Bogus storm reports probed

[John Diel]

Preposterous? Maybe....

Who would have thought that a group of Middle Eastern Countrymen would have hijacked Airliners and rammed them into several buildings prior to September 11th 2001?

Who would have thought that a mid 20's Persian Gulf Vet would have created a home built bomb and blow up a building in the middle of OKC?

Just food for thought before automatically dismissing anything.

 

[Terry Tyler]

I agree.. From what I read, they know just what information to include to get a warning out. And they seem to know how to match ideal ground reports from a storm.. (IE) wind reports from a bow echo etc.. It is sad that someone has to decieve the men and women who are out there to protect us.

Y???

i was just going to reply with the same thing...and the fact someone wants to play "weatherman"...

whoever wrote this...like they said...knows about severe weather, and someone like that is pretty messed up IMO...if you love something enough to study it...and you know and understand the warning coordination process...why would you deliberatly try to mess it up?

hopefully this is a wake up call for those offices that do not require a log in...like eric said...i cannot see any useful information from a website that doesnt require any training...

this is the memphis, TN offices website for reporting severe weather online...

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/meg/strmrprt.php?addreport=1

anyone, anywhere could put whatever they wanted in there...

there are some sites that even do spotter training online...ive taken the course and its really not something i would give "spotter certification" for IMO...and even if you did pass the test...which someone with no knowledge of severe weather could probably pass...it just says you passed the test and nothing much else...

 

[rdale]

Preposterous? Maybe....

No - 100%.

These reports did not result in a warning being issued, and they did not result in any emergency response since they went to NWS and not 911. If someone calls 911 and says "a school is destroyed" then you'd see what the fire / police response would look like. (I still don't see A.Q. caring about the Mowhatten Illinois Volunterr Fire Department's dispatch procedures but let's play along.) Sending the report to NWS just means that gets included in the text of the SVS, nothing more. NWS does not call the local fire department into action, so it's safe to conclude this is not one of the possibilities...

 

[Scott A. Kampas]

I've known about some of the details about what's going on since it began in April. I posted some info on WX-TALK at the time, but could not go in to detail.

In some cases, these reports did result in issuance of a tornado warning; although the article implies otherwise by mentioning that one Macon warning. The m.o. that day was to wait for radar and environmental data as well as spotter reports to make convincing reports. The person had access to LSRs and SVSs and knew when, where, and what to report. He apparently he even knew about boundary interactions and environmental clues. Given the reported time, location, and nature, it seems he used knowledge of meteorology and warning procedures to push NWS past the threshold, they use radar, spotter, and environmental data, and generally 2/3 is enough (as mentioned in the article). Anyway, this did result in EAS activation and various things that come with it, and as the article mentioned, WAND going live for hours.

As for the web report forms, they used to ask identifying info but NWSFOs were forced to take that down because of privacy concerns. Anonymous/public reports are not given as much creedence as (identified) spotter reports, obviously, but they are used, *especially* if they seem plausible. NWSFOs take the web form reports as a grain of salt and there have always been intentionally or mistakenly false reports, but this perpetrator is particularly egregious. A concern among NWSFOs that have the web report forms is losing a valuable source of info, as they do get a number of good reports. More often for verification after the fact, but also for warning operations. It'd be a shame to remove them and only take reports from identified spotters and other observers, a policy change for warning operations seems to me the more desirable solution, hopefully it can be done. Some changes have already been made.

 

[Doug Lee]

I realize the probabilities of this being the work of terrorists is very low. But probalbilities can change. And speaking of probabilities, if it is a terrorist, it's more likely a domestic terorist. So far, the foreign terrorists have struck economic targets, where the domestic terrorists have aimed at government entities.

I am not saying the person IS a terrorist, just that if it does turn out that way, don't be surprised.

 

[rdale]

Again - sending a false tornado report is by no means a form of terrorism. There is no damage, injuries, or deaths that would result.

 

[Doug Lee]

Again - sending a false tornado report is by no means a form of terrorism. There is no damage, injuries, or deaths that would result.

Did I say it was?
I was saying that if someone was thinking of carrying out a terrorist attack during severe weather, they might try to test the feasibility of that idea by sending in false tornado reports and then monitoring the response. Sure, no terrorism, but terrorist activity.

But then, the defintion of terrorism is to attempt to change public behavior or policy through fear or coercion.

 

[Chad Cowan]

I am not saying the person IS a terrorist, just that if it does turn out that way, don't be surprised.

WOW... terrorism??? Seriously??

In all likelihood, this is an armchair chaser who is trying to live vicariously. The person's name may end in a vowel, but I don't think that should qualify them as a terrorist.

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

Did I say it was?
I was saying that if someone was thinking of carrying out a terrorist attack during severe weather, they might try to test the feasibility of that idea by sending in false tornado reports and then monitoring the response. Sure, no terrorism, but terrorist activity.

What logical reason would a terrorist have to test out the tornado warning response in rural Wisconsin? Aren't there 50,000 better ways for them to go about achieving their nefarious aims? Can you see why this sounds so absurd? Yes, it is tecnically possible in the same sense that the Cubs winning the World Series is technically possible -- but as far as crime goes, statistically, terrorism represents such a small sliver of the overall crime pie that the odds that the motive of whoever is doing this is terrorism related is very, very statistically small, unless there is some other evidence to indicate otherwise. I mean, it also technically could have been a disgruntled circus clown with a stolen Treo, but it doesn't make much sense to seriously advance it as a possibility without at least finding a happy horn at the scene of the crime.

At any rate, I'm starting to drift offtopic, so I'm done replying to this aspect of the thread.

 

[Darren Addy]

I'm sufficiently alarmed to raise the Terror Alert to orange.

 

[Andrew Pritchard]

Rdale, they did result in many warnings being issued on April 25th. In fact, warnings were issued for 3-4 counties at a time to cover all the tiny showers that were apparently producing tornadoes. We have all the hard copies of every warning issued that afternoon saved up at work.

I actually got suckered out chasing that day as the warnings were very local. Looking at the cells on radar and visually I was baffeled. I was annoyed to hear that the reports were false, but a little relieved that I wasn't going crazy. It was just grungy low contrast stratus rain showers along a warm front. I was awaken after just getting home hours before after chasing the Nickerson storm for that bullcrap because some dude got bored. This was actually my girlfriend's first time tagging along with me, and I even told her not to let that day skew her idea of what storm chasing is, because what we were seeing was "bunch of bull----"

1940
ASSUMPTION CHRISTIAN IL3952 8905 TRAINED SPOTTER REPORTED BRIEF TORNADO TOUCHDOWN. (ILX) 2019
3 S MACON MACON IL3967 8900 BRIEF TORNADO TOUCHDOWN...NO DAMAGE. FROM TRAINED SPOTTER. (ILX) 2027
1 SW SULLIVAN MOULTRIE IL3959 8862 TORNADO TOWNDOWN AND AN ADDITIONAL FUNNEL CLOUD FROM PUBLIC. (ILX) 2027
3 S MACON MACON IL3967 8900 CORRECTED TIME. BRIEF TORNADO TOUCHDOWN...NO DAMAGE. FROM TRAINED SPOTTER. (ILX) 2045
COLES COLES IL3952 8847 TORNADO ON THE GROUND...NO DAMAGE...FROM TRAINED SPOTTER. (ILX) 2047
1 NNE HUMBOLDT COLES IL3962 8831 TORNADO TOUCHDOWN...NO DAMAGE...FROM TRAINED SPOTTER. (ILX) 2105
3 W HINDSBORO DOUGLAS IL3968 8819 TORNADO ON THE GROUND...FROM TRAINED SPOTTER. (ILX) 2151
2 NW PALMER CHRISTIAN IL3948 8943 (ILX) 2157
3 NNW PALMER CHRISTIAN IL3950 8943 TREES DAMAGED (ILX) 2208
2 S KINCAID CHRISTIAN IL3956 8941 (ILX)

 

[aaron.burkham]

Man i would have been kicking myself in the head to trying to figure
out what the hells going on, i will be back in decatur to chase for july,
hopefully this guy doesnt pull any sh*t.

 

[Kevin Scharfenberg]

Maybe a tangent here, but this is a great example of why I support the decision of some WFOs to NOT issue local storm reports (LSRs) for every last tornado report that comes into the office, even on a good-looking storm. Of course someone calling in fake reports will be a rare event, but it's very common for even trained spotters and chasers to be fooled or mistaken, or for someone in the general public to mistake non-tornadic winds from a tornado. The sort of panic and confusion resulting from these false reports is somewhat preventable.

 

[Gerrit Gulden]

I read about this on another website. I must say it is bothering to say the least. I question whether or not it is someone maybe taking advantage of either the NWS reporting website or even SpotterNetwork. If you have done your research youll notice not every NWS office is setup to receive reports via spotter network. For this I think some offices are better off due to trying to verify each Online submitted report. I think Skywarn as a whole needs to be re-evaluated to deter false reports and get a more structurized Reporting sequence in place and more vigilant confirmations by the local NWS where the report was received. Otherwise the false reports will keep coming in, thus local residents taking cover when No actual severe weather is occuring except for a brief thunderstorm, etc.

I do agree with a fine. Something should be done if possible by law authorities. Its a shame that someone would do this.

-gerrit

 

[Robbie Cox]

NWS does not call the local fire department into action, so it's safe to conclude this is not one of the possibilities...

The heck they don't.
NWS has done so many times to verify radar.