Andy Hatzos
@thegreatzo.bsky.social
Weather forecaster for NWS ILN. | Travel, photography, hockey, roller coasters, highpointing, and prog-rock. | CMich '07.
I felt like I was being graded on how much attention I was paying to the minutiae of the wording, not the content of what we were learning. When the quizzes take three times as long as the modules themselves, something's gone horribly wrong. 🙃
November 23, 2024 at 9:52 PM
I felt like I was being graded on how much attention I was paying to the minutiae of the wording, not the content of what we were learning. When the quizzes take three times as long as the modules themselves, something's gone horribly wrong. 🙃
Just pulled it up on AWIPS. A few pulses before it got to Pittsburgh, and no lightning after that!
November 20, 2024 at 11:39 PM
Just pulled it up on AWIPS. A few pulses before it got to Pittsburgh, and no lightning after that!
Verifying near Pittsburgh!
November 20, 2024 at 10:03 PM
Verifying near Pittsburgh!
Greatly appreciated, and enjoyed the conversation! If anything else comes up regarding this project feel free to message me or email me at work. 🌪️
November 20, 2024 at 6:26 PM
Greatly appreciated, and enjoyed the conversation! If anything else comes up regarding this project feel free to message me or email me at work. 🌪️
Sorry, this is a lot 😂 but I could go for hours talking about tornado warnings and emergencies and verification. Fascinating subject to me, and I'm really interested to see what you come up with!
November 19, 2024 at 1:11 AM
Sorry, this is a lot 😂 but I could go for hours talking about tornado warnings and emergencies and verification. Fascinating subject to me, and I'm really interested to see what you come up with!
But the reason I mentioned looking at data /before/ the issuance of the TorE is that as a warning forecaster, I think a lot about judging performance not by what happened after the warning decision was made (verification) but by assessing the factors that led to the decision in the first place.
November 19, 2024 at 1:11 AM
But the reason I mentioned looking at data /before/ the issuance of the TorE is that as a warning forecaster, I think a lot about judging performance not by what happened after the warning decision was made (verification) but by assessing the factors that led to the decision in the first place.
To your last question, I feel like a metric or verification standard for a TorE would probably have to include an EF-scale component as well as a component tied to the length/duration of the tornado (or the tornado's strongest segment).
November 19, 2024 at 1:11 AM
To your last question, I feel like a metric or verification standard for a TorE would probably have to include an EF-scale component as well as a component tied to the length/duration of the tornado (or the tornado's strongest segment).
The really cool (but very time intensive) thing I'm thinking about would be to catalog the EF-rating for a tornado for each separate minute that the TorE was technically in effect. Analyzing radar data on top of points/polygons from the DAT would probably make that possible.
November 19, 2024 at 1:11 AM
The really cool (but very time intensive) thing I'm thinking about would be to catalog the EF-rating for a tornado for each separate minute that the TorE was technically in effect. Analyzing radar data on top of points/polygons from the DAT would probably make that possible.
Another thing I'm thinking about -- are you calculating these stats for the entire durations of the warnings that included a TorE, or only for the valid time that the TorE / catastrophic tag was actually in effect?
November 19, 2024 at 1:11 AM
Another thing I'm thinking about -- are you calculating these stats for the entire durations of the warnings that included a TorE, or only for the valid time that the TorE / catastrophic tag was actually in effect?
Of course, EF-ratings are also a function of what gets hit, independent of the meteorology, but that's unavoidable.
My personal gut opinion -- if I were to issue a TorE, I would want it to verify at >=EF3, and probably with more than just one or two DIs at the EF3 level.
My personal gut opinion -- if I were to issue a TorE, I would want it to verify at >=EF3, and probably with more than just one or two DIs at the EF3 level.
November 19, 2024 at 1:11 AM
Of course, EF-ratings are also a function of what gets hit, independent of the meteorology, but that's unavoidable.
My personal gut opinion -- if I were to issue a TorE, I would want it to verify at >=EF3, and probably with more than just one or two DIs at the EF3 level.
My personal gut opinion -- if I were to issue a TorE, I would want it to verify at >=EF3, and probably with more than just one or two DIs at the EF3 level.
Been a while since I did the WDTD modules, so I'm not sure if they have a specific EF-rating they're looking to get out of a TorE. But that's probably the most objective way to assess a TorE from a verification standpoint. Looking at 2/3/4 allows a range of stats, which I'm glad you're running!
November 19, 2024 at 1:11 AM
Been a while since I did the WDTD modules, so I'm not sure if they have a specific EF-rating they're looking to get out of a TorE. But that's probably the most objective way to assess a TorE from a verification standpoint. Looking at 2/3/4 allows a range of stats, which I'm glad you're running!