AtticaFanatica

Also, I'd suggest reading Wurman et al. (2007), in which the authors use realistic models of violent tornadoes and previous fatality information to estimate worse case scenarios in populated areas. It's a reasonable attempt at an admittedly complex hypothetical scenario, but it shows just how bad tornadoes in urban areas potentially could be. It's just not a pretty situation. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-88-1-31

You can engage me directly, it's simpler, I don't bite. Obviously, there are things that can be improved upon in relaying information. However, given the state of that information, current implemented radar technology, where the tornado formed, how strong it was, and where it struck, I don't believe there are many more lives that could have been saved. I realize this will never be a popular opinion because people always want someone to blame. In this case, the drive to do so is not surprising, but the evidence used to do so is inadequate.

The inability for humans to accept that, sometimes, life sucks and **** happens is at play more in this case than any other I can remember.

For what?

I think we all get what he meant.

Yes.

I agree with you but there are probably better and more effective ways to state your cause than minimizing others.

In most M.S. programs, you're given a tuition waiver and a stipend, so it shouldn't further your student debt.

Yes, width information is kept in Storm Data, for example. However, as with wind speed estimations, I think the error bars on the width estimations likely preclude deriving anything of value from them on an individual basis.

It's pretty much impossible to gauge how wide individual tornadoes are using just visual and damage indicators. I wouldn't put much, if any, weight to declarations of this or that tornado being the widest.

Well yeah.

Exactly

If there's no structure/DI deemed strong enough to withstand winds >210 mph, then that's all they can estimate. It's an inherent limitation to the rating process and why the wind estimates, particularly in EF-5 tornadoes, tell one very little.

Not with an accuracy level I'd feel comfortable with, no.

EF scale ratings have error bars large enough, let alone any actual wind value estimates. I would have little to no confidence in the validity of a comparison between two tornadoes based on the wind estimates that result from a damage-based tornado survey.

You found what I said off-puting? Ok, well I meant every word of it. Regardless, I haven't made a forecast in a decade. I'm about as far away from the NWS as anybody. That doesn't change that the AccuWeather statement is completely absurd. I don't quite understand what you mean by my sig. I don't think I've ever had a sig. Edit: Ok, I see what you meant, the "my opinions are mine alone blah blah blah..." But yeah, I don't work for the NWS and never will.

Has the NWS responded at all regarding the tornado stuff?

Classless money grab combined with fairytale science. Sounds about right.

I am certainly not in the know about that stuff, but my guess is that those chances would have been very low. edit: from the V2 SPO, upon reading it again, I think its contents regarding the project's rationale are fair and reasonable: But in dealing with the media it was always "save lives/property/warning lead times" sound bites and that's it; the document above provides a more nuanced and, I think, honest assessment of the project's goals.

Yes, anything I discover in my research is not likely to increase warning times. I'd like to think so and it's possible, but I'm driven more by discovery than applicability and I'd guess that most in the field (research field anyway) are like that. Doesn't make for a good sound bite or funding rationale to politicians though. I'd guess most chasers are the same way. It's nice that they can say that, through Spotter Net and other media, they can inform local offices of tornadoes, but that's not why most of them are out there.

Yeah, I mean that I'm more driven by intellectual curiosity of my research topics than by money. I do think the whole "improve warnings/saving lives" mantra that was repeated continually during V2 had elements of disingenuousness to it.

We'll get through this.

Your points don't anger anyone, I think they have some merit, but you just say the exact same thing over and over again every time someone posts something that you don't agree with, and you don't seem to realize it.

Cool

Most definitely, yes.