Weather Channel's Tor-Con index: Useful tool or ratings-boosting BS?

I overheard the Weather Channel giving a region in Texas a Tor-Con rating of 6 earlier today. As I stood there trying to figure out what they were talking about, the weather person helpfully explained that such a rating meant there was a 60% chance of a tornado appearing there today.

I initially assumed that such a term was a ratings gimmick; the same assumption I made when they started naming blizzards recently.

But, I decided that perhaps I should investigate a bit further. Eventually I found their explanation about The Tor-Con index.

Having perused it, I still consider it a ratings gimmick. But perhaps I’m jaded.

So, what do you think?

Percent chance of a tornado appearing WHERE?. In the state? In the forecast zone? In the county? In the town? In your yard? Even if the chance of a tornado in your forecast zone is 100%, the chances are still a million to one that it will strike at the spot where you happen to be. Which puts the tor-con where you happen to be at its usual 0.00001% or less.

How about if they put the chances that there will be a winner in the Power Ball drawing at 60%. What does that tell you?

I didn’t know what it was until you told us, but I still voted BS. because The Weather Channel. :stuck_out_tongue:

I still think the blizzard naming is just a gimmick. Take note that the National Weather Service won’t even acknowledge TWC names for blizzards.

“Within 50 miles of any location within the indicated area”. To which we may say, Gee that’s mighty useful, rotation-breath. But that *does *reflect weatherpeople getting better at having some sense of where is the severe weather heading; it’s just that they used to suck really badly at it.

But sure, you could say “the weather is gonna be really bad today, dudes, there’s a 60% chance of tornados in Waffelhaus County east and north of Doublewideville, be on the lookout” but that does not sound like some sort of sensor reading from Star Trek and you cannot trademark a percentage probability.

It’s neither BS or useful. It’s a fair measurement of the likelyhood of a tornado, but tornadoes are such small scale events that it serves no useful purpose.

I’m not sure which way to vote.

If the index has been reproducibly validated by quality research, showing that its probability ratings have value, then it would be a useful tool.

In the absence of such evidence, it is a massive crock designed to improve Weather Channel ratings.

That’s my take on damn near everything that channel / site now does. They were certainly useful, meaningful, and a bit geeky in the old days.

Now they’re a friggin’ reality show about clouds. Complete with staged tantrums. How far the mighty have fallen.

Not as useful as the original TWC forecast tool, where they shove an intern outside in a thunderstorm and watch what happens.

It’s still not useful. They show a map covering tens of thousands of square miles and say there’s a 60% chance of a 200 yard wide weather event. No practical use at all.

One of the TV weather dudes around here started naming snowstorms 40 years ago. Interesting to see the rest of the country finally caught up.

The Weather Channel is not “the rest of the country”

The NWS Storm Prediction Center does convective outlook predictions that predict regions likely to have severe thunder storms and tornadoes.

One problem TWC, Accuweather, etc. have is that there are great forecasts available for free from the NWS. So they have to invent “products” to distinguish themselves. Marketing 101.

I voted BS … it’s a meaningless statistic of no use to anyone … infotainment at the expense of real science … and this has nothing to do with them not naming a blizzard after me … the bastards …

[noparse]www.weather.[/noparse]GOV … accept no substitute …

They really should name a blizzard after you. Both blizzards and your posts are full of small round particles that obstruct our view of what’s going on. :slight_smile:

:dubious:

I guess that’ll be my next poll. Am I wasting people’s time posting here?

it is probably about the prior post by the person who strangely uses ellipses.

Attn: A snowstorm is not a Blizzard!!!

If The Weather Channel only named blizzards, they’d rarely get past Charley. Blizzards are a combination of high winds and very low visibility for an extended period of time. It doesn’t even have to be snowing for a blizzard to occur.

Even a two foot snowstorm is not a blizzard absent the wind, visibility, and duration.

Very true, and even more egregious of them! :eek:

Blizzards are pretty much the exclusive province of the high and Central plains east of the Rockies. Eastern Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, and Eastern Colorado. Also the Eastern edge of the Northern Great Lakes States.

You can get them where Qadgop lives down to Chicago, but the prevailing winds are almost always from the wrong direction. A Nor’easter can produce one, but it has to be really cold and snowy. The ocean tends to keep the air too warm. The rest of the country hasn’t seen one.

Blizzards are deadly. It’s when you find a car in a ditch in March with a couple of frozen bodies and a newspaper from January.