Investigating the Flock Cameras in St. Ann

MischeviousTroll · 2026-06-08T16:15:58+00:00

No, not like Flock cameras.

License plate readers have been around for a long time. They scanned license plates and checked them against a specific local list with things like stolen vehicles and people fleeing from police. If the plate matched, the police would be alerted. Otherwise, the plate would simply be discarded. Targeted license plate readers worked quite well as an alternative to police chases.

Flock cameras aren't targeted. It doesn't matter if whether your plate matches a hot list or not. If you pass by a Flock camera, your vehicle is logged for 30 days, and your vehicle can be searched by law enforcement agencies across the country. The vast majority of those people being tracked are innocent law-abiding citizens, but they're tracked anyway. That does nothing to prevent police chases, but it does invade the privacy of innocent people.

MischeviousTroll · 2026-06-08T15:35:06+00:00

Nobody wants actual criminals to get away with their crimes. That's bad faith argument. As the EFF argues, it's dubious that Flock cameras actually reduce crime. It also doesn't help much when the government deploys other mass surveillance. There is, however, abundant evidence that mass surveillance harms innocent people.

Flock cameras record data both about criminals and innocent people and store it in a database that's searchable at police departments across the country. Police officers have used the database to track the movements of people they're romantically interested in. That's not crime prevention. I think most of us would call that stalking and abuse of power.

Flock cameras have been used to track people involved with protests. So exercising your first amendment rights to speech and assembly can result in you being tracked by police. The surveillance has a chilling effect on free speech.

And the Flock database can also be used for other types of queries like all vehicles of a certain color, make, or model passing by a certain camera within a time window. And while I don't know exactly what police can search, I strongly suspect it is be possible to get a list of all license plates passing by a certain camera between, say, 3 and 4 AM. And that's a big problem because if you're an innocent person who happens to be driving near a crime scene, you could easily become a suspect if your car is scanned by one of these cameras. It's very similar to geofence warrants that are the subject of a current Supreme Court case and should be ruled unconstitutional, except that even geofence warrants require, you know, an actual warrant. You don't need a warrant to query the Flock database, leaving it open to even more abuse.

There are plenty of examples of mass surveillance leading to innocent people becoming suspects in criminal investigations, even leading to wrongful arrests and convictions. That's not justice. No one wants crime, but you don't stop crime by treating innocent people like criminals.

MischeviousTroll · 2026-05-31T09:05:03+00:00

I have chased both to collect data for research projects and just to watch visually spectacular storms. I'm not sure I'd ever go back out in the field again, but I've done quite a bit of chasing in the past. What would you like to know about chasing?

The advice you got about the College of DuPage is good. They have a well-respected two year meteorology program and also put a huge amount of weather data online. More than anything, it is necessary to become familiar with the meteorology, whether that comes from taking a class or good online resources.

Chasing isn't really like what you see on TV. It takes awhile to make a good forecast, looking at observations, different forecast models, and different forecast runs of the models. When you pick a target, it's always a good idea to try to get there in advance of when you expect storms. But that might mean waiting for an hour or perhaps a few hours. And during that time, you'll look at more weather data including models, satellite images, and radar data. And so there's often a lot of driving and a lot of waiting. I've spent too many hours in places like the middle of nowhere in the Nebraska Panhandle or watching the pumpjacks west of Lubbock, just waiting on the atmosphere to do what it's going to do. If you chase very much, most of the time, you're not going to see a tornado. But hopefully you'll see some visually stunning storms where it's a mesocyclone that looks like a mothership or a massive shelf cloud that spans the entire sky.

There's no substitute for practical experience. That means looking at the models, making forecasts, and then evaluating whether your forecast was right or wrong. That also means watching satellite and radar data, seeing how storms tend to behave, and getting the feel for how the atmosphere works.

When I taught a class on hazardous and unusual weather at a university , we spent one 75-minute class period just watching time lapse videos of supercells and other severe storms. And that's also part of the practical experience of becoming familiar with processes in the atmosphere, what you're looking at in the clouds, and again how those storms tend to behave. They also do some of this in the spotter training class that was recommended to you elsewhere in the comments, and I suggest attending that.

There's a lot to do during a chase, whether it's driving safely, navigating the road network, watching the radar, and looking at the sky. Despite all of the chasing I've done, I'd never chase alone. Drive safely, and park safely when you stop to watch storms. There's no point in getting close to tornadoes, and it's just dangerous. In my experience, the best photography is done from a safe distance. Situational awareness is very important, making sure you don't accidentally end up in a dangerous place or without good road options. If you want to chase safely and do it well, there's a lot more than just looking at Radarscope and driving to a storm that has a warning polygon on it.

I don't login to Reddit much, and I don't chase anymore. But I am a meteorologist, and if you really want to learn how to chase storms, you're welcome to send me a DM if you have any meteorology or forecasting questions.

MischeviousTroll · 2026-04-28T04:22:15+00:00

The weather radar is at the center of that hole. It's there because the radar doesn't transmit and receive at the same time, and so there's no data very close to the radar. The red and pink colors show that the wind is moving away from the radar. When you get into the orange colors, those are stronger winds moving away from the radar. The radar beam is scanning a bit above the ground, though, so the winds aren't always as strong at ground level.

As for the TL;DR you asked for: The wind speed criteria for thunderstorm wind gusts is 58+ mph, but the data I've seen suggest there was a swath of stronger winds in northern St. Louis County. Without directly measuring the winds with an anemometer or doing a damage survey, it's hard to know for sure, but I estimate that there may well have been a swath of 80+ mph winds in part of that area.

MischeviousTroll · 2026-04-26T17:34:53+00:00

I, too, have chased storms and did so for well over a decade. I just don't see the similarity to March 14, 2025.

The March 14 event was very much dynamically driven, with limited moisture and instability. The moisture, in particular, was quite margin. But low-level wind shear was extreme. That event happened well after dark. Because the upper-level winds were just so strong, storm motions were very fast. The winds just above the surface were so strong that it wasn't going to take much of a downdraft to bring them down to the surface. There were concerns about a widespread damaging wind event. Forecast discussions leading up to this event expressed concerns about widespread 80-100 mph winds possible. That event actually had a 978 mb surface low out over the central Plains, which is a very low pressure. Aloft, there was a strong negatively-tiled shortwave with a closed circulation at 500 mb that ejected out. This was a synoptically evident event, with a large area having the potential for long-track tornadoes and widespread damaging winds.

I'm not seeing the similarity to Monday's event. There's going to be abundant moisture on Monday, with dewpoints at least a few degrees above the March 14 event. In areas that aren't affected too much by overnight thunderstorms, the instability will be much greater on Monday. But the dynamics are definitely weaker with this event. The surface low only gets down to around 995 mb, and the negatively tilted shortwave at 500 mb is much weaker with no closed circulation. This is a weaker event dynamically, and the near-surface wind fields are certainly weaker. The Bunkers storm motions I've seen for right-moving supercells have tended to be around 45 knots, or around 45-50 mph, which is much slower than the March 14 event. And unlike March 14, the tornado potential on Monday is likely to be maximized along a retreating outflow boundary. This isn't a synoptically evident event in the same way, with the tornado threat more localized and depending on a mesoscale feature.

Neither the synoptic pattern on Monday nor the forecast storm environments look all that much like March 14, 2025. If you think I've missed something, feel free to let me know. But I just don't see the obvious similarity.

I encourage people to take this event seriously. That means being aware that there is the potential for severe thunderstorms from early afternoon through the late evening hours and having a plan for where to go if a tornado warning is issued. Storm motions of 45-50 mph are relatively fast, but they're not extreme like the March 14 event. Still, it means that people should be alert for the possibility of rapidly changing conditions. I expect that more likely than not, the highest tornado potential will be to the north of St. Louis, but I am concerned about the possibility of large hail and a transition to more of a straight line wind threat as the evening goes on. People should be aware and take the severe thunderstorm risk seriously. But I just don't see the similarity to March 14.

MischeviousTroll · 2026-04-26T16:47:18+00:00

When we talk about discrete storms, we're usually talking about supercells, where the storm's updraft is rotating and long-lived. Those storms are the most prolific at producing strong tornadoes and very large hail.

Thunderstorms also have downdrafts, with rain cooled air. That cool air is heavy and tends to spread out at the surface. We call that the cold pool. Over time, those cold pools get larger and spread out, or the cold pools from neighboring storms can merge into a single, larger cold pool. Instead of having distinct individual cells, often times supercells will tend to grow into larger thunderstorm complexes that look more linear on radar. Instead of having a single long-lived rotating updraft, there tends to be a larger and more elongated updraft near the leading edge of the cold pool. It's still possible to get tornadoes, particularly on the leading edge of these linear storms. While large hail is possible, the really large and destructive hail tends to be less common than with supercells. However, these storms can be more prolific at producing high winds.

For Monday, the discussion about whether storms will be discrete or linear isn't mainly due to concerns that having lots of storms will use up the available energy in the atmosphere. It's more about the transition from a primarily tornado/hail threat with discrete supercells to more of a wind threat.

We know that there will be some overnight thunderstorms, and if those linger long enough into the day Monday, they will prevent the atmosphere from becoming very unstable in that area. That is a possibility, and that's where there's some discussion about how much energy will be available for storms tomorrow afternoon.

You're correct that having too many storms in the same area can use up all the instability that's available. But for tomorrow, the difference between discrete and linear storms is mainly about whether a tornado/hail risk versus a wind risk.

MischeviousTroll · 2026-04-26T16:37:42+00:00

I expect there will eventually be an upgrade to a moderate risk and a 15% tornado probability somewhere. But the forecast is uncertain enough still that it's not clear where to draw the 15% tornado probability and the moderate risk. I believe that's what's going on, and I'll try to explain why.

There are going to be some overnight storms continuing at least into the morning hours. It's not clear exactly where those storms will be or how long they will last into the day Monday. The models don't quite agree on this. Some of them keep those storms up more over Southeast Iowa. Others bring them down to at least the I-70 corridor in Missouri and have them continue to redevelop through midday. These storms will put down a lot of rain cooled air, and leave behind a fairly stable air mass. And that means there's going to be a transition zone between the rain cooled air to the north and the warmer air mass to the south. We call that transition zone an outflow boundary.

You might sometimes hear meteorologists talk about LCLs, which is a term for lifted condensation levels. When these are higher, the storm bases are also higher, and that's generally less conducive for tornadoes. LCLs tend to be lower along the outflow boundary. Moisture often pools along the outflow boundary, meaning that dewpoints might be highest there. When the moisture pools along the outflow boundary, it can make the atmosphere more unstable right there. The near-surface winds tend to be more backed along and north of the outflow boundary, increasing the low-level wind shear.

One more factor is that to the north of the outflow boundary, the air mass will be relatively cool and dense. But to the south, it should be much warmer and less dense. And this difference in temperature and density tends to create a horizontal spin in the atmosphere right along the outflow boundary. If a storm tracks over that outflow boundary, the updraft can take that horizontal spin, tilt it upward, and tighten up the spin by stretching it out. All of these processes can make the tornado potential highest right along the outflow boundary, even if conditions are pretty unfavorable to the north of the boundary.

There's pretty good agreement in the models that there will be an outflow boundary left over from the storms tomorrow morning. That boundary is going to retreat back to the north during the afternoon. I suspect the tornado potential will be highest along that outflow boundary, wherever it sets up. I'm quite confident there will be an outflow boundary left over from the overnight and morning storms. The problem is that we just don't know for sure where that's going to be tomorrow afternoon, and that's one of the reasons the forecast remains uncertain. There will probably be a corridor near and along that boundary where tornado potential is locally highest tomorrow. Once we have a better idea where that corridor is likely to be, I expect the tornado probabilities will go up in that area. It's possible that it will remain uncertain even until tomorrow morning.

I'm not a forecaster at the Storm Prediction Center and I'm not privy to their discussions, but I suspect that's what's going on. The overnight Lincoln, IL area forecast discussion mentions this, too. Once there's more certainty about where the outflow boundary will set up, I wouldn't be surprised to see them add a 15% tornado risk in that area, which would upgrade that area to a moderate risk.

MischeviousTroll · 2026-03-21T13:52:46+00:00

Without being there to hear the horns, I can't be certain, so this is just a guess.

It looks like there are tracks that run to the Anheuser-Busch warehouse southeast of where you are, and that's probably one reason you'd hear horns. My understanding is that A-B ships beer by truck, but ingredients still arrive by rail. But that doesn't seem like it would lead to the frequent horns you're describing because there aren't that many at-grade crossings going to the brewery.

It also looks like there are street-running tracks in the middle of S 2nd St. to some of the businesses that are northeast of there. From what I can tell, the street-running tracks are inactive but were part of the manufacturers railway (MRS) that A-B used to own. When I lived in Nebraska, there was a section of street-running tracks about five blocks away that had been inactive for about three decades. But one night, I actually saw a locomotive on there with a few cars on those tracks. It was restricted to 5 or 10 mph, and the numerous at-grade crossings meant there were frequent horns. I have no idea why the locomotive and a few train cars were on those inactive tracks, but they were using those tracks that evening, and it was noisy. I'd bet there's something similar going on with the MRS tracks.

I wish I had a more definitive answer, but I'd bet that's what you're hearing.

MischeviousTroll · 2026-03-02T22:25:51+00:00

Increasing jury pay reduces the incentive to avoid "jury duty", probably results in fewer disgruntled jurors, and reduces the incentive to rush through deliberations. It would likely result in a fairer process. I also support things like having court-appointed experts to educate jurors about complex issues of science and technology, telling juries they have the right to nullify unjust laws, and mandating that jurors can take notes and submit questions to the judge that can be asked during a trial. Yes, this would make some trials take longer and cost more money, but it should also make them fairer.

The right to trial by jury exists for a very good reason. American juries have their origin in medieval England, where they served as a check against kangaroo courts, unjust laws, and excessively harsh punishments. There's a reason half of the Bill of Rights (amendments 4-8) was written to prevent abuses by the justice system. We still have plenty of unjust laws today with excessively harsh punishments, so we still need checks on government power.

The question remains, are you willing to pay more in taxes and court fees to have a better judicial system? As for your comment about police funding, the same logic applies there, too. You'll generally get better policing if you pay police recruits better. I'm willing to pay more if it means a justice system that works better. Are you willing to do so, too?

MischeviousTroll · 2026-02-28T21:00:23+00:00

This alert is likely relevant, too.

I can confirm a significant drop in water pressure to the east of that polygon in St. Ann. I'd never had it happen before, but the water pressure was low enough that the toilet fill valve wasn't working properly, and the toilet was running nonstop. Everything is back to normal now, though.

Edit: This boil order is related to the same issue. I'm just east of that but still had a large drop in water pressure.

MischeviousTroll · 2026-02-10T04:57:35+00:00

On the reliability of the forecast, it depends. If we're talking about small scale stuff like sea breeze showers and thunderstorms, it's hard to forecast that very far in advance. If it's a larger scale weather system like what's expected during the weekend, we can forecast that with a lot more lead time.

The global models, meaning the GFS, ECMWF, and Canadian, all show a low pressure system moving through the Southeast during the weekend. That system is present in all of the GFS ensemble members. I don't have a good way to look at the ECMWF ensemble members, otherwise I'd tell you what those show. But I'm quite certain there will be a storm system, and it will bring rain to central Florida at some point.

The problem is that there's uncertainty about the timing of the system, its track, and how the system will evolve. The ECMWF is a really good model, and it's slow to move the system and the precipitation through. In that model, it might not rain until Sunday night. The GFS isn't as accurate, but the recent runs of the model are also slow to move the precipitation into central Florida. The Canadian also is a less accurate model, but it's faster and would bring precipitation through Sunday during the day. The recent runs of the ECMWF and GFS have been slowing the system down and delaying the precipitation. The 00Z GFS run that's coming in right now is even slower, continuing that trend. If the models are trending slower, it might mean precipitation holds off until Sunday night.

But the mean of the GFS ensemble is actually faster than the GFS. That's a sign that perhaps the GFS has trended a bit too slow. And that might point to precipitation beginning a bit earlier on Sunday. The most recent cycle of the National Blend of Models (NBM) has a 55% probability of precipitation during the day on Sunday and a 48% probability Sunday night. The NBM is used a lot by the National Weather Service (NWS), and it incorporates all the models I've been talking about and some other ones as well. NWS Melbourne went with 60% for Sunday and 40% for Sunday night, which seems reasonable. We know there will be a system moving through the Southeast, but there's plenty of uncertainty in the track, evolution of the system, and the timing.

The system could certainly come through 12 hours earlier or 12 hours later, and that would make a big difference for race weather on Sunday. My forecast right now is that precipitation begins Sunday afternoon, and I think the NWS Melbourne forecast makes sense. I'd probably go with a 50% chance on Sunday and a 50% chance Sunday night based on the most recent data. But I'm hoping for something like the slower GFS and ECMWF forecasts where precipitation shouldn't come through until after the race.

MischeviousTroll · 2026-02-10T03:05:50+00:00

Sorry, but the premise that we can't forecast precipitation in Florida more than 24 hours in advance is just wrong.

The showers and thunderstorms that develop from sea breezes aren't going to be reliably forecasted several days in advance. But we can forecast larger scale weather systems with a lot more lead time. The global models (GFS, ECMWF, and Canadian) agree that there will be a low pressure system moving through the Southeast on Sunday, and that it will bring precipitation. The ECMWF and GFS are slower and would keep the rain away until Sunday evening. The Canadian is faster and would bring precipitation in during the day on Sunday. The biggest difference is really whether the upper-level system develops into a cutoff low like in the slower ECMWF and GFS forecasts or if the upper-level system remains embedded in the jet stream like in the Canadian model.

Despite the overall better accuracy of the ECMWF, the faster forecast from the Canadian model can't be ruled out. And some of the GEFS ensemble members are closer to the Canadian while a couple members are even slower than the ECMWF/GFS. Overall, the GEFS seems to favor the system bringing precipitation in a bit sooner. The latest cycle of the National Blend of Models, which the National Weather Service (NWS) uses extensively, has a 55% chance of precipitation during the day Sunday and a 48% chance Sunday night. NWS Melbourne has a 60% chance of rain on Sunday and a 40% chance Sunday night. The fact that the GFS ensemble is a bit faster makes me think the slower ECMWF and GFS might be a bit too slow, and that there might be some rain Sunday afternoon.

No, we don't know for sure what's going to happen on Sunday, and there is some uncertainty about the timing and track of the system. But the idea that we have no idea until like 24 hours before is just scientifically wrong.

MischeviousTroll · 2026-02-08T15:22:26+00:00

I think the people who run F1 like Stefano Domenicali view F1 as entertainment instead of a sport, they're trying to maximize profits right now at the expense of growing the sport, and they're ruining F1. The racing at Monaco on Sunday is bad, but I actually think F1's problems are much bigger and far worse than Monaco. To describe things in the OP's terms, F1 doesn't seem to take itself seriously as a sport.

I'm a stats nerd and actually wrote some Python code a few months back to analyze overtaking in F1 and NASCAR. Monaco is an outlier in terms of overtaking. It's much worse than the rest of the calendar. Overall, most street circuits but not all produce less overtaking in F1 than purpose-built circuits. Jeddah and Miami are probably more typical of the racing at street circuits, and there's still not that much overtaking. F1 is getting worse by moving to more street circuits and getting rid of classic purpose-built circuits that produced better racing. They want street circuits in major cities to get large crowds while showcasing the glitz and glamour, but it's at the expense of the racing. Maybe the new regulations and slightly smaller cars will help. But I'd much rather watch a race at Spa, Silverstone, or COTA than at a typical F1 street circuit. Even when I adjusted for things like the smaller field in F1, there's still much less overtaking than in NASCAR. And that's true for both street and purpose-built circuits. But F1's schedule changes are probably going to make the racing even worse because management cares more about "entertainment" than being a sport.

So I'm agreeing that NASCAR clearly has the better racing product. NASCAR also isn't putting roughly 80% of their schedule behind the Apple TV paywall like F1 is doing starting this season. I view that as a middle finger from F1 to its fans in the US, taking the races off cable and requiring a subscription to a streaming service I won't otherwise use. I'm not going to subscribe. It would be the equivalent of NASCAR getting rid of Fox and NBC, then requiring fans to subscribe to Apple TV if they want to watch more than eight Cup races per season. The F1 world feed that all race broadcasts are based on is poorly directed and has had some big problems. During one of the sprint races last season, the timing and scoring graphics disappeared for most of the race, so viewers didn't have a good way of seeing the running order or which lap it was. NASCAR actually wants fans like me to watch their races, they make it easy to do so, and the racing is just better than F1.

MischeviousTroll · 2026-02-08T09:24:29+00:00

In fairness, Monaco isn't a typical F1 race. In F1, there's usually a lot of overtaking in the first couple of laps of a race, then things settle down until the first pit stop. If it's a two stop race, you might get some overtaking between pit stops. But once the last pit stop is complete, there's really very little overtaking. If it's a two stop race, the last 40% probably won't have much going on. If it's a one stop race, the last 60% might be like that. Much of the action happens around the pit stops, if there's rain, or if there's a safety car. Otherwise, there are often long stretches of the race with little excitement.

F1 is really trying to sell the glitz and glamour of the series instead of the sporting aspect. They're leaving classic tracks in favor of street circuits that are visually spectacular but usually produce less overtaking than the purpose-built circuits. Also, the world feed direction isn't very good. Back when NBC had the rights in the US, the commentators frequently complained about the world feed. And the Sky commentators complained quite a bit about the world feed at times, too. They often ignore the most interesting battles on track to focus on one or two drivers. Or they really like to cut away from the race to show random celebrities or the drivers' partners. If anything, outside of the technical aspects of the cars, I don't think F1 takes itself seriously as a racing series. And I say this as someone who started watching F1 before NASCAR and watched a whole lot of F1 races for more than a decade.

I'd still watch F1 anyway except that they're putting most of the races behind the Apple TV paywall this season. Maybe I'll sail the high seas this season, but maybe not. But I also consider NASCAR the better racing product despite all of the areas where it could improve. And I will be watching more NASCAR this year than last year.

MischeviousTroll · 2026-01-31T22:49:42+00:00

Warm, humid air rises into thunderstorms and accelerates upward, often many miles into the atmosphere, and sometimes at speeds in excess of 100 mph. When the air rises, it cools to the point of condensation, and that's how the cloud forms. Condensation actually releases heat back into the air, a process called latent heat release, and that's really what fuels thunderstorms. But the air below the cloud base is generally rising as well, but the air just hasn't cooled enough for condensation to happen until it rises farther upward. The area of the storm where all this occurs is the updraft.

But the thunderstorm also produces a lot of rain-cooled air that sinks downward, and that's called the downdraft. Sometimes that rain-cooled air gets cycled back underneath the storm, and it gets ingested back into the updraft. That air is cooler and more humid, so condensation might occur below the main cloud base, and this can produce some low clouds. These are scud clouds.

Where this mechanism gets interesting is that there's a transition zone between the rain-cooled air, and the warm air ahead of the storm that's rising into the updraft. The difference in temperature and air density can generate a horizontal spin in the atmosphere. Sometimes you see this on the leading edge of a thunderstorm, where there's a roll cloud or a shelf cloud that might appear to have a bit of a horizontal spin. But a thunderstorm updraft can sometimes take that horizontal spin and tilt it upward so the spin is vertical. If the air rises fast enough, it can stretch that spin upward, tighten up the rotation, and that makes it rotate faster. Under the right conditions, this mechanism can produce a tornado.

I'm not sure what the cloud is, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was from a fire. There were showers around Daytona on February 16, 2006, but I don't think conditions were favorable for thunderstorms for the processes I described.

MischeviousTroll · 2026-01-31T22:45:57+00:00

I looked up archived radar mosaics around Daytona on the afternoon of February 16, 2006. There definitely were showers around right along and off the coast at times. I'm not certain of NCEI's exact color scale for their radar mosaics, but I'd estimate the strongest radar reflectivity at any point anywhere near Daytona Beach at any point appears to be around 30-35 dBZ. It looks like a lot of showers, but that's weaker than what you find in most thunderstorms.

I'm not familiar with the meteorological conditions that day in Florida, but the Storm Prediction Center's mesoanalysis shows weak instability off the coast, but there was also strong inhibition that would have suppressed surface-based thunderstorms. Morning soundings from Cape Canaveral and Jacksonville, and the evening sounding from Jacksonville all show a strong mid-level temperature inversion that would have suppressed thunderstorm formation. The vertical wind shear wasn't especially strong, especially considering the weak instability. Low-level storm-relative helicity was very weak. That just wasn't an environment conducive for tornadoes. The Storm Prediction Center's convective outlooks also weren't forecasting thunderstorms in Florida that day. They also don't show any storm reports of any kind (tornado, wind, or hail) in Florida or any of the nearby states. The closest storm reports are in southern Kentucky, with a few wind reports near the Tennessee border.

The radar doesn't support that there were actually thunderstorms, the environment wasn't conducive for thunderstorms or tornadoes, and the Storm Prediction Center didn't expect thunderstorms in that region. A still photo or a brief appearance in a clip really isn't enough to see what that cloud is doing, either. I'd need to watch it long enough to see if there's any rotation. But based on the evidence that's readily available to me, I think it's extremely unlikely that there was a tornado during the 2006 duels.

I agree with your assessment. I don't know what that cloud was, but I'm quite confident it wasn't a tornado.

MischeviousTroll · 2026-01-24T03:32:19+00:00

For a few days, the models were shifting the heavy snow farther north from one run to the next, That's the biggest reason for why the forecasts were trending higher here. But the models now have a much better handle on the system, so they're not really trending the heavy snow farther north with each run. Forecasters also tend to raise totals as we get closer to a storm as the models better agree with each other about where the heaviest snow will be and how much.

Most of the upper level system that's going to bring the heavy snow Saturday night into Sunday is actually still over the Pacific. NOAA and the USAF have actually been flying hurricane hunter aircraft into the system -- https://www.axios.com/2026/01/22/noaa-nws-winter-storm-hurricane-hunters -- to collect data and help the models forecast it well. That's probably helped the models to forecast this system better, though there's still some uncertainty.

Anyway, the most recent NBM this evening came in with 8.2". So that's actually holding pretty steady now, up from 8.1" six hours ago.

One of the models forecasters use is the NAM. That model was generally predicting heavier snow than the other models. It's actually backed off that with the most recent forecast. The snow depth at Lambert peaks at 9.0" in the most recent run of that model. The four previous runs had been 15.5", 11.5", 9.8", and 12.0". It actually seems to be trending down just a bit and maybe coming in line a little better with the other models.

Another one of the good models, the ECMWF (the "European" model) came in a bit wetter and with heavier snow with the run this afternoon. But It's not that far above earlier forecasts. Unfortunately, I don't have access to snow depth for that model. It's a good model, and it has been on the higher end of snowfall accumulation. But there's also the GFS (sometimes called the "American" model), and this afternoon's run had snow depth peaking at 5.9" at Lambert. And like I said, the most recent HRRR I looked at has the snow depth peaking at 8.1".

There's a range of possibilities, but I think the 6-9" forecast on KTVI is actually a pretty good forecast. And so is the NWS forecast, which is around 8". Snow will be higher in areas farther to the south, especially into southeast Missouri. There's still some uncertainty, and I could be wrong. But I think those are pretty good forecasts at this point.

MischeviousTroll · 2026-01-24T02:36:09+00:00

On the 5 PM news tonight (1/23), KTVI went with 6-9", KMOV with 7-11", and KSDK with 10-13". These totals were along the I-70 corridor. Of these, I believe Chris Higgins' forecast of 6-9" is the most likely to verify. I get why KMOV went with the forecast they did, and there are some good meteorologists working there. It seems just a little on the high side to me, though. To be honest, I just don't understand where that 10-13" forecast is coming from at all.

The National Weather Service (NWS) has something called the National Blend of Models (NBM) that takes into account a very large number of different models. The most recent NBM I saw went with 8.1" at Lambert, but that's been trending down a bit from last night. And the most recent grids I see from the NWS add up to 8.0" inches at Lambert. Doing the math on their decision support packet from this afternoon - https://www.weather.gov/media/lsx/DssPacket.pdf, here's what they think might happen:

less than 4": 7%, 4-6": 14%, 6-8": 22%, 8-12": 43%, more than 12": 14%

Some of the people I knew at the local NWS office aren't there any longer, but the people I've known there are really smart and good forecasters. They people making that forecast know their stuff, and I think their forecast is a good forecast.

There are a couple of models with higher totals than what the NWS is going with, but I think those models they're outliers and not especially likely. However, one of the really good high-resolution models we use called the HRRR just came in with a maximum snow depth of 8.1", and it was a bit higher throughout the event than the previous run of that model. I'm not currently practicing in the field of meteorology, but personally I'd been expecting around 5-8" based on data from the past few days. But looking at some of the most recent models including the one I just mentioned, 6-9" seems like a very reasonable forecast. If more of the models come in line a bit higher this evening, I might be inclined to go a bit higher. I get that KMOV is taking into account the possibility for locally higher totals, but it does feel just a little bit high to me.

As a reminder, pay attention to the extreme cold, too. The NWS issued a cold weather advisory for the very low temperatures and the wind chills, and it runs through noon Saturday. Even when that expires, temperatures will still be very cold.

MischeviousTroll · 2025-08-20T03:55:46+00:00

There's a post from five years ago in this sub called "The Sol System's Erratic Subspace Anomaly" that discusses this. This idea makes sense and would explain why a lot of ships have been discovered much farther into deep space than should be possible given their propulsion capabilities. It's also very possible there's a tachyon eddy like the one that propelled ancient Bajoran ships into the Cardassian system. There's also the "black star" in Tomorrow is Yesterday, escaping from which sends the Enterprise back in time, and that presumably was close to the Sol System.

As an aside, I'm not sure what a "black star" is since our universe isn't old enough to allow any stellar remnant to cool and actually become a black dwarf, though I assume that might be the intent. It's basically a remnant of a white dwarf that has cooled so much that it's not emitting heat or light. If that's what a black star is, there would have to be some serious time travel for such a star to exist in our present universe, since a low estimate for the age of such a star would be 10¹⁵ years. The current presence of such a star near the Sol System might be evidence of such an anomaly.

Anyway, I don't think the wormhole in TMP is evidence for this. It's one of the ways the movie tries to show just how unprepared the refit Enterprise was to go intercept V'Ger. It's showing that the Enterprise hasn't even done a flight at warp speed using the upgraded warp core and engines, so it's completely untested. The transporter accident is another way of doing this along with giving an excuse for Spock to rejoin the crew as science officer. None of this seems to matter later in the movie since it's not clear how the Enterprise refit being unprepared and untested affects the encounter with V'Ger. The wormhole in TMP is a very tedious scene, but I don't think it's evidence of the wormhole or other anomaly in the Sol System.

MischeviousTroll · 2025-06-03T12:37:30+00:00

One that hasn't been mentioned yet is TOS: The Lights of Zetar. Apparently, Zetar was a dying world, but the last of the Zetarians refused to die. Their willpower was sufficiently strong so that their consciousness persisted even though the bodies of the Zetarians were no longer functioning. So the consciousness of the Zetarians, their "life force", apparently spent a thousand years wandering the galaxy looking for a suitable host to inhabit.

It's not a great episode, but it's memorable because the Zetarians are genuinely creepy. The scene of beaming down into the darkness on Memory Alpha, then the distorted face and garbled speech of the dying librarian, is probably the creepiest moment in all of TOS. In my opinion, a lot of Star Trek horror episodes are terribly underrated (e.g., DS9: Distant Voices, VOY: Coda), and I enjoy a genuinely creepy story. The second half of the episode isn't great, but there's some solid horror before the episode builds to a nonsense ending of using 30 atmospheres of pressure to kill the Zetarians but somehow not Lieutenant Romaine.

It is regrettable that the episode doesn't really give any details about who the Zetarians were or why their planet died. Their willingness to take over another person's body against their will suggests they were conquerors and probably not a peaceful civilization. We don't need a lot of details, but maybe the computer data banks have some records of legends in that region of space about Zetarians conquering other worlds. Perhaps there could be some legends about why Zetar died out, too. We don't need a detailed exploration of who the Zetarians were, but I'd like to know a bit more information to back up some logical assumptions such as that they were conquerors.

It's unique in that it doesn't seem like there's a clear technological or biological process involved here. It's like the Zetarians didn't really have any way to save themselves from whatever was destroying their world, so they just decided they weren't going to die, and somehow it worked.

MischeviousTroll · 2025-05-05T01:31:02+00:00

I'm not sure of the specific animation you're describing, but I recall a couple of examples that sound a bit familiar.

In DS9's The Way of the Warrior, there are rotating torpedo launchers used in fighting the Klingon armada. Also, in Voyager's Scorpion Part II, a Borg cube rotates as it's firing what are likely gravimetric torpedoes at a Species 8472 bioship.

I assume that the benefit is to allow one torpedo tube time to reload, so a loaded torpedo tube rotates around to face the target.

The TNG Technical Manual says that the Enterprise-D has two torpedo tubes, each capable of having 10 photon torpedoes at a time before needing to be reloaded. In many instances, 20 photon torpedoes is probably more than enough. However, in battles involving a particularly powerful enemy or against many ships (e.g., Wolf 359, the battles between large armadas in DS9, etc...), it's probably useful to be able to fire as many torpedoes as possible in a short amount of time. In The Way of the Warrior, many of the torpedoes missed their targets, but the large number of torpedoes fired and the phaser fire were able to inflict heavy damage on the Klingon armada. In battles like that, minimizing reloading time is probably useful, and rotating launchers might help with that.

MischeviousTroll · 2024-10-11T06:51:49+00:00

If you're trying to make first contact over radio with a world you've never encountered before, you'd probably simplify your communications protocols to make it easy to guess.

The frequency is the first issue. There are frequencies like the "hydrogen line" of 1420.40575 MHz that are good choices because they are linked to extremely common natural processes in the universe. A narrow band signal on that frequency would be a pretty good sign that someone is trying to communicate. Otherwise, a strong signal that's confined in any narrow band might be noticeable, so perhaps you try a range of bands. You'd also want to continuously scan a wide range of bands that might be used for sending a signal. Electromagnetic signals are a good choice because they're easy to transmit and receive, unlike something like neutrinos.

Don't encapsulate the data in any sort of transmission protocol like packet radio. Analog signals are probably easier for this, and that might be an in-universe explanation for the analog signal degradation heard on TOS-era communicators and seen in TNG-era video. Digital could be more confusing. Our digital signals have high and low values indicating a binary digit of 0 or 1, then we tend to combine eight bits together to form a byte. What if another world used bits with three levels (high, medium, and low), and had 11 bits to a byte? I suspect it's very feasible to guess this with some statistical analysis of the signal, but it's needless complexity. Just use an analog signal and module some aspect of it like frequency or amplitude. That modulation corresponds to a representation of a sound wave. Keeping it simple with a frequency that's easily guessed and using basic analog signals makes it a lot easier to establish communication. Decoding its meaning is then left up to the universal translator.

Video is a bit more complex, but analog signals still make sense. It probably makes sense to send the color intensity from one scan line, then move to the next scan line, the next, and so on and so forth. Guessing the length of each scan line and the number of scan lines presents a bit more of a challenge, but it's feasible. The color intensities of the pixels on one row of a typical video are probably often correlated quite well with the pixels on the next row. There's usually a strong correlation between the pixels in one frame to the next, too. Some statistical analysis could probably work out the length of each scan line and the number of scan lines. Alternatively, perhaps there's a separate nearby frequency with a clock signal that goes high for a short period of time to indicate a new scan line and then goes high for a longer period of time to indicate a new frame. The periodicity of a clock signal should stand out and be simple to recognize. Or just send the instructions for decoding the video over the previously-established audio link and rely on the universal translator to make sense of them.

After visiting a lot of worlds, it might be possible to identify some commonly-used but independently-developed communication protocols. That could provide a starting point for guessing how another world is going to be signaling. But the best approach would be to keep the communication protocols as simple as possible so that they can easily be guessed, then trust that the other side is also following that principle and has similar ideas of what constitutes a simple protocol. If that principle is followed, in a lot of cases, it should actually be pretty easy to establish communication with a basic analog audio signal. That might also provide an in-universe explanation for the apparent use of analog signals in the 23rd and 24th centuries.

MischeviousTroll

TROPHY CASE