Quote:
Originally Posted by VtSteve
I have less faith in the forecasts and alerts now than ever before. They're all on computer models and auto pilot. Now I just look around and guess myself  |
It wasn't my intention to undermine the extremely important work that the National Weather Service does for us. One should always take a storm warning seriously, and listen to the advice given in the warning text.
However, here is the summary of my post (which is also how I feel about science in general): The earth is still better at what it does than we are at what we do. Technology is great, but is never greater than what's all around it. We are at our best when we stay humble to Murphy's Law.
VtSteve isn't wrong to forecast by looking around. One thing I have noticed is that the computers in science sometimes do take on a more important role than they should have. One of my best friends comes from a line of New England farmers, and he can make daily weather forecasts based on look, listen, and feel (or as he said, "The maple trees speak to me.") He knows very little about the science of meteorology, yet he's beaten me in forecasting contests this summer, even once with a severe storm threat.
This sometimes-superiority of the "farmer's method" over the "scientific method" is also supported by the words of a meteorologist I know who interned at a National Weather Service office while in college. When severe storms were approaching, he went outside to look, listen and feel. Upon returning inside, his supervisor redirected his attention back to the computer terminals and said, "Don't let the weather distract you from the weather." He felt it was a shame that more of the old-fashioned ways were being lost rather than included to work alongside modern methods, and that the exclusion might not be a good thing.
Once again, the earth is a step ahead of us. Case in point (and bringing this thread back to its original topic)... Last Thursday morning I don't think any forecaster honestly thought an EF-2 tornado would cut a "long track" (though broken, in places) through New Hampshire with a forward speed of 50 mph.
Most forecasters (including myself) saw at least a small chance that it might happen. But still, there were too many questions. I read many of them in the discussions. Would the day's cloud cover inhibit storm growth? That was a big question, among others. There was definitely a mention of tornadoes in the SPC discussion for the northeast that morning. That's not unusual during a severe weather threat. I've seen them write more excited-sounding discussions about this area in the past.
Here is what was on my mind: The night before, when the energy was beginning to flow rapidly into New England, the Providence area got some tornado action. A severe thunderstorm watch had been issued for southern New England at 10 pm, until 5 a.m. The storms were operating independently of the sun's heat. They didn't need it because the atmosphere had all the "crack" it needed for an all-night high (and still, it was nothing compared to what happens on the Plains sometimes.) If thunderstorms are maintaining or gaining "severe" intensity overnight, that's usually a scary, "outside the box" situation, even for modern day forecasters.
When weather reaches a certain intensity and breaks the confines of the rule books we normally use, it can be very humbling for many people, even if it's behaving by a rule book that's known but less-used. Less use means less practice. My first question of Thursday morning's weather was, "Where has last night's atmospheric energy gone?" and after looking at the information, the answer seemed to be, "Nowhere, really." We were going to see some "outside the box" weather that day, I was pretty sure, but what kind of weather, I wasn't sure. Tornadoes were on my mind, but I was thinking more like a couple of EF-0 with maybe one EF-1. A roof ripped off here and there, but not enough to make the news headlines for more than one day.
I can't speak for others, but from the discussions it sounded like they were having similar thoughts. I think if anyone at SPC foresaw the tornado we had, we would've had the tornado watch issued that morning instead of that afternoon. The tornado watch for Maine, when it was issued, seemed like more of a reaction to what had already happened in the storm's NH wake. As it turned out, the worst had already happened by the time the tornado watch was issued.
Still,
it didn't mean the threat wasn't real. It WAS. It didn't mean any forecasters had dropped the ball. It only meant that the weather was making people--including forecasters--humble. It does that. We're smaller than it is.
Was the funnel cloud of June 18 actually just a harmless scud cloud as Scott mentions? He might be right. And maybe not. I have reasons to believe and disbelieve him. No one will ever know for sure. Science is full of mysteries like that, which is why people study it. Is there a Loch Ness Monster? What about Bigfoot? Have we been visited by aliens from other planets? Once again, the only correct scientific answer to any of those questions is, "No one has ever proven an answer 100%."
What does this mean for someone watching a weather forecast? If we say there are weather hazards possibly coming, listen and prepare. Your preparations might be in vain. So what. Also try to learn enough about weather so that you can spot some of the unpredicted storm threats without needing official warning, because sometimes storms sneak past the forecasters. They do that because they can. Even after what I said about the GYX radar in my last post, I still depend on it. I just try to keep its flaws in mind. It was made by people.
The weather of the last couple of weeks in NH should be a reminder to everyone that all science is the ongoing study of something we don't know everything about, or else "ongoing study" would not be necessary. Since it
is necessary, Murphy's Law is always in effect -- and unfortunately proved deadly last Thursday.
Don't let uncertainty get the best of you, though. If anything, try to enjoy it. One of my favorite quotes is from the guy who wrote "The Polar Express" (I can't remember his name.) "A world in which there might be a Santa Claus is clearly superior to a world in which there definitely is not." And so, we have the science of meteorology, all mights and no definite. Just love it.
