SN 2022 Spotter Network Newsletter

[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.