I have been seeing the whole CIPS analogy page being thrown around where May 3rd, 1999 is one of the analogous events for Saturday. However, if you look at all the events, there are only a few where severe weather occurred. Sure enough though, people are throwing the "May 3rd" term around to describe this weekend, which is irresponsible in my opinion.
This is hilarious to me in a really sad way. It seems that many people in weather are prone to taking model output at face value without understanding the data that went into it, the models biases, and how to use it effectively as a tool. Anyone in their right mind would say "yeah there's a big trough, and a sharp dryline... but that's not just 5/3/99 that's like a million setups, including a lot of busts". I would always see the old-timers like Tim Vasquez warn about this, and the CIPS crap is a really good example. Quick someone tell the media about CIPS so they can hype things even more
I wouldn't put money on it, but I 'woudn't be surprised' either. And im not sure getting a lot of folks attention for the potential is such a bad thing. Don't hate'm cause he's successful.
You mean those huge 4/13-4/15 2012 and 5/18-5/20 2013 outbreaks?
He's right in this case, but it's disingenuous. These last two years have had extremely minor outbreak sequences (by count) so saying this is the biggest thing since the 2011 Super Outbreak is putting some false importance to the event. He's deliberately invoking the memory of the Super Outbreak, and that will definitely get people wormed up. I think it's a dangerous situation unfolding, but something about the way he hypes it rubs me the wrong way. Maybe it's because of the way he hypes any system with 65 dews and 50kt LLJ - omg apocalypse!
The thing that bugs me with social media, and just look at Reed's wall if you need good examples, is that these people aren't more weather aware. They ask him if they're in danger because they have no idea about what websites they should be using, or what weather radios they should be buying. Then they go out in dangerous conditions to take pictures and share those on his threads. They don't learn to become informed about risk outlooks, or watches, or warnings. They depend on Reed posting. The problem is that it's not Reed's job to warn the public, so if he's sick, or tired from an all-night drive, or just misses an event - his fans are left unaware of any risk. He might have a very secondary purpose in keeping people safe, but his #1 goal is to attract fans and keep fans engaged because they're the ones funding him at this point.
It's not hating on Reed to say that his goals are selling video and attracting fans to pay his salary. As long as he's not endangering anyone he should chase how he wants to chase, and that's fine. But if he wants to start preaching about how he's saving lives and doing science, there's an argument to be made. You could also argue that he's brought a negative side to the forefront in chasing and that he's not the best role model. He's probably the closest thing we have to Jonas from Twister.
After five years of chasing and contemplating I'm still not closer to an answer as to whether that's a good thing, a bad thing, or not even a thing to be concerned with *shrug*
Warren Faidley said:
Nor does discontent equal "hatefulness." Why do people always think that anytime a chaser disagrees with someone in the chasing community it's hateful?
Because chasers are silly, insecure, opinionated nerds with a fierce independent streak. Myself included.
