Another moron on Spotter Network

[Chris Novy]

It's hard to say whether this a deliberate case of false reporting or, more likely, a case of wishful thinking by a newbie. As someone involved in training of spotters for more than 25 years I can tell you that I often see new spotters/chasers eager to try out the new vocabulary they've learned in the classes and especially by watching other people's video. I hear "stacked plates" to describe shelf clouds instead of mesocyclone, "wedge tornado" describing wide rain shafts, "RFD" to describe any wind gust, and "bear's cage" to describe really heavy rain. This is one reason I discourage the use of chaser jargon since people like to throw words around without necessarily understanding their meaning.

I've also noticed a significant increase in the number of tornado reports when a tornado watch is issued. It's not because the atmosphere is more likely to produce tornadoes but rather because people believe they are seeing what they are told to expect. Low-hanging clouds become "wall clouds", pointy clouds become "tornadoes", scud becomes "debris".

Chad did some great investigating and I encourage other people to do the same when they see questionable reports. It's a lot easier to catch a bad report when we have contradicting opinions from other people on the scene than it is based solely on archival radar data. In this case, however, the reports read more like a bad novel that a meteorological description.

..Chris..

 

[Scott Weberpal]

If you see something on SN that you know for a fact is false, don't be afraid to call the local NWS office and mention that you believe the report to be false.

I was told several years ago by my local WCM that if I see any "look-alikes" to call the office and inform them. This was spoken directly to me and I assume it's not a nationwide policy, especially in areas that get more than there fair share of reports coming in.

Perhaps there can be a button on SN where we can inform the QC folks if we are in the area and absolutely certain a report to be false. Just an idea.

 

[rdale]

Good idea Scott... My suggestion is that you submit an "other" report and point out the discrepancy, but let Tyler make that call.

 

[DWest]

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.

I'm a fairly new guy on both Stormtrack and the SN...just your average Joe stationary spotter, so please forgive me if this has already been discussed...but what about the local weather offices also having a sort of screening process when they register new skywarn spotters? I've only had the time to attend three meetings since 2007, and, believe it or not, I've seen some people that by the end of the presentation would make the individual in the opening post look like a relative pro - for example, folks who believe a low hanging cloud with absolutely no sign of contact with the ground to be a tornado. Yet, everybody is still invited to sign up. Wouldn't filtering out these types of individuals at this level with something as simple as a basic quiz prevent them from making their way into groups like SpotterNetwork if a spotter ID code were required on signup? Just my two cents.

 

[rdale]

SN already has a quiz. There's nothing you can really do to test someone's knowledge with a test and video.

 

[Jason Persoff]

I'm not even sure where to begin here....

First of all, I'm really disappointed that anyone here would resort to calling a person a moron, or somehow infer that an attractive woman somehow justifies the harrassment above, and that she's educable because men like her in her bikini. I shutter to think of what would have been posted if she'd been overweight. People's physical appearances shouldn't even come up on this list at all.

We all get that the report was a helluva an overcall. But we all here have likely at some point in our chase career made a bad call in an effort to apply new knowledge in a way that feels like you're meaningfully contributing or becoming part of a community that is clique-ish and jargon-heavy.

I really like Chris Novy's comments above since they reflect an opinion that is well-reasoned and well-seasoned.

The openness of SpotterNet may have faciliatated real-time reports viewable by others that are false, but it's clear that real-time policing by other chasers allowed for terrific feedback to get at what was really happening at the time.

Ms. Wheeler sounds like a very enthusiastic and artistic person who was caught up in a moment of weather wonder. Fine. She made a newbie mistake. A big one, but it happens. This is a teachable moment for all new chasers on this list.

That said, using derogatory or sexist comments is going to give the impression that people here at ST are an elitist bunch of know-it-alls in an "exclusive club". I know that's not the case, but posts such as this will only further alienate those who are trying to learn about this hobby. Let's keep things civil.

 

[Hank Baker]

I agree with Skip and his assessment. Also from Chad's image being backlit by the sun it is obvious its rain curtains, but if she had the sun at here back or to her left it may have much darker to her, with rotating rain curtains. I understand from Chad's photo we could start throwing stones, but you throw in a person without much field experience, with a beautiful storm when the sun is at that angle depending on her view point. I think that's the reason the weather service wants to know what we see, not what we think we see. And also got a kick out of Ablaser's post.

 

[Joey Ketcham]

We all get that the report was a helluva an overcall. But we all here have likely at some point in our chase career made a bad call in an effort to apply new knowledge in a way that feels like you're meaningfully contributing or becoming part of a community that is clique-ish and jargon-heavy.

Indeed, well said. As I said in my earlier post, I don't think that she intentionally made a false report, being new to chasing and lacking experience I am sure that she genuinely believed that what she was looking at was a tornado.

There are people who do intentionally make false reports and you can easily tell who those people are, such as the ones who make tornado reports 30 miles apart from each other within 10 minutes. Or making a tornado report where there are no storms. But in this case, she was on a storm with a feature (a rain shaft) on a day when tornadoes were in the forecast and she saw this and thought it was a tornado.

 

[Chad Berryhill]

Yeah....That creative writing can put you on a persons bad side real quick. Just look at my last thread here.

Anyways, I never report on SN, unless I'm the only one out there. I agree, there shouldn't be the "Oh stacked plates, how pretty" report. We all make mistakes though. Maybe there should be a section on SN for reports such as those. I know that's not what SN was made for, and that's up to the owner. I don't know.....just a thought.

Or another idea, instead of bashing someone, offer to take them under your wing. Mentor a rookie, take them out into the field and teach the visuals. Teach what needs to be reported and what shouldn't. Just another thought.

 

[Scott Olson]

Do we need one of these threads everytime there is a bad report? Email Tyler, flag the report.

Also, I agree with Jason. This looks bad on Stormtrack with the sexist and derogatory comments.

 

[AndyGabrielson]

I actually was chasing "with" her and her boyfriend earlier in the evening we broke off about 30 minutes before this report. I have chased with Erin several times in the past and she has made many valid and great reports but as usual the only time anyone says anything is when something bad happens. She would not intentionally report false information in my opinion, her and her boyfriend chased last year and maybe earlier than that, who knows, i just met them last season and can tell you they chased more than half the people on here did, they love storm chasing... I guess that is my two cents and insight, unless something changed from last year, I do not see her intentionally/maliciously making a false report...

 

[terra seright]

A false report was made to the NWS at Amarillo as well, while we were all out waiting for the touch down southwest of the I-40/TX70 intersection. Someone had called to say that there was one on the ground in that very spot, at least 5 minutes before the tornado actually touched down. Net control called me and asked for confirmation. The only explanation I can think of is that someone on TX70 south of I-40 saw the funnel, and the hills blocked their ability to see the whole scene, making it appear that the funnel had actually touched down.

Chasers and spotters who haven't had much time in the field get over-excited about what they see. One or even two years of experience someimes isn't enough. I question myself sometimes even though I know what i'm looking at.

I would advise anyone out there to stop and take a breath before making their reports. Make damn sure you know that what you're looking at is what we are out there to see. If you aren't sure, ask someone...there are enough of us out there, surely someone can confirm it for you, or bring you back to earth.

Can you imagine being the people in the homes nearby, trying to decide which of your sentimental items to keep or let go, believing that you only have a minute or two to gather it all up? Then to find out it was false information...i would be hopping mad.

Not to mention it makes us all lose credibility within the community. We were all just a big irritation to the Highway Patrol out there that night anyway. I was treated very badly by an officer, who was aggravated at all of the vehicles. If they all find out that there were people making bad reports, our headaches will triple!

Doesn't matter if it was intentional or not...

 

[Matt Gingery]

I remember that report as well. We had dropped south of our original intercept to chase that particular storm. We were getting conflicting reports all evening. On many occasions we were under the main updraft on these cells with no visible touch downs.

 

[Jeff Duda]

I don't think her report was excusable no matter what the attempted excuse. I knew within the first 5 seconds that I read the report that it was bogus. I was 10 miles to her north right behind the cell in question and it was quite clear there was no tornadic activity. If she was inexperienced, then why would she say, "it was less dense than one would commonly see for a tornado this size."? How does she know how "dense" the typical tornado of "that size" is? That suggests she's inexperienced. If however, like Andy says, that she is instead experienced, then what is she doing making such a report? Anyone who seriously wants to spot severe weather should understand the level of certainty required when making a report. You wouldn't report golf ball sized hail when you see a white shaft emanating from the bottom of a CB base from a distance...you would drive towards it and make the report once you start seeing golf ball sized hail. Likewise, experienced or not, NO ONE should be reporting severe weather, especially tornadoes (because those carry a larger sense of importance), when they can't be certain of what they are seeing. Not to mention, if this girl was within one half mile of a huge wedge tornado, she should've been able to tell not just by appearance, but by the presence of intense inflow winds. Although I've never been that close to a large tornado, from what I've ever seen in videos, it's a different, but unmistakable environment when you're that close.

 

[beaudodson]

I could be wrong - no way to say for sure - but I don't think she made a false report on purpose. I am going to guess she actually thought that was what she thought she was seeing? Mistake. Bad mistake - but not criminal!

I figured, when I first heard about this the other night, that she was seeing rain falling from the storm with bands of rain around it. Made sense.