TruthOrFake Logo
TruthOrFake
Fact Check: Explosive storm formation predicted in just 24 hours!

Fact Check: Explosive storm formation predicted in just 24 hours!

Published June 28, 2025
ByFactChecker 1.1 avatarFactChecker 1.1
±
VERDICT
Partially True

# Fact Check: "Explosive storm formation predicted in just 24 hours!" ## What We Know The claim regarding "explosive storm formation" refers to the p...

Fact Check: "Explosive storm formation predicted in just 24 hours!"

What We Know

The claim regarding "explosive storm formation" refers to the phenomenon known as bombogenesis, which is characterized by a rapid drop in atmospheric pressure leading to the intensification of a storm. According to the Global Tropical Hazards Outlook, meteorological forecasts can predict the potential for tropical cyclone formation within a short timeframe, sometimes as little as 24 hours. Specifically, the National Hurricane Center has indicated a 70% chance of tropical cyclone genesis in certain areas, highlighting the capability of meteorologists to predict storm formation quickly.

The term "bomb cyclone" is often used interchangeably with bombogenesis and refers to a midlatitude cyclone that experiences a significant drop in pressure (at least 24 millibars in 24 hours at 60 degrees latitude) and can lead to severe weather conditions. This concept has been well-documented in meteorological literature, with experts noting that such storms are becoming increasingly common, particularly in the context of climate change (Jones Jr.).

Analysis

The evidence supporting the claim that explosive storm formation can be predicted in just 24 hours is robust. The Global Tropical Hazards Outlook provides a probabilistic forecast model that allows meteorologists to assess the likelihood of tropical cyclone development in a short time frame. This model is based on various meteorological factors, including the Madden-Julian Oscillation and sea surface temperatures.

However, while the prediction of storm formation is feasible, the accuracy of these forecasts can vary. For instance, the NOAA's National Ocean Service explains that bombogenesis requires specific atmospheric conditions, and while models can predict these conditions, the actual development of a storm can be influenced by numerous unpredictable factors.

The reliability of the sources used in this analysis is generally high. The Global Tropical Hazards Outlook is produced by the Climate Prediction Center, a reputable branch of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Additionally, the information provided by meteorological experts in the context of bomb cyclones is backed by scientific research and historical data, lending credibility to the claims made.

Conclusion

The claim that "explosive storm formation predicted in just 24 hours!" is Partially True. While it is accurate that meteorologists can predict the potential for explosive storm formation within a short timeframe, the actual occurrence of such storms depends on a variety of atmospheric conditions that may not always align as predicted. Therefore, while predictions can be made, their reliability can fluctuate based on real-time environmental factors.

Sources

  1. Global Tropical Hazards Outlook - Climate Prediction Center
  2. 'Bomb cyclone' adds to growing extreme weather trend
  3. Tropical Information Page
  4. What is bombogenesis? - NOAA's National Ocean Service
  5. Rapid intensification
  6. Weather bomb threatening Australia's east coast next week to bring ...
  7. New Hurricane Forecasts Could Predict Terrifying Explosive ...

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:
"Coffee helps you live longer"
✓100% Free
✓No Registration
✓Instant Results

Comments

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that
False
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that

Jul 28, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Prince Harry Confronts Her Over King Charles at Explosive Royal Summit!”
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Prince Harry Confronts Her Over King Charles at Explosive Royal Summit!”

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Prince Harry Confronts Her Over King Charles at Explosive Royal Summit!”

Jul 14, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Building homemade improvised explosive devices is a common activity among teenagers.
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Building homemade improvised explosive devices is a common activity among teenagers.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Building homemade improvised explosive devices is a common activity among teenagers.

Jul 11, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Tax bill promises explosive growth for small businesses across America!
Partially True

Fact Check: Tax bill promises explosive growth for small businesses across America!

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Tax bill promises explosive growth for small businesses across America!

Jun 30, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Trump's MAGA movement shows explosive internal rifts amid criticism from key supporters.
Partially True

Fact Check: Trump's MAGA movement shows explosive internal rifts amid criticism from key supporters.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Trump's MAGA movement shows explosive internal rifts amid criticism from key supporters.

Jun 29, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Supreme Court to hear explosive challenge on political spending limits.
False

Fact Check: Supreme Court to hear explosive challenge on political spending limits.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Supreme Court to hear explosive challenge on political spending limits.

Jun 30, 2025
Read more →
Explore All Fact Checks