sakau2007

that’s kinda my point. i get the idea of friction reducing wind speed… but the reality is this thing is now well inland... and i’ll partially buy the reasoning that equipment fails (although over the last decade the number of storm chasers putting themselves in the worst areas makes me even somewhat skeptical of that) but what about now? where are 100+ mph sustained winds occurring? i doubt anywhere. gusts into the 80s or 90s? sure. sustained at 105 after 9pm? i doubt.

I'm pretty sure there has not been a high risk issued in the history of high risks where people think we will be debating the busts in 24 hours time. That's kinda the point of the high risk -- the numbers are maxed out so the high risk goes up. Just my .02. I'm still not completely overwhelmed by this setup, but the very high significant tornado index numbers across parts of AL/TN are certainly eyebrow raising. I'll be surprised if we make it through today without an EF3 somewhere.

My overall concern for this event continues to grow. I know the parameters aren't exactly the same, but this is as close to April 27, 2011 as I've seen since April 27, 2011 for MS/AL. Just look at these STP values and tell me that doesn't bring back memories. Makes me shudder: I get not wanting to be hyperbolic, but at this point emphatically saying this won't be like April 27, 2011 seems to be borderline irresponsible, no? And let's not forget this event looks like there will be prior convection. Some of the radar loops look eerily similar to me showing earlier rounds of convection that we aren't overly concerned about followed by outrageously high STP's later in the day. That is.... exactly what we were staring at on April 27 and the result was absolutely disastrous. The early morning event across Alabama was absolutely underwarned for until the event was occurring. I don't think the atmospheric paramaters were expected to be off the charts that morning (just as they aren't this time around) yet there were still dozens of tornadoes and a vicious line of storms. What is the risk something like that, even on a smaller scale, occurs? I haven't really heard that mentioned at all.

I think saying things like "Events like that happen once every 40 years" goes past being a minor detail. Also, saying April 27, 2011 is not showing up on the CIPS analogs is just... wrong. Out of what... 20,000+ days it has shown up as like the 4th, and 7th "best" analog on various runs. I'm with you that the overall tone of the post is correct. And that for every 50 high risk days, maybe only one will come together just perfect for a 1974/2011 type outbreak. And I do agree with you that he has a nearly impossible job of toeing the line between making people aware without worrying the weather-ignorant public unnecessarily. An analogy I would give is that the US coastline gets struck by a category 5 once every 30-40 years or so on average. If a cat 4 is churning in the Gulf where a favorable environment exists, it would be foolish to say "This won't be like Michael or Camille because events like that only happen once every few decades and it was just a couple of years ago since Michael". The parameters in MS are absolutely in April 27th territory. Now, obviously a lot can go "wrong" between now and then... but to use time between events as a reason that event A will not be like event B is just another take on the gambler's fallacy.

I had to respectfully disagree with James Spann when he made the following post late yesterday afternoon: And to that, I'd say "Bad answer". I responded with the following: Thoughts?

For a "professional" you sure do a **** job of conversing. I think deep down you know that I'm right and it is a lot easier to just go explosive on me than actually provide any data that indicates I even might be wrong.