baroclinic_instability Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 So much for the mod risk at day 3 theories I think this was a fascinating first day (of this multi-day event) to cover. One of the more challenging events I have seen in a while where there were so many caveats and unknowns that fed back to other caveats and unknowns. It really was unclear what would likely happen even as the event was beginning to unfold, and the ceiling was quite high, especially if discrete storms could organize east. This is one of those cases where the day 3 Mod was not necessarily a bad call on SPC's part, but overall, given synoptic uncertainty, I agree, usually they reserve those for the major synoptically evident, higher certainty events where probabilities are more likely to be met. While a tornado outbreak isn't happening, the severe threat tonight is obviously not over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mnchaser Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 I think this was a fascinating first day (of this multi-day event) to cover. One of the more challenging events I have seen in a while where there were so many caveats and unknowns that fed back to other caveats and unknowns. It really was unclear what would likely happen even as the event was beginning to unfold, and the ceiling was quite high, especially if discrete storms could organize east. This is one of those cases where the day 3 Mod was not necessarily a bad call on SPC's part, but overall, given synoptic uncertainty, I agree, usually they reserve those for the major synoptically evident, higher certainty events where probabilities are more likely to be met. While a tornado outbreak isn't happening, the severe threat tonight is obviously not over. You nailed it, a lot of people have to remember the SPC outlooks are not for storm chasers, not even close on their list. Its all about public awareness. In my opinion today was a toss up, I know a lot of chasers who stayed at home given the vast uncertainty...including myself after putting on close to 1500 miles for last weeks mediocre setup. But I see nothing wrong with giving a multiple day heads up to the general public for the potential that was there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewxmann Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 I personally think that given the uncertainties involved in this event, Day 3 MDT was not justified. Sure, the ceiling was high enough for a larger event to occur, and it wasn't necessarily a bad forecast, but I always believed the SPC philosophy was to go low until uncertainties are resolved. So I'm not sure about this deviation from usual protocol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZackH Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 I personally think that given the uncertainties involved in this event, Day 3 MDT was not justified. Sure, the ceiling was high enough for a larger event to occur, and it wasn't necessarily a bad forecast, but I always believed the SPC philosophy was to go low until uncertainties are resolved. So I'm not sure about this deviation from usual protocol. In defense... when the Day 3 came out there were NOT as many uncertainties compared with Day 2. There was much more model agreement when the Day 3 came out... the models began to diverge again around the Day 2 period. I personally don't see any fault with SPC for this situation. They did their job how it was supposed to be done. Like another poster said, its not an outlook for storm chasers, its an outlook for people to be aware and be safe (actually, its an outlook for emergency managers and other meteorologists in reality). Thank God, from an economic and humanity perspective it didn't reach its expectations. Because there were many certain parameters that made this a SIGNIFICANTLY volatile day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tornadotony Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 In defense... when the Day 3 came out there were NOT as many uncertainties compared with Day 2. There was much more model agreement when the Day 3 came out... the models began to diverge again around the Day 2 period. A good example of why we probably shouldn't have day 3 moderates at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZackH Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 A good example of why we probably shouldn't have day 3 moderates at all. The ultimate touche´ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewxmann Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 In defense... when the Day 3 came out there were NOT as many uncertainties compared with Day 2. There was much more model agreement when the Day 3 came out... the models began to diverge again around the Day 2 period. I personally don't see any fault with SPC for this situation. They did their job how it was supposed to be done. Like another poster said, its not an outlook for storm chasers, its an outlook for people to be aware and be safe (actually, its an outlook for emergency managers and other meteorologists in reality). Thank God, from an economic and humanity perspective it didn't reach its expectations. Because there were many certain parameters that made this a SIGNIFICANTLY volatile day. All the uncertainties... the frontal position, veer-back-veer profiles, possible morning convection (though that didn't come to fruition) were evident from several days out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZackH Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 All the uncertainties... the frontal position, veer-back-veer profiles, possible morning convection (though that didn't come to fruition) were evident from several days out. These issues were not as much in question at the time of the Day 3... Sorry. The veer back veer profile wasn't even evident until the RAP runs earlier today. You're being a Monday morning QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocoAko Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 Well, didn't see any distinct tornadoes, but we saw a bunch of wall clouds at various points today (sadly the storms just couldn't seem to really get themselves organized enough, though they were certainly trying!) and did see the power flashes in Lawton, which was eerie. Followed it into Sterling but had trouble seeing much of anything by that point so we booked it outta there. Quite a long day, but at least I got my fix for the time being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OKpowdah Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 Likely tornado near Lawton, OK just after 7pm. Not the best quality pic, sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyhb Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 I personally think that given the uncertainties involved in this event, Day 3 MDT was not justified. Sure, the ceiling was high enough for a larger event to occur, and it wasn't necessarily a bad forecast, but I always believed the SPC philosophy was to go low until uncertainties are resolved. So I'm not sure about this deviation from usual protocol. Of course you don't, no offence, but at times it seems like you wait for this stuff to happen just so you can come in like this and, like Zack said "Monday morning-QB" it. The two things you say here, in the bold, do not exactly support each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewxmann Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 These issues were not as much in question at the time of the Day 3... Sorry. The veer back veer profile wasn't even evident until the RAP runs earlier today. You're being a Monday morning QB. This is really a moot point so I'm not going to discuss this further, but the frontal question was always an issue. The 0Z runs before the Day 3 issuance were the first to move the front significantly north. These issues alone would've normally precluded the issuance of high probability, especially given the debacle last week. I was almost going to say something about the SPC making such a bold forecast but decided against it last minute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebo Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 These issues were not as much in question at the time of the Day 3... Sorry. The veer back veer profile wasn't even evident until the RAP runs earlier today. You're being a Monday morning QB. Agree with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyhb Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 This is really a moot point so I'm not going to discuss this further, but the frontal question was always an issue. The 0Z runs before the Day 3 issuance were the first to move the front significantly north. These issues alone would've normally precluded the issuance of high probability, especially given the debacle last week. I was almost going to say something about the SPC making such a bold forecast but decided against it last minute. The thing is, had the veer-back-veer profile/lower LLJ strength not been so prominent earlier on (which many of the models, including shorter range ones, did not indicate), the front did not affect those supercells in SW OK and NW TX for an extended period of time and, considering the structure of those things, I'm going to go ahead and say we likely would've seen potentially significant tornadoes out of them (including around Lawton, which is obviously a highly populated area). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZackH Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 This is really a moot point so I'm not going to discuss this further, but the frontal question was always an issue. The 0Z runs before the Day 3 issuance were the first to move the front significantly north. These issues alone would've normally precluded the issuance of high probability, especially given the debacle last week. I was almost going to say something about the SPC making such a bold forecast but decided against it last minute. I respectfully must say you are wrong. The front was not really the main limiting factor and even that was not much in question for the Day 3... So yes, you are just trying to complain to complain. Not to mentioned you typed yourself into a corner. The SPC did not issue high probability... They issued moderate probabilities. You know why they never went high? Because the threat was conditional. This is why so many moderates bust because if they met certain conditions they would be high risk worthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfgmfg Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 Spotters reporting a tornado on the ground in or around Bixby, OK (South Tulsa). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewxmann Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 I respectfully must say you are wrong. The front was not really the main limiting factor and even that was not much in question for the Day 3... So yes, you are just trying to complain to complain. If you are respectfully saying I am wrong, please don't suggest that I am complaining to complain -- that is not what I am doing here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZackH Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 If you are respectfully saying I am wrong, please don't suggest that I am complaining to complain -- that is not what I am doing here. Well, I am sorry because I fail to see what you are trying to accomplish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewxmann Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 Well, I am sorry because I fail to see what you are trying to accomplish. Because people were discussing the issuance of the Day 3 MDT and I joined in the discussion with my opinion of why I disagreed with the outlook from the get go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyhb Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 Because people were discussing the issuance of the Day 3 MDT and I joined in the discussion with my opinion of why I disagreed with the outlook from the get go. You are questioning because of a "deviation from usual protocol". Are they not allowed to issue higher risk outlooks when the potential is there for a more significant severe weather event? And yes, I realize what issuing a D3 moderate entails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebo Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 The problem with the day 3 MDT is people assume it is a slam dunk to a HIGH which the last 12 day 3 MDTs have show this to not be the case. At the time of the day 3 MDT it could have been justified given the model data at the time, however things changed very quickly especially today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZackH Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 Because people were discussing the issuance of the Day 3 MDT and I joined in the discussion with my opinion of why I disagreed with the outlook from the get go. Yet you only talk now about it after the event has already happened. Basically you're trying to say "I told you so" when you never actually told us so... Well until now. SPC has an unforgiving job. They don't always get it right but they do the best they can. That's what happens when you're in the business of predicting the future. Many of the nations best forecasters also busted based on the same data you looked at. So forgive me if info think you are being a Monday morning QB when you've had that reputation on here before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZackH Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 The problem with the day 3 MDT is people assume it is a slam dunk to a HIGH which the last 12 day 3 MDTs have show this to not be the case. At the time of the day 3 MDT it could have been justified given the model data at the time, however things changed very quickly especially today. Thank you... Anyways, I've said my peace... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernNJ Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 If it wasn't one, it certainly was close to being a tornado between Bixby and Broken Arrow near Midnight CDT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brettjrob Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 Extremely disappointing chase day. I missed the tornadoes, but from all indications there wasn't a whole lot to miss. I think the unusually high number of caveats (for a 15% hatched type setup) were well-understood here going into the event, and I can't say I'm shocked by the outcome. Even so, given the ungodly pattern we're now entering and coming on the heels of 2012, this stings quite a bit. No point in dissecting the SPC products ad nauseum, but I would say this: even though I was surprised by and didn't exactly understand the D3 MDT, just because of its rarity and implied significance, I think the D2 MDT yesterday was warranted given the guidance at the time. The ceiling was too high (so it seemed) not to start sounding alarms at that stage. So, if it was eventually going to be MDT anyway, does the D3 really matter in the scheme of things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernNJ Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 If it wasn't one, it certainly was close to being a tornado between Bixby and Broken Arrow near Midnight CDT. TDS per Tulsa in the area now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMo Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 AT 1204 AM CDT...A DAMAGING TORNADO WAS LOCATED NEAR BIXBY...MOVING NORTH AT 45 MPH. THIS IS A LIFE THREATENING SITUATION...RADAR CONFIRMS TORNADO DEBRIS IN THE AIR! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewxmann Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 You are questioning because of a "deviation from usual protocol". Are they not allowed to issue higher risk outlooks when the potential is there for a more significant severe weather event? And yes, I realize what issuing a D3 moderate entails. There's a lot of potential in every event. You can't just forecast for the highest potential every time. There are events when it is obviously evident that something big will happen, and the modeling is consistent, and you have enough confidence to forewarn the public about it. Then there are the events when the potential outcome is volatile and sensitive to large-scale perturbations. This was one of them, IMO. And of course they're not allowed to issue higher risk outlooks because someone said so on a weather forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebo Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 There's a lot of potential in every event. You can't just forecast for the highest potential every time. There are events when it is obviously evident that something big will happen, and the modeling is consistent, and you have enough confidence to forewarn the public about it. Then there are the events when the potential outcome is volatile and sensitive to large-scale perturbations. This was one of them, IMO. And of course they're not allowed to issue higher risk outlooks because someone said so on a weather forum. Again there was an enhanced potential that didn't pan out. I don't know why you are being so hung up on semantics when at the time of the issuance the potential was very much there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 Yet you only talk now about it after the event has already happened. Basically you're trying to say "I told you so" when you never actually told us so... Well until now. SPC has an unforgiving job. They don't always get it right but they do the best they can. That's what happens when you're in the business of predicting the future. Many of the nations best forecasters also busted based on the same data you looked at. So forgive me if info think you are being a Monday morning QB when you've had that reputation on here before. FWIW, thewxmann isn't trying to rub it in...and lets face it, he was right in this case. For years he has had a "find what can go wrong" mentality which I actually appreciate. These days, most forecasters (hypecasters by definition) only look for things that can go right (i.e., they only forecast potential...and often times simply worst case scenario--think Reed Timmer or DT). in many ways it is a breath of fresh air to have a forecaster who looks at the bigger picture and considers the caveats and possible deal-breakers. He certainly does have a conservative bias (April 27th was a good example), but I don't think he is looking to boost his own personal ego or bash SPC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.