2012-02-28 MISC: NE/KS/AR/MO

[rdale]

I wish you would reply to what I wrote rather than creating your own interpretation. I don't "blame" TWX. That word does not appear anywhere in my posts.

Agreed - and my apologies if it came across that way. The first post to bring up this topic clearly looked to pass blame, so that's what I was clearing out.

Truncating volume scans is an idea whose time has come based on numerous conversations (including with aviation interests) the past year.

I agree - and from my understanding the FAA has said they will not allow truncated scans with precip occurring. As I understand, AVSET took a lot more work to get through than needed because of it.

As I understand it, there was a funnel cloud report (it was darkness). This was less than one hour before Harveyville.

Does a funnel cloud in the dark necessitate the need for an hour long blanket TOR? I don't think so, but now we're getting too close to Monday morning QB. I checked the chatroom logs and didn't see anyone suggesting anything out of the ordinary with that cell, so if all the TV, NWS, private sector mets and EMs had no issues during the event, it is hard for me to go back and point out the "obvious" at this stage.

 

[Mike Smith]

but now we're getting too close to Monday morning QB.

I fear something about my position is getting lost in the translation: By representing themselves as able to do tornado warnings tiered by intensity they set themselves up for more "Monday morning quarterbacking," not less. I'm concerned that the April 1 experiment will serve neither the public nor the NWS well.

...it is hard for me to go back and point out the "obvious" at this stage.

Precisely.

 

[Jason Haller]

another issues not being addressed with the Harveyville Tornado was its proximity to the Topeka radar. Harveyville is within 30 miles or so of the physical radar. I also believe that Harveyville is directly south of the actual radar as well with which would have made any velocity scans very hard to read, correct? Could this have been a factor in not seeing rotation in the storm since it was so close to the radar and a bit far for the Wichita radar for good velocity scans?

Edit: Harveyville is not directly south of the radar but is south and east of it. My mistake.

 

[rdale]

No, that's a sweet spot for seeing rotation. Tough for straightlines though.

 

[Glenn Schubert]

This guy was a local volunteer firefighter from Harrisburg, IL, so I suppose he might have been serving as a spotter too. I watched the radar of this storm as it crossed from Missouri into Illinois, go 10 miles south of my home in Carbondale, IL, just south of Marion, IL and into Harrisburg, IL. It had strong rotation all the way across IL. It was estimated as traveling at 60mph land speed, and it was still dark, so I think this guy just didn't see the tornado coming. There might have been some power flashes as it got into Harrisburg, but it is just empty farm land before that. I bet he will be a little more cautious next time!

 

[Jason Haller]

No, that's a sweet spot for seeing rotation. Tough for straightlines though.

Thanks for the info. I had heard differently.

 

[rdale]

Great Harveyville KS analysis by Jon Davies - http://davieswx.blogspot.com/2012/03/harveyville-ks-february-28-2012.html

 

[Rodney Price]

I'm in a unique position with respect to the Harveyville tornado, as a former resident of the town. My folks' house was damaged, the garage destroyed and worst of all, they lost their next door neighbor.



Above are the radar images from 0257 and 0302Z 29 Feb. (thanks to George Phillips, SOO at NWS TOP for providing these).
Mike suggests a faster scanning strategy for the 88-D. Tuesday night, KTWX 88-D was running in VCP-212 mode. Let's say the radar could be set up to complete the volume scan in half the time. Would we have been able to spot the vortex and provide enough warning, given it was moving at 75 mph? Hard for me to say.

As is the case with any event (even life in general) there's always room for improvement.

 

[Mike Smith]

Here is more on the topic in case anyone is interested: www.kansas.com/2012/03/02/2239323/harveyville-tornado-struck-without.html

For me, this situation further demonstrates the futility of trying to warn for tornado intensity. We just do not have the scientific skill or the data (4+ min. intervals with the WSR-88D's) to do it.

 

[rdale]

More good followup by Jon Davies and "no warning" (well, other than a blanket TOR from a private sector company.)

http://davieswx.blogspot.com/2012/03/harveyville-ks-tornado-article-in.html

 

[Skip Talbot]

Split posts pertaining more to radar meteorology and tornado warning policy than specifically to the 2012-02-28 event to new Advanced Weather Forum topic. Please continue discussion at:
http://www.stormtrack.org/forum/sho...ensity-Based-Radar-Indicated-Tornado-Warnings