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.
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?
“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.
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 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 …
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.
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.
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.
