Another moron on Spotter Network

[Chad Cowan]

I took this picture in southeast Nebraska this evening within five minutes of a "magnificent wedge tornado" report on Spotter Network by Erin Wheeler. The actual report can be seen below the picture along with a report that he/she/it made on Thursday.

Is there a way to weed out the idiots?

Erin Wheeler 2010-04-24 00:58:00 UTC (S) Tornado Spotter is 1 miles ENE of Adams, NE
A magnificent wedge tornado has touched down approx a half mile away and is approx a quarter mile wide, growing as it pulls in satalite vortices. It is rapidly rotating, but appears glaciated and less dense than one would commonly see in a tornado this size. It has sustained its NNE course for 5-10 minutes now, and shows no signs of dissipation.


Erin Wheeler 2010-04-23 01:21:00 UTC (S) Funnel Spotter is 3 miles E of Coleyville, TX
The rain free base of the supercell was clearly visible and back-lit with green haze; the base itself had clear and rapid rotation, from which mutiple vortices funneled down, and I believe they touched the ground, though I cannot confirm. The funnels rotate rapidly and the wall cloud is massive. It seems possible that the whole thing will lower and become a enormous wedge tornado.

EDIT:
Just googled "Erin Wheeler storm" and found her blog profile:

"I am currently a first year grad student at Sarah Lawrence College,living in Manhattan, and pursuing my MFA in Creative Nonfiction Writing '11. All I really know is my love of words; they are my captors, my friends--they are the only part of myself I really know is me. I've long-since required some space to get all these syntactic undulations of syllable and sound out of my system. If I don't, they haunt me in my sleep and keep me awake for days, they make my prose thick and full of meandering metaphors and passive voice."

 

[Jason Boggs]

There really needs to be some repercussions for people who make false reports like these. I think a few days in jail might halt some of this crap.

 

[Paul Knightley]

This is ridiculous - I am a Spotter Network member, and being from the UK would only ever get the chance to report during my 2 week "chasecation". And even then, I would have to be pretty convinced I was seeing something of note before reporting it, and that's with having chased since '98! There's no mistaking that what is in Chad's picture is in no way, shape or form a tornado - heck, it's not even a tornado 'lookalike'.

 

[Chris K]

I was actually following the Adams, NE storm, and drove through that area right around when that report was made. There was no way a tornado was on the ground with that storm.

 

[rdale]

I flagged it pretty quick, and Tyler was on top of the situation shortly after (check the review page for the outcome.)

Per a review of NWSChat logs, the office made a few calls to confirm and quickly realized it was false too.

 

[John J. Holt]

False Report

I agree, there should be a penalty by law on any false reports...

 

[Michael O'Keeffe]

I saw that report too and wasn't to far from you Chad and I just was blown away anybody would even try to make something like that up.

 

[Skip Talbot]

I'm trying to visualize what was going through Erin's mind at the time of the report. The rain bands/curtains on that storm were very well defined and had a lot of dancing motion. At one point I saw a rain band that looked like a very convincing landspout. I'm thinking her position a half mile from these rain curtains (or who knows since many people underestimate their position), she probably misinterpreted these tight rain bands as sub vortices rotating around a broad circulation. They may have indeed been rotating around the base, but from what I saw visually and from what the radar was indicating, there was nothing tornadic on that storm at the time. It sounds like a newbie mistake, but thankfully with a hundred other chasers in the immediate area you could tell the report was false as no one else verified it.

 

[Joey Ketcham]

It was a false report, but I don't think it was probably intentionally done. She probably had no experience or training and honestly thought that what she was looking at was a tornado.

These false reports are starting to happen more often, I think more needs to be done before someone is allowed to make a report through SpotterNetwork. Sure there is the exam that people must take and pass before being allowed to make a report, but let's face it; the exam isn't that hard and anyone with a brain who knows how to do a google search can find the answer and easily pass the exam.

Just tossing this idea out there;

I really think that who is allowed to make reports on SpotterNetwork should be restricted, or perhaps have a system similar to a "closed membership" type thing. Anyone could sign up for a SpotterNetwork account, but if that person wants to be able to make reports through SpotterNetwork they would have to go through a process.

The first step that person must do is they have to complete a form that gathers basic information about them. Then included within this form they have to provide an essay on why they want to provide reports, why they think they should be accepted, their qualifications and experience, etc. They would have to state how long they've been chasing or spotting, what training they have received (skywarn, etc..), and just whatever else that might give this person credibility.

Tyler could form a committee who receives this application and together they can decide whether the person is credible or not, if that person comes with a good background with a lot of experience or training. If this person is approved, the next step would be the exam. Once they pass the exam, they then have the privilege of making reports on SN.

By having them do the essay you could gauge whether that person is an actual chaser who knows what they're doing, knows what they're talking about as oppose to some 15 year old cyber-chaser who is going to make a hail report for a storm 200+ miles away based on a hail marker they see on GRLevel3.

Again, I'm just tossing this out. I think it's going to get to a point that the NWS will find SN to be unreliable if this keeps being a common trend. Sure there are recognizable names on SN that I'm sure the NWS is familiar with and would trust their report, but there are far more people on SN who isn't known .

 

[rdale]

I agree, there should be a penalty by law on any false reports...

Who would be responsible for arresting all the cops and their "sheriffnado" reports?

 

[Jim Saueressig]

An essay? I am 42 years old and have never wrote an essay in my life and probably wont start just for SN. I think the gal was in her fantasy writers world and had no idea what she was really looking at rather than just making a false report.

I think now days there are more than enough chasers anywhere near the severe weather possibilities that maybe the answer is some kind of a flagger (red ? mark or something) that comes with a report from an unknown that would request verification from another chaser. Maybe this could be incorporated with gps locations if another is near the report. Maybe this would be enough that if the NWS sees nothing on radar and the report comes from an unknown they could await ground truth from a known spotter in the area or something.

No one likes the false reports but sometimes I think that there are a few people that want SN to be simply for the "elites" (this is not pointed at you Joey but a general statement after seeing the many false report threads wanting change).

Who would be responsible for arresting all the cops and their "sheriffnado" reports?

That's no lie. Add to that the drunken county spotters (volunteer FD) sitting in the fire trucks drinking their beers during a local event.

 

[Wes Carter]

It was a false report, but I don't think it was probably intentionally done. She probably had no experience or training and honestly thought that what she was looking at was a tornado.

These false reports are starting to happen more often, I think more needs to be done before someone is allowed to make a report through SpotterNetwork. Sure there is the exam that people must take and pass before being allowed to make a report, but let's face it; the exam isn't that hard and anyone with a brain who knows how to do a google search can find the answer and easily pass the exam.

Just tossing this idea out there;

I really think that who is allowed to make reports on SpotterNetwork should be restricted, or perhaps have a system similar to a "closed membership" type thing. Anyone could sign up for a SpotterNetwork account, but if that person wants to be able to make reports through SpotterNetwork they would have to go through a process.

The first step that person must do is they have to complete a form that gathers basic information about them. Then included within this form they have to provide an essay on why they want to provide reports, why they think they should be accepted, their qualifications and experience, etc. They would have to state how long they've been chasing or spotting, what training they have received (skywarn, etc..), and just whatever else that might give this person credibility.

Tyler could form a committee who receives this application and together they can decide whether the person is credible or not, if that person comes with a good background with a lot of experience or training. If this person is approved, the next step would be the exam. Once they pass the exam, they then have the privilege of making reports on SN.

By having them do the essay you could gauge whether that person is an actual chaser who knows what they're doing, knows what they're talking about as oppose to some 15 year old cyber-chaser who is going to make a hail report for a storm 200+ miles away based on a hail marker they see on GRLevel3.

Again, I'm just tossing this out. I think it's going to get to a point that the NWS will find SN to be unreliable if this keeps being a common trend. Sure there are recognizable names on SN that I'm sure the NWS is familiar with and would trust their report, but there are far more people on SN who isn't known .

I think something like that will have to be done sooner or later. No matter what is done, someone will slip through the cracks. But right now there are a lot of cracks.

 

[Skip Talbot]

A much stricter approval process for Spotter Network would definitely cut back on the false reports. However, it would also remove a great deal of reports from lesser known spotters who do report responsibly. Areas without chasers and where spotters are completely under the radar are where you'd see this the most. I do agree though, the approval process could be beefed up some.

 

[Karen St John]

She's a "creative" type of spotter. "The tornado shifted uneasily, as if torn by guilt in what it was doing to the farm. Perchance, it realized it could redeem itself, as the local youngsters wanted an early end to the school year, and it knew it could be of assistance in fulfilling their wishes."

That's a nice photo, though, Chad.

 

[John Wetter]

What SN is doing is letting everyone see some of the pure junk reports that NWS offices have been seeing for years... This really is nothing new, it's just that people can see it now. Welcome to the internet, just another medium for all kinds of people to be heard. As our great former governor Jesse Ventura said, "You can't legislate stupidity."