• 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 - May 6, 2024

TH2002 said:
Discussing failure modes and underperformance isn't a problem. Discussing it in a very disrespectful "I'm right, the SPC is wrong" way, is. Quit throwing a pity party. Sheesh...
Click to expand...
It was a Forecasted Convective Amplification Deficiency, I don’t know why calling that out is such a big deal. It was apparent hours ago. The tornado in NEOK does nothing to change the fact that it Atmospheric Anti-Climax.



 
TH2002 said:
To be honest, if anything, this event was more or less a repeat of 5/20/19 as far as being an underperformer goes. The main difference this time around is that unlike Mangum from 2019, the most violent tornado of this event struck a town head on instead of attaining peak intensity over open fields. Literally the worst difference possible.
Click to expand...
Different failure mode for sure. That was more of an under forecast cap. Today we had everything, expect for well ventilated storms due to unrealized shear quirks. Like someone else said, this will be another study of the same level as 5/20. I still think today had much more impact on personal property, however.
 
Muwx said:
It was a Forecasted Convective Amplification Deficiency, I don’t know why calling that out is such a big deal. It was apparent hours ago. The tornado in NEOK does nothing to change the fact that it Atmospheric Anti-Climax.



Click to expand...

Of course, the very standard of what constitutes a "Forecasted Convective Amplification Deficiency" is subjective. In my book, an event is never a Forecasted Convective Amplification Deficiency if it results in at least one significant and/or deadly tornado, which this one certainly did. Now, considering the ceiling, was this event an underperformer? Sure, but definitely not a Forecasted Convective Amplification Deficiency.

But by your standards, it may very well have been a complete Forecasted Convective Amplification Deficiency. Good for you. The problem was your disrespectful tone and blurting out "Forecasted Convective Amplification Deficiency" so soon after a town had just been devastated by a tornado. Being careful what you say goes a long way.
 
Muwx said:
People at the SPC were tweeting that it was under performing 2-3 hours ago but it’s only a problem when I do it… lol make it make sense.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to argue with someone who is attempting to gaslight. Such a disingenuous attempt to paper over what you said versus what you are now claiming you said is classic gaslighting.

At 7:42pm you stated the biggest risk remaining was "flooding." Almost exactly TWO hours later Barnsdall was hit and there were fatalities.

That's not pointing out potential failure modes or discussing underperformance. That's explicitly stating the tornado risk was over and the flooding was the primary concern. You can hyperventilate all you want ex post facto but your own words betray your claim.
 
Muwx said:
Biggest threat right now appears to be flash flooding. The high risk verification might come down to the tail end Charlie headed for okc.
Click to expand...

Ahem.
 
Evan said:
I'm not going to argue with someone who is attempting to gaslight. Such a disingenuous attempt to paper over what you said versus what you are now claiming you said is classic gaslighting.

At 7:42pm you stated the biggest risk remaining was "flooding." Almost exactly TWO hours later Barnsdall was hit and there were fatalities.

That's not pointing out potential failure modes or discussing underperformance. That's explicitly stating the tornado risk was over and the flooding was the primary concern. You can hyperventilate all you want ex post facto but your own words betray your claim.
Click to expand...
What else did I say in the 7:40 to 8:00 window? That we would see what the southeast 1/3 of the high risk would do. It put down a big tornado. That one tornado is not going to verify the risk that the SPC put out. For the majority of the high risk, flooding was the bigger story.
 
Tanner said:

Wow, debarking appears to be fairly significant, and it looks like major debris pockmarks are evident in the foreground. Likely an EF4+ tornado here. The velocity peaked even further after Barnsdall too.
Click to expand...

Definitely some scattered residences and what looks like a power substation in that remote area past Barnsdall. Way too early to say with any certainty, but the peak wind speed rating may very well come down to one or two structures on the edge of or outside of town.
 
Muwx said:
It was a Forecasted Convective Amplification Deficiency, I don’t know why calling that out is such a big deal. It was apparent hours ago. The tornado in NEOK does nothing to change the fact that it Atmospheric Anti-Climax.



Click to expand...

If you were more specific, like what part of the forecast was a Forecasted Convective Amplification Deficiency, then you'd probably get a more positive reception from the members here. What was a Forecasted Convective Amplification Deficiency? The forecast? The models? The damage? The number of tornadoes? The location of them? The category of risk? What went wrong to you that could be done better or differently next time around?

I'll remind everyone again to not make disparaging comments and derailing the thread with bickering.
 
Tanner said:

Wow, debarking appears to be fairly significant, and it looks like major debris pockmarks are evident in the foreground. Likely an EF4+ tornado here. The velocity peaked even further after Barnsdall too.
Click to expand...

Not trying to be that guy, but this clip shows debranching, not debarking. You would see much more of that pale yellow under-bark color if there was actual removal of bark. I only see it where the branches are snapped off. Weather twitter loves to call those two phenomenon one and the same, and it’s a pet peeve of mine.
 
buckeye05 said:
Not trying to be that guy, but this clip shows debranching, not debarking. You would see much more of that pale yellow under-bark color if there was actual removal of bark. I only see it where the branches are snapped off. Weather twitter loves to call those two phenomenon one and the same, and it’s a pet peeve of mine.
Click to expand...
It looks like the trees were picked at but not partially or completely debarked.​
 
Muwx said:
What else did I say in the 7:40 to 8:00 window? That we would see what the southeast 1/3 of the high risk would do. It put down a big tornado. That one tornado is not going to verify the risk that the SPC put out. For the majority of the high risk, flooding was the bigger story.
Click to expand...

I legitimately do not understand what you are talking about. Barnsdall wasn't in the southeast 1/3rd of the High risk. You seem directionally challenged when it comes to the forecast outlook. Please look at a map.

I'm done with this conversation as you're either purposefully acting obtuse or trolling.
 
KoD said:
If you were more specific, like what part of the forecast was a Forecasted Convective Amplification Deficiency, then you'd probably get a more positive reception from the members here. What was a Forecasted Convective Amplification Deficiency? The forecast? The models? The damage? The number of tornadoes? The location of them? The category of risk? What went wrong to you that could be done better or differently next time around?

I'll remind everyone again to not make disparaging comments and derailing the thread with bickering.
Click to expand...
Pretty new to the community so let me ask some questions

The SPC language was "multiple intense long-tracked tornadoes are expected"

Correct?

The word is expected, not guaranteed. I don't understand the self-congratulatory tone of these people on Twitter and a few here. In general they know a LOT more about severe weather than I do. But, again, the word was expected, not guaranteed.

Is it common in the weather watching community to start calling events a "Forecasted Convective Amplification Deficiency" (whatever that means) before they're even over?

The way I see it, the SPC had plenty of reason to issue a High Risk. Do people know what the word risk means?

On top of that, there was at least one intense, *deadly* tornado last night so it's not like the risk wasn't close to being fulfilled...
 
Aaron Rider said:
Pretty new to the community so let me ask some questions

The SPC language was "multiple intense long-tracked tornadoes are expected"

Correct?

The word is expected, not guaranteed. I don't understand the self-congratulatory tone of these people on Twitter and a few here. In general they know a LOT more about severe weather than I do. But, again, the word was expected, not guaranteed.

Is it common in the weather watching community to start calling events a "Forecasted Convective Amplification Deficiency" (whatever that means) before they're even over?

The way I see it, the SPC had plenty of reason to issue a High Risk. Do people know what the word risk means?

On top of that, there was at least one intense, *deadly* tornado last night so it's not like the risk wasn't close to being fulfilled...
Click to expand...
To answer your question about calling events busts before their over common in the weather watching community, the answer is yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top