SN 2022 Spotter Network Newsletter

[John Wetter]

You can view the newsletter as mailed with all formatting here.


Hello Everyone,
The 2022 severe weather season is already well underway. We’d like to take a few minutes of your time to talk about Spotter Network! There is a lot of information in this letter, and as we only send one newsletter a year, we ask that you please read this newsletter in its entirety.

Spotter Network (SN) is an organization of over 82,000 members strong. Your reports to the NWS continue to help the warning process by providing real-time information from the field.
We thank you for your continued contributions!

Here are a few stats you might find interesting from 2021:
SN Members submitted 3,157 reports:
302 tornado reports.
197 funnel cloud reports.
350 wall cloud reports.
858 hail reports.
260 wind reports.
230 flood/flash flood reports.

Report counts were down just slightly in 2021, with the largest decrease being in hail reports. Wall cloud reports were only 2 less than in 2020!

For 2022, the following will change:

• No manual GPS coordinates. This was in place to allow spotters to precisely locate a report, for example, the point where a tornado crossed the road, without needing to be exactly there. Due to abuse of this option, it has been discontinued.
• Damage reports: ‘power flashes’ should not be reported as damage. Though this is an important item to help assess the situation, power flashes should not be reported as damage as they can be caused by many things.
• Winter Weather Reports will be discontinued beginning on May 10, 2022. Going forward, winter weather reports can be sent in via mPING or via CoCoRaHS. Moving forward, Spotter Network will focus on severe convective storms and their repercussions.

Report Reviews will be the same as in 2021, when we introduced a substantial change to a stoplight approach of “Good, Acceptable, Bad” and will be color coded as green, yellow, red. The review process is double-blind, like scientific peer review. The reviewer doesn’t know who the reporter is, and the reporter doesn’t know who the reviewer is.

All reports are assumed to be current. The ability to change the time on a report submission has been removed to help with clarity.

Other reminders:

• Only make reports for the listed report types. Note that estimated winds & non-rotating wall clouds were removed and the damage category added in 2020.
• Damage reports: Damage reports must contain details. If it is trees down, details around the size of the trees is required. Do not use descriptors like “large” or “medium-sized”.
• Please review your contact information on your account profile to make sure it is current. Local NWS offices often use this information to get in contact with spotters during or after an event to help understand what happened. We’ve heard from offices that some of this information appears to be out of date.
• Spotters must at least have a phone number for their NWS/Emergency Management contact information. Accounts without a current phone number will be disabled. You have an option of including as much or as little information as you’d like in your public profile, but for integrity of reports, you are required to have a current phone number in your private information. Access to this information is thoroughly vetted.
• Real Names policy. Your display name must be your real name, or name you are commonly identified with and nothing more.
• Calling 911 is the first part of rendering aid and should be the first critical life saving action spotters take when coming upon devastation, injuries, or accidents.
• Images are helpful. While we are still evaluating methods to safely and securely work with images at Spotter Network, if you are on Twitter, please be sure to tag the local NWS office with photos, or add a hashtag for the state, eg. #kswx for Kansas weather.

What Makes a Good Report? From time to time we get asked how can a report be made better? Maybe it’s from comments in a review, or maybe it’s on social media. One area we’ve seen particularly troublesome is with flooding and flash flooding and when to report what. Below is information that should be included in every report:

• Tornado: Report direction of the tornado from your location. Consider including tornado shape, eg. elephant trunk, stovepipe, etc. and distance from your location if possible. This article on tornado types and a caution about using the term wedge may be helpful. Do not include words like ‘large’, ‘small’, etc. as those are interpreted differently by everyone. Also do not report as ‘possible’ or ‘imminent’ as a tornado either is happening or it isn’t.
• Funnel Cloud: Report direction of the funnel cloud from your location. Include a distance if you are comfortable with estimating.
• Rotating Wall Cloud: Report direction of the wall cloud from your location. Recall that we only accept rotating wall clouds (and not non-rotating wall clouds).
• Hail: Include how it was measured if possible.
• Wind: Include how it was measured (eg. rooftop anemometer, home weather station, handheld anemometer, etc.). Reminder: we do not accept estimated wind speeds! Instead report the damage that occurred if you do not have a measured speed.
• Damage: Include tree/branch diameter as well as any other information you can such as a single tree down, dozens of trees down, etc. For structural damage be as specific as possible (eg. missing shingles, garage door blown in, etc.)
• Flash Flooding: Characterized by swiftly flowing water at least 3-4” inches deep. Be as specific as possible about the scale of the flooding; depth of the water should be reported whenever safe to do so, otherwise estimated. References to objects can help, eg. “Water is over the curb and swiftly moving.”
• Flooding: An inundation of a normally dry area by rising water. This should only be reported when significant flooding occurs in an area; depth of the water should be measured or estimated whenever possible.

Report what you see, not what you think you see! It’s okay to be unsure, but be sure to describe what you are seeing in as much detail as possible.

Report Reviews & Feedback. Nearly all reports are reviewed. Spotter Network has a dedicated team of report reviewers from a wide variety of backgrounds that review reports to ensure integrity of the system. In 2021, 98,540 reviews of reports were made, an increase of about 17,000. To ensure an active feedback loop. If you submit a report you will receive a weekly email with the reviews for your report which is intended to help you grow as a spotter.

Yellow, or ‘Acceptable’ reports are ok. This means there is nothing wrong with them but they could have been better with more or different information. Remember that these reports are instantaneously sent to the National Weather Service, members of the media, and Emergency Management networks, along with social media and in several weather apps. Our review team may include feedback on yellow reports in order to help improve. This feedback is not intended to say you did something wrong, but to help make your next report better.

Spotter Network reserves the right to remove any member if they are found to be acting in a grossly irresponsible manner. This has only been done a couple of times but we just want to remind you that we do reserve this right. This might involve very bad reports being submitted, unsafe field tactics, or at the request of our National Weather Service partners.

Please remember to always be safe, use ACES, and report severe weather via SN! Thanks to many integrators out there, several apps now allow you to submit reports over many different platforms (see client list on our web site). Pick what works best for you, good luck and be safe out there!

Spotter Network is looking for volunteers! Would you want to take an active role in helping to review reports and helping guide the mission of SN? We are also interested in talking to anyone interested in helping us write the next generation interface of Spotter Network! Might that be you? If it is, please contact us via email or on the Stormtrack Forum.

Find yourself needing help with something regarding Spotter Network? All support for SN is handled over on Stormtrack.org. While you’re there, take a look at the rest of the forum, as StormTrack continues to be a great source of information and conversation for spotters and chasers for over 40 years!

SpotterNetwork and this newsletter would not be possible without the fantastic help from our friends over at AllisonHouse. Please thank them!

SpotterNetwork, Inc. is a 501c3 non-profit based in Minnesota. If you’d like to help us defer the costs of running the network, please consider a donation. No one at SN is paid, we are a volunteer force and thank you for considering a contribution.

 

[Lou Ruh]

I am very concerned that discontinuing Winter Weather reports ranks way up there in one of the worst decisions that SpotterNetwork could make. The goal of SpotterNetwork from the website is:

"The SpotterNetwork brings storm spotters, storm chasers, coordinators and public servants together in a seamless network of information. It provides accurate position data of spotters and chasers for coordination/reporting and provides ground truth to public servants engaged in the protection of life and property."

It does not say it is only for "severe convective storms and their repercussions" (nor should it in my opinion!).

In light of the recent fatal (multiple fatalities) snow squall event in Schuylkill County, PA ( 40-vehicle crash on I-81 in Schuylkill County started with snow squalls: authorities ) which occurred in an area where there were no radar units capable of detecting it and therefore went unwarned), a goal should be to make snow squall reporting possible via SpotterNetwork ... not making it impossible for snow squalls or ANY other winter weather to be reported via SpotterNetwork.

Has SpotterNetwork lost their way?

 

[Randy Jennings]

@John Wetter First - thanks for all you and the team do, SpotterNetwork is a valuable tool to our country's safety. I have a question about a couple of points made in the annual newsletter. It says "It’s okay to be unsure, but be sure to describe what you are seeing in as much detail as possible". It also says "Also do not report as ‘possible’". These two sentences seem to be in conflict with each other. Take 4/23/22 near Harrah, OK. It was night, and I saw what was clearly a funnel, but it was impossible to tell if it was on the ground due to limited light, distance and trees (although I felt strongly that it was a Tornado based on what I did see). I made the report via Twitter as a "funnel or possible tornado", because while I was certain it was a funnel, I could not verify ground contact and therefore was not 100% sure it was a tornado. The picture I tweeted is bellow. NWS confirmed the next day it was in fact a tornado. I purposely didn't make this report via SpotterNetwork (which would have been quicker) because I knew it was likely to not be scored well by reviewers due to the word "possible". Granted I could have reported it via SpotterNetwork as a Funnel Cloud and it the notes said it was a possible tornado, but I suspect I would get bad reviews for doing it that way to. What is SpotterNetwork's official stance on how things like this should be reported?

 

[Jeff Duda]

Hey John. I'd be willing to volunteer to review reports.

 

[rdale]

Granted I could have reported it via SpotterNetwork as a Funnel Cloud and it the notes said it was a possible tornado, but I suspect I would get bad reviews for doing it that way to. What is SpotterNetwork's official stance on how things like this should be reported?

At the very least report it as a funnel cloud. You are correct that reporting it as a tornado would not be appropriate. Instead of saying "possible tornado" either drop that entirely,. or explain why you think it's a tornado. "Funnel extended over half way down but couldn't see base for sure due to lighting." That's green all day long

 

[John Wetter]

I purposely didn't make this report via SpotterNetwork (which would have been quicker) because I knew it was likely to not be scored well by reviewers due to the word "possible". Granted I could have reported it via SpotterNetwork as a Funnel Cloud and it the notes said it was a possible tornado, but I suspect I would get bad reviews for doing it that way to. What is SpotterNetwork's official stance on how things like this should be reported?

I think you're exactly following there. The default is basically only report what you know to be true. So, in your picture you know there is a funnel. It's possible it is a tornado but you don't know that to be true. So a report of a funnel and saying you think it might be in contact with the grounds would be a great report as it tells us what you for sure know, and it tells us what part is still uncertain.

 

[John Wetter]

In light of the recent fatal (multiple fatalities) snow squall event in Schuylkill County, PA ( 40-vehicle crash on I-81 in Schuylkill County started with snow squalls: authorities ) which occurred in an area where there were no radar units capable of detecting it and therefore went unwarned), a goal should be to make snow squall reporting possible via SpotterNetwork ... not making it impossible for snow squalls or ANY other winter weather to be reported via SpotterNetwork.

Thanks Lou for the multiple replies on all of our platforms. This has been a discussion item with the board for a couple years now. Ultimately the reason it was removed is that it doesn't scale to a national system. What is critically important in Texas is not in Minnesota. The quality assurance for what is "high impact" just doesn't work in a national system and there are better ways to report more routine winter weather.

 

[Lou Ruh]

Thanks Lou for the multiple replies on all of our platforms. This has been a discussion item with the board for a couple years now. Ultimately the reason it was removed is that it doesn't scale to a national system. What is critically important in Texas is not in Minnesota. The quality assurance for what is "high impact" just doesn't work in a national system and there are better ways to report more routine winter weather.

It's a shame that the board discussed something for two years apparently in secret, then decided a draconian solution with one day's notice to the public. Why not open it for some level of discussion with a wider audience before cutting it? What is the rush now after two years of discussion apparently in secret?

 

[rdale]

The discussion just continued to gather steam over time, it wasn't as though three years ago the board set "let's axe winter weather" and then decided last week to do it

As SN became more prominent due to some news (and some misinformation) it only made sense to make the cut finally. The archives remain open - I challenge you to find a potentially life-saving snowfall report in the database and use that to influence the decision.

 

[Lou Ruh]

The discussion just continued to gather steam over time, it wasn't as though three years ago the board set "let's axe winter weather" and then decided last week to do it

As SN became more prominent due to some news (and some misinformation) it only made sense to make the cut finally. The archives remain open - I challenge you to find a potentially life-saving snowfall report in the database and use that to influence the decision.

As I told you in Facebook, I would love to discuss this directly. This adversarial approach does not make you and the rest of the SpotterNetwork team look good at all.

But, since the system never supported snow squalls which are indeed life threatening and reports are POTENTIALLY life saving, the archives won't have anything on that. So, your challenge is based on skewed data (not to mention that not all spotter reports make it to SpotterNetwork, so any response I gave would be based on an incomplete dataset that I would argue is not representative of spotter reports in the whole . But, even so, I can assure you that some folks do make a "drive/no drive" decision based on snowfall reports ... so, are they potentially life saving ... absolutely.

At any rate, my argument is not that SpotterNetwork should keep all of the winter weather report page ... but, they should keep some (which, again, a discussion would be the best way to try to agree) and also add snow squalls. I do think the first section (Precipitation & Temperature) is probably not providing much value. The remainder of the page (and my proposed addition) are things I think we should discuss.

 

[rdale]

This is about as direct as a discussion can be What you or I independently think doesn’t matter. If you want to convince the SN board, then it has to happen with support from more people.

There is no adversarial activity here. The board analyzed the Winter Weather report usage, found it was not providing valuable severe weather data, and removed that option. The board did the same with “other” a few years ago. Based on how it was being utilized, it was removed.

I’m not entirely sure that the general public searches SN reports to make their ’drive/no drive” decisions, but that’s what mPing does. And it does that MUCH better. So problem solved!

Since snow squall warnings have not been experimentally tested, and as you noted there’s no operational evidence that they save lives, and most anecdotal evidence shows they have no impact at all, we don’t need to keep the Winter Weather report type “just in case“ a spotter reports one someday.

 

[Lou Ruh]

This is about as direct as a discussion can be What you or I independently think doesn’t matter. If you want to convince the SN board, then it has to happen with support from more people.

There is no adversarial activity here. The board analyzed the Winter Weather report usage, found it was not providing valuable severe weather data, and removed that option. The board did the same with “other” a few years ago. Based on how it was being utilized, it was removed.

I’m not entirely sure that the general public searches SN reports to make their ’drive/no drive” decisions, but that’s what mPing does. And it does that MUCH better. So problem solved!

Since snow squall warnings have not been experimentally tested, and as you noted there’s no operational evidence that they save lives, and most anecdotal evidence shows they have no impact at all, we don’t need to keep the Winter Weather report type “just in case“ a spotter reports one someday.

This is your idea of a direct discussion? Unbelievable!

Snow squall warnings have never been experimentally breasted? They went through the same process of any experimental NWS product that subsequently goes into full production. And, I NEVER said there's no operational evidence that they save lives ... I said that there is no operational evidence that the reports in the SpotterNetwork archives have saved lives (unless there is a study I am not aware of). Trust me, there are a number of spotter/chasers in areas that frequently experience snow squalls that would report them via SpotterNetwork if they could. This is not a "just in case" situation. And, if I remember correctly, the complaint about winter weather reports wasn't that nobody made them ... it was more that they were not "severe enough".

And oh yeah ... anecdotal evidence shows that snow squall warnings have no impact at all? Six fatalities due to an unwarned snow squall did occur. Snow squall warnings are accompanied by WEA alerts. Do WEA alerts work? Yes, some people ignore them, but some people DO react more appropriately. Was the lack of a WEA alert a contributing factor to the six fatalities (most people I have spoken to think it was)?

 

[Ben Holcomb]

Lou I can definitely understand your viewpoint. I think the main difference in my mind is the fact that the most effective way to report something life-threatening in the winter, like a snow squall would be through telephone. Rare events typically require speaking directly with a forecaster and telling them what you are seeing. The best way to report a tornado is to hit a couple buttons, type a small description and click send with it geotagged and all.

I ask you this question - if the SN were to reverse this decision, what should minimum report-able criteria be in your mind?

 

[Brian OConnell]

Since snow squall warnings have not been experimentally tested, and as you noted there’s no operational evidence that they save lives, and most anecdotal evidence shows they have no impact at all, we don’t need to keep the Winter Weather report type “just in case“ a spotter reports one someday.

Just another anecdote, but I and others I know do make driving decisions based on snow squall warnings

 

[Brian OConnell]

Spotter Network reserves the right to remove any member if they are found to be acting in a grossly irresponsible manner. This has only been done a couple of times but we just want to remind you that we do reserve this right. This might involve very bad reports being submitted, unsafe field tactics, or at the request of our National Weather Service partners.

I am curious why unsafe tactics would be grounds for removal? As much as I dislike the unsafe behavior that we have been seeing lately, I fail to see why it would be grounds to remove someone from spotternetwork if they are making good reports?

 

[Lou Ruh]

Lou I can definitely understand your viewpoint. I think the main difference in my mind is the fact that the most effective way to report something life-threatening in the winter, like a snow squall would be through telephone. Rare events typically require speaking directly with a forecaster and telling them what you are seeing. The best way to report a tornado is to hit a couple buttons, type a small description and click send with it geotagged and all.

I ask you this question - if the SN were to reverse this decision, what should minimum report-able criteria be in your mind?

Thanks Ben. A lot of folks in the NE US might say that tornadoes are the rarity and snow squalls are not rare (if the 2021 tornado counts were indicative of a trend and not an anomaly, that may change). I think the true value of SpotterNetwork is that, wherever I am (including potentially outside of the CWA where I usually report), I can make a report with minimal leg work to know which office to call, etc. Anecdotally (hopefully not overusing that word yet ), SpotterNetwork is not the go-to reporting method most chasers use since it is easier to snap a picture and tweet it to NWS (assuming one knows the right Twitter ID to use to get the report to the right office). And, some CWAs ignore SN reports (as mentioned previously) ... but, if someone tweets a report, it gets acknowledged very quickly (and the photographic evidence often included is "worth a thousand words") by every office I am familiar with. Removing winter weather reporting capabilities is not going to fix those issues, in my opinion

As far as minimum reportable criteria for winter weather, that is one of the things that would need some further discussion. In an ideal world, the SN software would know the regional criteria and use them rather than imposing criteria that may not make sense in other geos. I know the system is not there, which is why I think further discussion is needed. If SN would delay the decision for, let's say, something like six months and get additional input, that would make a lot of sense to me. Since winter weather is rare in most US locations for the next six months, the effect of that moratorium would be minimal. To me, that would make more sense than sending out an email/newsletter on May 9 announcing an excisional change occurring on May 10.

I would certainly be willing (maybe even anxious ) to be included in any further discussions to provide any further perspectives and insights

 

[rdale]

Snow squall warnings have never been experimentally breasted?

That’s correct. There was no formal experiment showing that the SQW was an effective alerting tool, or that it changed behaviors of the public.

And, I NEVER said there's no operational evidence that they save lives ...

There is none, so I’ll say it Plenty of anecdotes on both sides - but no data.

Trust me, there are a number of spotter/chasers in areas that frequently experience snow squalls that would report them via SpotterNetwork if they could.

There were allowed to for the past 10+ years and did not.

Six fatalities due to an unwarned snow squall did occur.

Is there any evidence - or even anecdotes - showing that they would not have died if a SQW was issued?

Yes, some people ignore them, but some people DO react more appropriately.

The appropriate action would be to shut down all traffic in all areas of the polygon, as noted in the SQW. That is not effective nor realistic given the very large size of many SQWs.

But let’s keep this on SN. Snow squalls have been allowed on SN since the day it started, and I know of no cases where one was reported.

 

[Lou Ruh]

There were allowed to for the past 10+ years and did not.

- Uh ... where (and if you are thinking the "Narrative" section, that is a very poor place to do that, since, that is burying it rather than calling it out)?


Not to mention that SQW has only been a product since 2018.

"But let’s keep this on SN. Snow squalls have been allowed on SN since the day it started, and I know of no cases where one was reported."

- See above ... not as a menu item ... no radio button, no fill in the bank, no way to specifically report a snow squall.

Is there any evidence - or even anecdotes - showing that they would not have died if a SQW was issued?

- Lots of anecdotes, but, obviously, any study on the effectiveness snow squall warnings would need to be done with a larger dataset than just one event since it is impossible to say that one event is indicative of overall effectiveness. You even asking such a question sure seems like a smokescreen intended to obfuscate the issue.

"That’s correct. There was no formal experiment showing that the SQW was an effective alerting tool, or that it changed behaviors of the public."

And, since SQW has only been a product since 2018, and the WEA alerts came over a year later, a sufficiently sized dataset does not exist for any reliable study. Does that mean we should make it harder/impossible to report a snow squall (especially an unwarned one) via SpotterNetwork and assert that they do not work? What "saving lives" studies have been done for other warning types? What do they indicate? To repeat, snow squall warnings do now result in a WEA alert. If WEA messages work for other warning types (granted, they are not 100% effective in saving lives because of the human factor), is there any reason to think they don't work for snow squall warnings? People can/do die in snow squalls. Why would we not do what we can to try and reduce fatalities if we can (even without any detailed studies)?

 

[rdale]

There actually is a "fill in the blank" for snow squalls - when you click the winter report, you can check roads "snow covered" and then describe the squall in the narrative.

As you noted - WEA was added for SQWs without any studies, and anecdotally we know people are turning them off because they are not "you will die if you don't act" for most of the people who get them. If they don't remember to turn them back on, then they'll miss Tornado Warnings which are FAR more deadly than snow squalls.

In any event, I think we can now all agree that snow squalls could have been reported for over a decade and yet none were. That's why SN no longer collects winter weather or 'other' reports.

 

[Lou Ruh]

There actually is a "fill in the blank" for snow squalls - when you click the winter report, you can check roads "snow covered" and then describe the squall in the narrative.

As you noted - WEA was added for SQWs without any studies, and anecdotally we know people are turning them off because they are not "you will die if you don't act" for most of the people who get them. If they don't remember to turn them back on, then they'll miss Tornado Warnings which are FAR more deadly than snow squalls.

In any event, I think we can now all agree that snow squalls could have been reported for over a decade and yet none were. That's why SN no longer collects winter weather or 'other' reports.

No ... We do NOT agree. Not in the least. If you were willing to talk with me directly about all of this as I have repeatedly requested maybe such misunderstandings would not occur, but, you refuse (still not clear to me why you refuse). And ... no ... the lack of a study is a pretty meaningless point. No one who understands that the dangers of snow squalls are significant (even if you can assert that 6 fatalities, numerous injuries, dozens of destroyed vehicles, multiple fires is just "anecdotal" evidence of the dangers) would be asking for a study to indicate that. And saying that a report of "snow covered" even begins to indicate "snow squall" apparently does NOT understand. People turning off WEA alerts is not a problem specific to SQWs and there are studies that show that WEA alerts do work (but, I would not be surprised if you decide to dispute that too).

And, oh yeah, since you seem to really want some kind of study and neither one of us is aware of specific studies related to snow squalls with fatalities and WEAs, etc. ... a statement that tornadoes are FAR more deadly than snow squalls is purely anecdotal ... let's do some studies on that. Since your statement was related to WEAs ... it seems very unlikely to me that the majority of people are turning WEA alerts off and on with any frequency ... most people I know aren't even sure how to turn them off, and the ones that are don't ever want them on ... so they leave them off permanently. But, they are effective because, anecdotally, most people either like them so they do no turn them off or they don't like them but don't know how to turn them off.

I would like to try and get this thread back to the original point ... the elimination of winter weather reporting capability in SpotterNetwork was sprung on the community with one day's notice. In my opinion, that was a poor decision and more time is needed for discussion (a real discussion ... not lobbing barbs and gotchas back and forth on one or more social media platforms which is a poor substitution for a real discussion) of the issue (the fact that a small group of people thought about it and talked about it for two years or more before deciding to do it does not necessarily mean it is the right decision and only 24 hours notice makes little sense to me and has not been well explained) . The snow squall case is one reason this is a bad idea in my opinion. Others may have other valid points as well that are getting lost in the noise here.

And, saying that folks could have reported a snow squall by cobbling together a snow squall report with fill in the blanks fields and the narrative (rather than something like a radio button or other way to specifically denote a snow squall event) would be like saying folks should report a tornado by reporting a damage event and then mentioning in the narrative that the winds are violently rotating and debris is being lofted.

 

[rdale]

Regardless of your attempts to make snide remarks and attacks seem like questions - it’s very evident. I appreciate your passion on the topic, but tornadoes cause more deaths than snow squalls. It’s just a fact that has studies.

Multiple people on this thread have explained why SN removed winter weather. If you want them back - come with evidence (or I’ll even take an anecdote) showing how this would save lives. So far you have yet to come close.

 

[Lou Ruh]

Regardless of your attempts to make snide remarks and attacks seem like questions - it’s very evident. I appreciate your passion on the topic, but tornadoes cause more deaths than snow squalls. It’s just a fact that has studies.

Multiple people on this thread have explained why SN removed winter weather. If you want them back - come with evidence (or I’ll even take an anecdote) showing how this would save lives. So far you have yet to come close.

Interesting accusation. Not true, but, interesting. None of my questions are snide remarks and attacks. You really should retract that statement.

I wanted to discuss this with someone who could do that civilly (I appreciate that Ben Holcomb tried) but, it seems like what may have passed for a discussion here repeatedly goes down the proverbial rabbit hole and goes nowhere.

Please, SpotterNetwork leadership, let's have a civil discussion about this issue. I am available whenever you are.

 

[rdale]

I wanted to discuss this with someone who could do that civilly

No, no you didn't. Or at least it didn't execute well. See:

No one who understands that the dangers of snow squalls are significant would be asking for a study

As you know I've dedicated my career to public alert and warning. Nobody here disagrees that snow squalls are dangerous. Where we need study is in the public response to Snow Squall Warnings. The current NWS method of blanketing multiple counties at once triggers millions of WEA alerts for people whether they are napping in bed, sitting in an office cubicle, driving on a 25mph side road or cruising at 75mph on the turnpike and is NOT effective communication. That has been proven. It's not anecdotal - we KNOW that this type of overalerting is bad.

Regarding winter weather and SN - we KNOW that the report type has not been deemed an effective use of SN resources. Your claim that it "could be" may have merit, but repeatedly turning every discussion into "Well if you don't agree with me, it's because you are okay with 6 dead people" is disgustingly wrong. And still is unrelated to SN, since no spotters used SN to report that event.

I'm seriously glad you brought this up so the reasoning why it was removed could be clear for all involved parties. I'm unhappy that you were not able to compose a reply without making unnecessary and wrong statements. So I'll end here.

 

[Lou Ruh]

No, no you didn't. Or at least it didn't execute well. See:



As you know I've dedicated my career to public alert and warning. Nobody here disagrees that snow squalls are dangerous. Where we need study is in the public response to Snow Squall Warnings. The current NWS method of blanketing multiple counties at once triggers millions of WEA alerts for people whether they are napping in bed, sitting in an office cubicle, driving on a 25mph side road or cruising at 75mph on the turnpike and is NOT effective communication. That has been proven. It's not anecdotal - we KNOW that this type of overalerting is bad.

Regarding winter weather and SN - we KNOW that the report type has not been deemed an effective use of SN resources. Your claim that it "could be" may have merit, but repeatedly turning every discussion into "Well if you don't agree with me, it's because you are okay with 6 dead people" is disgustingly wrong. And still is unrelated to SN, since no spotters used SN to report that event.

I'm seriously glad you brought this up so the reasoning why it was removed could be clear for all involved parties. I'm unhappy that you were not able to compose a reply without making unnecessary and wrong statements. So I'll end here.

Actually, I do not know that you have dedicated your career to public alert and warning.

And, please tell me what I said that was unnecessary or wrong (trust me, my perception of a lot of your statements in this thread seemed unnecessary and wrong as well, but I tried my darnedest to reply constructively although I did not see that from you ... again that is my perspective). I am really hoping cooler heads will prevail and a reasonable discussion can occur.