SPC outlining entire 2% risks as CIG1 even when there really isn’t a good reason to? There’s days they gave a CIG1 that didn’t produce a single tornado, not even a weak one. And it’s not like these CIG1s were small, either.
 
slenker said:
I don’t think it’s necessarily fair to blame the CIG system, I think it’s the way it is being used right now. My question is, why is the SPC outlining entire 2% risks as CIG1 even when there really isn’t a good reason to? There’s days they gave a CIG1 that didn’t produce a single tornado, not even a weak one. And it’s not like these CIG1s were small, either.
Click to expand...
Is it ready to discuss if EF2's should even being categorized as "strong tornadoes?"

I would understand having a CIG system for EF3+'s, but EF2? I just don't know.

There was a 2% CIG1 still kept in place around 8PM where I'm located, even though it was 55 degrees and dropping around the time of the updated outlook. I mean what are we even doing anymore?

I love the SPC. They're heroes and some of smartest people on the planet, but I just cannot help but scratch my head at some of their decisions they've made forecasting so far this year.
 
US_Highway15 said:
Is it ready to discuss if EF2's should even being categorized as "strong tornadoes?"

I would understand having a CIG system for EF3+'s, but EF2? I just don't know.

There was a 2% CIG1 still kept in place around 8PM where I'm located, even though it was 55 degrees and dropping around the time of the updated outlook. I mean what are we even doing anymore?

I love the SPC. They're heroes and some of smartest people on the planet, but I just cannot help but scratch my head at some of their decisions they've made forecasting so far this year.
Click to expand...
The problem is the threshold for hatched tornado risks was EF2+ before this year as well. So it's the same threshold, but an entirely different meaning. The reasoning is that Cigs mean "max intensity" now rather than "minimum intensity" like with hatched, but that isn't coming across at all in their messaging.

They took a really good system, with a near perfect batting average on verification, and completely flipped it on its head and are striking out left and right. It's a real head scratcher.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top