In my eyes, it should be both. Maybe the SPC should do away with the "risk" levels altogether, because as I read on one meteorologist's page, anyone in an area of elevated risk, whether it be slight, moderate, or high, should be prepared for severe weather. For example, if someone is in a high risk, they should not prepare "more" than someone only in a slight risk. However, I still think the SPC needs that one risk level which is rarely used so that, when it is used, it means a significant outbreak is likely and everyone should be ready.
Yes, there were numerous hail and wind reports yesterday (some tornado reports too), but in my eyes, none were significant enough to warrant a "high risk." I know these reports are still preliminary, so this could change. The high risk was issued primarily for wind. Unfortunately, a lot of the speeds associated with reported damage are unknown. The highest wind speed I am seeing reported is 80 mph, and there is only one report of that. But even a lot of the wind reports/damage were reported out of the high risk area! The two biggest hail reports I am seeing are 2.50" (tennis ball) and 2.75" (baseball), but ironically, those were also out of the high risk area! A lot of the hail reports were quarter to golf ball size. Yes, that is severe, but if a high risk was issued every time quarter to golf ball-size hail occurred, we'd be seeing a high risk for almost every severe weather outbreak!
Unfortunately, the PDS Tornado Watch and Severe Thunderstorm Watch also busted. Again, all the details are not known at this time, but I do not think we saw a single "violent, long-lived" tornado in the watch area. We also did not see 3"+ hail like the watches called for, or a derecho-like scenario. So, I would have to agree that yesterday was a bust overall.
Now I know severe weather is, at times, highly unpredictable and difficult to forecast. I apologize if my post is written in a way that makes me look like I hate the SPC or could do a better job because I don't think I could. However, as was made clear by the media yesterday, when a high risk is issued, a pretty significant outbreak of severe weather needs to happen, otherwise it will be like "crying wolf" and we certainly don't want the public to stop heeding high risks if we mess up too many times. Unfortunately, it seems quite a bit of high risks have busted in the past.
OK, I am sorry for this long rant. Craig, please know that we're not trying to bash you; I had actually started writing this post before Mac posted his. I just feel that the system or criteria for risks should be looked at or better understood. What are everyone else's thoughts?
I agree that the risk areas were misplaced, and a lot of the severe weather occurred outside the high risk area. I've been tracking this system from the start. I have to say, it was poorly modeled from the start. Every model run was different in the placement of everything. It kept changing. But that's what happens in these very dynamical situations. Not being argumentative, but I still think the "high risk" is based on probability, not severity. They did forecast some significant severe wx. to occur, which didn't end of happening. It's easier for the SPC forecast the probability of a severe weather outbreak than it is the severity of it. We can't really predict exactly how strong the tornadoes, how the large the hail, or how strong the wind will be in a particular thunderstorm, but we better predict the probability of some type of severe weather to occur, whether significant or not.
Show Posts
