,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
I prebunked this tweet, it turns out. wapo.st/2ZBZYWQ
Anyway, the primary problem is that the green bars show a 5% chance of tropical-storm-strength winds.
In other words, Trump is saying his tweet claiming Alabama would be hit hard is correct bc days earlier there was a 1-in-20 chance of a stiff breeze.
wapo.st/2ZBZYWQ
In other words, Trump is saying his tweet claiming Alabama would be hit hard is correct bc days earlier there was a 1-in-20 chance of a stiff breeze.
wapo.st/2ZBZYWQ
The NOAA statement reiterates the point above (while throwing the Birmingham NWS under the bus). This is not a useful defense of Trump's "(much) harder" tweet.
As others have noted: why no warning to Tennessee if this was the concern?
As others have noted: why no warning to Tennessee if this was the concern?
"Tropical-storm-force winds ... could impact" is hand-waving meant to make a 5-10% chance of 40-mph winds days earlier prove Trump right.
This is what the most-recent wind-speed map looked like at the time of Trump's tweet.
Only a fraction of Alabama is covered by anything at all – and a close look at the legend shows that the dark green indicates a 5-10% chance of tropical-storm-force (not hurricane) winds.
Only a fraction of Alabama is covered by anything at all – and a close look at the legend shows that the dark green indicates a 5-10% chance of tropical-storm-force (not hurricane) winds.
Those dismissing this issue as unimportant are missing the importance of what happened here: A scientific governmental organization issued a statement that could certainly be described as misleading after Trump got mad about being wrong.
Does this sound to you like warning that Alabama faces a 1-in-20 chance of winds high enough to possibly break some branches off trees?
