5 ms·
Considering there were over 1000 tornados last year (and it was a low year), I’d say they are sensationalizing. As I type this, there is a 1 mile wide one just
by madengr 7y ago
Considering there were over 1000 tornados last year (and it was a low year), I’d say they are sensationalizing.
As I type this, there is a 1 mile wide one just 20 miles from here.
- abraae 7y agoI don't know about your first point. But your second - "as I type this" - supports what the article is saying doesn't it?
- threeseed 7y agoIt's a quote from the warning coordination meteorologist at the National Weather Service’s Storm Prediction Center. And it's not about the number of tornados. But the fact that there has been no break between them i.e. 11 consecutive days.
- phkahler 7y agoIn recall a time probably 30 years ago or so. A large low pressure system settled in the Pacific northwest at the same time a high settled somewhere in the southeast. The counter rotation pumped moist air in across southern CA or Mexico and up to the northeast. We had rain every day (but not continuously) in Michigan for 29 straight days. It only stopped when a typhoon got sucked in to the apparently stable system. Point being that one unusual series of events doesn't mean anything. Neither did that record hurricane season in 200x that people claimed would be the new normal.
- OrgNet 7y agoyou know they are sensationalizing because they say: > Approaching ‘Uncharted Territory’
- King-Aaron 7y agoIs it the storm cell, or the tornado itself that's a mile wide?
- sverige 7y agoThe storm cells are typically many miles wide. Tornadoes not infrequently will cut a swath a mile wide. I could repeat many stories from family and friends who have witnessed such things, but after a bit they all start to sound the same to me after living most of my life in tornado alley.
- madengr 7y agoListening to the news feed on 167 MHz FM, they say the tornado itself is 1 mile wide, but who knows. Again, maybe more sensationalism. The thread headline is more like baseball statistics.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- jussij 7y agoFrom the article: Federal government weather forecasters logged preliminary reports of more than 500 tornadoes in a 30-day period — a rare figure, if the reports are ultimately verified — after the start of the year proved mercifully quiet. Monday, Dr. Marsh said, was the 11th consecutive day with at least eight tornado reports, tying the record. That reads to me more like the exception than the norm.
- Mountain_Skies 7y agoTying a record when the records don't really go back that far isn't all that rare. Certainly it's something to take notice of but not something to read too much into, at least not yet.
- reredacted 7y agoWeather records are spotty at best, and stupid fucks like to use them as an excuse. "Hurr durr its real hot out today" If anything, its a symptom of the real problem. But most Americans are too too stupid for that conversation. Hope you have a nuclear bunker bro
- asynchronous13 7y agoComplete tornado records in the US begin in 1950 -- how far back does it need to go for it to be worthwhile in your opinion?
- zaroth 7y ago2000 years for events like this to make a “record” significant. Particular when records are of the sort like “11th consecutive day with at least 8”. Ever listen to a baseball game with an announcer who loves stats? They can find something about nearly every game that breaks a record of some sort.
- AaronFriel 7y agoIt's true, that is one of the things about lies, damned lies, and statistics - the more creative you are, the easier it is to invent new record breaking stats. 2000 years seems somewhat arbitrary - would you apply the same threshold to "500 tornadoes within a 30 day span", what about 1,000, what about 10,000? There probably ought to a threshold where extraordinary evidence is sufficient to make extraordinary claims, otherwise if your requirement is 2000 years, I'm sorry to report that nothing could ever persuade you about climate science, or really most science.