- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: More Central U.S. Severe Weather: 4/30/24 - 5/3/24
Posted on 5/1/24 at 7:07 pm to Roll Tide Ravens
Posted on 5/1/24 at 7:07 pm to Roll Tide Ravens
In other destructive news to keep up with they have just declared a 6 alarm fire in Brooklyn NY
Twitter Link
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.
Twitter Link
Posted on 5/1/24 at 7:27 pm to Bobby OG Johnson
This right here, and there is plenty of it, is wishcasting at its best.
Xwitter comment:
Even attempting to do what this person suggests would be terribly flawed. How do I know? Because I've watched storms on radar that I was convinced put down violent tornadoes only to see the resultant damage and be emphatically proven wrong. Radar can and will trick you. The reality is we aren't great with wind, and we aren't great with wind on radar and how it relates to what is actually going on on the ground. That's where we have a whole lot to learn. To rely on radar presentation alone (especially with questionable data or poor storm placement in relation to said radar) would be essentially useless and would create even more "drama".
Xwitter comment:
quote:
Meteorologically speaking, the EF scale alone is very limited. I’m surprised there isn’t a sister scale that rates strictly by the storm intensity. Something like an evolved version of the original F scale.
Even attempting to do what this person suggests would be terribly flawed. How do I know? Because I've watched storms on radar that I was convinced put down violent tornadoes only to see the resultant damage and be emphatically proven wrong. Radar can and will trick you. The reality is we aren't great with wind, and we aren't great with wind on radar and how it relates to what is actually going on on the ground. That's where we have a whole lot to learn. To rely on radar presentation alone (especially with questionable data or poor storm placement in relation to said radar) would be essentially useless and would create even more "drama".
Posted on 5/1/24 at 7:35 pm to LegendInMyMind
This whole tornado strength debate is a great example of how a lot of weather people on the internet don’t actually know that much. In this case about radar.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 7:39 pm to The Boat
Yep, totally agree. Radar is amazing, but it doesn’t always tell the full story. By rating based on damage, the tornado is being rated by what actually occurred on the ground.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 7:49 pm to The Boat
quote:
This whole tornado strength debate is a great example of how a lot of weather people on the internet don’t actually know that much. In this case about radar.
Go to GR2 pull the Velocity data during the first portion of that tornado and look at it frame-by-frame. That is not clean data. Aliasing problems, folding, missing pixels, all sorts of frickery was going on. Maybe due to storm motion. Or maybe it had something to do with the fact that damage was reported in the same area the radar is located. This is the radar imagery that a lot of people are using to try to call this one of the strongest tornadoes in history. It is stupid.
I'm not directing this at you, just talking in general.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 8:09 pm to LegendInMyMind
Last night was a 'treat'. Was able to view the befuddlement firsthand and may never see this again
Posted on 5/1/24 at 9:10 pm to wfallstiger
Brett Adair's (Live Storms Media) damage footage from the area of the weird tornado from last night:
Posted on 5/1/24 at 9:18 pm to LegendInMyMind
Appreciate, was wondering about the damage
Quite a blessing it spun in a relative 'no man's land'
Our most local, experienced meteorologist - over 20 in Wichita Falls - was literally at a loss trying to sort it out
Quite a blessing it spun in a relative 'no man's land'
Our most local, experienced meteorologist - over 20 in Wichita Falls - was literally at a loss trying to sort it out
Posted on 5/1/24 at 10:14 pm to wfallstiger
Here’s another time sped clip of last night. Its 2 hours of time condensed.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 10:18 pm to wfallstiger
Here's the thing, even though no town was hit (thank goodness) there were plenty of damage indicators to be had for this tornado or tornadoes. Tree damage is a pretty well established damage indicator. Silos, I think are on the list. There were at least a couple of homes with discernable damage, houses are a DI. Ground scouring, if not on the DI list, is at least comparable across all sigtors or violent tornadoes.
Nothing was found on the ground to support anything close to a violent tornado. Yet, we have this nonsense in the replies to NWS Norman's Xweet about it:
Okay, the EF scale is, for a fact, a damage scale. Damage on the ground is surveyed and compared to the DI list and other violent tornadoes. People want to include radar data in the final rating of a tornado. Fine, but what happens when what you "see" on radar has no ground truth whatsoever?
They want to be able to rate a tornado by what they think they see on radar. Radar is complicated and imperfect. This isn't even a good case for what they want because everything on the ground contradicts what they think they saw on radar, and it isn't because "nothing was hit".
Nothing was found on the ground to support anything close to a violent tornado. Yet, we have this nonsense in the replies to NWS Norman's Xweet about it:
quote:
The EF scale is based on damage, in this case the damage indicated EF1, even though the winds may have been much stronger, or because it didn’t get hit directly. Other than that this tornado tracked over mostly open field giving it a Lower rating.
quote:
Which is a completely asinine way of tracking and book keep tornados… especially when you have fully capable radars that can accurately tell you wind speed data
Okay, the EF scale is, for a fact, a damage scale. Damage on the ground is surveyed and compared to the DI list and other violent tornadoes. People want to include radar data in the final rating of a tornado. Fine, but what happens when what you "see" on radar has no ground truth whatsoever?
They want to be able to rate a tornado by what they think they see on radar. Radar is complicated and imperfect. This isn't even a good case for what they want because everything on the ground contradicts what they think they saw on radar, and it isn't because "nothing was hit".
Posted on 5/1/24 at 11:49 pm to LegendInMyMind
They simply want every tornado to be a "monster" F4+ bc people are stupid and want to be a part of something "extreme" or "cool". Society is always wanting things to either be the "worst thing ever" or "best thing ever"
This is a strange comparison but it's the same reason every couple of years we get the future "best ever" in the NFL&NBA drafts. Hell we have even had it in the MLB draft (remember Stephen Strasburg?). People and the media (who do it bc people love it) love hyperbole and extremes therefore they are trying to will it into existence
It happens with every damn tornado of much significance these days and as I've made clear before it really pisses me off. These people are ignorant and act like total jackasses
This is a strange comparison but it's the same reason every couple of years we get the future "best ever" in the NFL&NBA drafts. Hell we have even had it in the MLB draft (remember Stephen Strasburg?). People and the media (who do it bc people love it) love hyperbole and extremes therefore they are trying to will it into existence
It happens with every damn tornado of much significance these days and as I've made clear before it really pisses me off. These people are ignorant and act like total jackasses
Posted on 5/1/24 at 11:56 pm to Wishnitwas1998
There was another thread on this that got started. I hate I missed it earlier when it was getting some action.
Posted on 5/2/24 at 12:10 am to LegendInMyMind
Yea I actually just saw it
As you addressed in the thread and this one, the entire premise relies on radar data regarding wind being reliable.......and it's not reliable at least not completely
As you addressed in the thread and this one, the entire premise relies on radar data regarding wind being reliable.......and it's not reliable at least not completely
Posted on 5/2/24 at 12:20 am to LegendInMyMind
When radar indicates a lowish intensity or indeterminate or straight up missed don’t they still go by the actual damage on the ground and other indicators? I think it’s a fair system for now. And it’s not like this one can’t still be talked about and analyzed for what it may have been.
Posted on 5/2/24 at 12:36 am to WestSideTiger
They grade all tornadoes based on actual damage done on the ground. They may (and basically always do) use radar data to help them know where to look, etc. but the grading is done strictly based on actual damage
It's a system that's imperfect but I havent seen anything better proposed
It's a system that's imperfect but I havent seen anything better proposed
This post was edited on 5/2/24 at 12:37 am
Posted on 5/3/24 at 4:04 pm to Wishnitwas1998
Posted on 5/3/24 at 5:16 pm to Bobby OG Johnson
It did the thing again.
Posted on 5/3/24 at 5:50 pm to LegendInMyMind
quote:
It did the thing again.
Yep
Nick
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News