Mike Peregrine
EF5
Karen - I think we're just approaching this from two different methodologies more than anything. When I see the maps, I'm also interested in forecasting ... the first thing I do is look for the basic synoptic features, boundary positions, etc. and try to assemble some sort of picture in my head of what things are working towards that day. But then I just can't help but relate what I'm putting together with the previous events I've either chased or tried to figure out a forecast for in the past. Those events are there, no matter how hard a person could try to remain objective and keep them from coming up. Once the similarities become too many to discount any longer, I have to look it up and see if it was correct. The reason I said I wasn't interested in guessing dates in this thread was because doing so threw off my forecast and prejudiced me against the genuine targets (though my targets were still pretty close). Something that H mentioned earlier is true also ... that relating these events with our own memory is actually harder in some respects than simply working out a new forecast. There's a challenge that can't be ignored that is just part of the game ... and a total rush when you finally realize what day it actually is.
What I personally think has happened in these cases is that by far the majority of the dates chosen have been notorious in one respect or another ... so they are BOUND to stand out to someone. The problem is actually not in the replies to the threads, or even the guessing of dates ... but actually the EVENTS we are working with here. To make a 'cleaner' game that is based more on forecasting principle than on history, one of two things needs to happen ... either the game designer should completely fabricate a scenario (which would take a ton of work and be exceptionally difficult) ... OR they should concentrate on days in which only minor factors came into play that ultimately resulted in a tornado. These days should be relative unknowns where only a few chasers intercepted ... where nothing newsworthy occurred ... and where the forecast was marginal for tornadoes to start with.
Sorry if coming up with dates has been offensive to anyone ... but the fact is when I chase on a day like May 10, 2003, I'm not going to forget that setup anytime soon. The boundary positions and storm system evolution just become burned in a person's head.
What I personally think has happened in these cases is that by far the majority of the dates chosen have been notorious in one respect or another ... so they are BOUND to stand out to someone. The problem is actually not in the replies to the threads, or even the guessing of dates ... but actually the EVENTS we are working with here. To make a 'cleaner' game that is based more on forecasting principle than on history, one of two things needs to happen ... either the game designer should completely fabricate a scenario (which would take a ton of work and be exceptionally difficult) ... OR they should concentrate on days in which only minor factors came into play that ultimately resulted in a tornado. These days should be relative unknowns where only a few chasers intercepted ... where nothing newsworthy occurred ... and where the forecast was marginal for tornadoes to start with.
Sorry if coming up with dates has been offensive to anyone ... but the fact is when I chase on a day like May 10, 2003, I'm not going to forget that setup anytime soon. The boundary positions and storm system evolution just become burned in a person's head.
