Calling out SN reports publically

[Robert Dewey]

Why are you posting, editing, posting, editing, posting, editing?

I guess that would explain the lack of consistency in this thread.

 

[Mike Moore]

Wasn't this thread idle for 9 days? Time for some STORMS.

 

[Matt Gingery]

I pose no attacks at anyone who doesn't attack me. I was meerly upset over what happened between myself and another. Those of you that have chimed in have no idea what happened and should just stay out of our personal conflict.

This thread needs to be deleted, because it is getting out of hand.

Just so we are clear. Lanny thought he spotted a funnel. It appears to be a funnel. He posted on SN but didn't list distance and it was a yellow flag.

Those of you that aren't involved and don't know the logistics should stay out of it. I know we all carry loyalty to one another and that is great, but this is a serious situation that is going on and it is best that we only discuss the thread subject concerning the Yellow Flag please!!

 

[David Schuttler]

How exactly did you get your start with Chaser TV Steve? Just out of curiosity. I remember you were in Houston and it gets foggy from there. Anyway, I don't want to create any Steve Miller issues so I will just leave it at that.

BTW, How did all of this stuff get off the discussion topic at hand. [\QUOTE]


It got out of hand with your personal attack on Lanny. And as by your post aimed at Steve it looks as though you are steering this thread off topic again. You went on the offensive to be defensive.

As for SN, I'm not sure that I like the new point system but oh well. Seems like storm chasing & reporting tornadoes is simply a peeing contest anymore. Maybe the streaming craze is making reporting via SN and the like obsolete anyway. Every storm is streamed these days it seems like.

As for the drama, if I weren't so involved in a highly successful chase-related business, I would probably bow out of the public chasing community--I am severely ashamed at what chasing has become.

So what happened, can't find the thank button for your post

 

[Chad Cowan]

I would like to follow this trend of tangents to publicly "yellow flag" anyone who has given away tornado video to The Weather Channel for free. Mike Bettis is not your friend.

 

[Lanny Dean]

I would like to follow this trend of tangents to publicly "yellow flag" anyone who has given away tornado video to The Weather Channel for free. Mike Bettis is not your friend.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH....NOW THATS FUNNY!

 

[Tim Shriver]

My question is concerning the appropriateness of filing a statement (The above is just that, a statement) downplaying another report. Does SN want chasers submitting reports confirming or not confirming another report? I ask because Mr. Thorn's report received two green RQC flags.

- David Reimer

I would not call it downplaying, but rather confirming or not confirming
a report.

To me it is vital to have these alternate reports. But then it also
takes some judgement as to what or which report is correct.

Most WFOs I work with want to know this information.

But this might be hard to do with SN as it is not a "live" sytem but rather
reports are checked after they are submited to the WFO...

Tim

 

[rdale]

But this might be hard to do with SN as it is not a "live" sytem but rather reports are checked after they are submited to the WFO...

That's incorrect. Reports are checked just the same way that a ham radio or public report sent directly to a WFO is checked. But even better - SN allows for followups. I've yet to see a Skywarn ham radio net contact people after the fact and require re-education after someone reports "Skies are a little gray over here but I saw the tee-vee weatherman say it is going to get worse."

 

[Wes Carter]

I would not call it downplaying, but rather confirming or not confirming a report.

You know, this is a real hard one. I think David asks a very good question that really doesn't have a simple answer. I'm kind of disappointed this thread got a bit off track because I think his original question needs more discussion.

We have all seen cases where one person makes a way off base report and others have let the WFO that the report was inaccurate. Case in point: This thread highlighted a case where an inexperienced chaser/spotter reported a rain shaft as a wedge tornado. If reports like that go unchecked, the resulting possible false warnings may make the public more likely to ignore future warnings.

But in this case, the original report was: "Small thin funnel observed to my north northwest at 7:50pm CDT to 7:52 CDT. Could not see full condensation to the ground. Funnel was thin and rope like and lasted approx. 2 minutes. Please note: Inflow is increasing at this time.." It's hard to prove a negative in this case unless you are very near the person making the report.

One could make a good argument either way, but I am leaning towards reporting ONLY what you actually see. If only one spotter or chaser reports a funnel cloud and there are other chasers on the map that make no report, it's pretty likely that spotter is mistaken, the funnel was hard to see due to rain or something else, or the funnel cloud was not persistent long enough for others to see. But if the other chasers and spotters are spending time monitoring SN reports while close to a possible tornadic supercell, I'd say they are missing out on the best part of the chase. The WFO could always contact the person that made the report as well as other chasers if they want confirmation.

 

[rdale]

If only one spotter or chaser reports a funnel cloud and there are other chasers on the map that make no report, it's pretty likely that spotter is mistaken

You'd think (well, I wish) but that's not true. I've seen tornadoes with 20+ SN people in the vicinity, yet only one or two SN reports. I'd bet that the number of SN users who "actively" report is 10% of less.

 

[Tim Shriver]

That's incorrect. Reports are checked just the same way that a ham radio or public report sent directly to a WFO is checked. But even better - SN allows for followups. I've yet to see a Skywarn ham radio net contact people after the fact and require re-education after someone reports "Skies are a little gray over here but I saw the tee-vee weatherman say it is going to get worse."

We disagree. Your saying the reports are vetted "in real time" before they are submitted as we do?

Followup is easy on the air, the WFO asks a question and we can answer it.
Not sure where you lost the "two-way" part of Two-way radio communications.

As for re-education, that happens in all means of storm reporting. I am sure
you have seen the issues with reports on SN as well.

Your Skywarn goup may do that, but we do not and many others do not.

As I have said before, the old Skywarn way is going out and the new is coming in.

Get out of the studio and see what others are doing sometime.



Tim

 

[rdale]

Your saying the reports are vetted "in real time"

Yes. The NWS met plots it on the screen. If it looks suspicious, he either questions it by contacting the SN reporter or ignores it.

Followup is easy on the air, the WFO asks a question and we can answer it.

"We" who? The net control answers for the spotter? The NCS is sitting in the basement miles away from the spotter - how can he do that?

Not sure where you lost the "two-way" part of Two-way radio communications.

Not sure what you're talking about, but I'm getting used to that. SN reporters have their phone number for contacting, which is called "two-way" communications.

As for re-education, that happens in all means of storm reporting.

Again - no it doesn't. I don't think you are listening to me. If a spotter sends in "skies are clear hear" do you withhold his reporting process until you meet with him?

As I have said before, the old Skywarn way is going out and the new is coming in.

You are the one who said SN is a bad idea, so again - you've got me confused.

Get out of the studio and see what others are doing sometime.

What studio? If you want to play games, I'll ask what Skywarn class taught you that cold air funnels occur with temps in the 80's?

 

[Tim Shriver]

Yes. The NWS met plots it on the screen. If it looks suspicious, he either questions it by contacting the SN reporter or ignores it.

"We" who? The net control answers for the spotter? The NCS is sitting in the basement miles away from the spotter - how can he do that?

Not sure what you're talking about, but I'm getting used to that. SN reporters have their phone number for contacting, which is called "two-way" communications.

Again - no it doesn't. I don't think you are listening to me. If a spotter sends in "skies are clear hear" do you withhold his reporting process until you meet with him?

You are the one who said SN is a bad idea, so again - you've got me confused.

What studio? If you want to play games, I'll ask what Skywarn class taught you that cold air funnels occur with temps in the 80's?

Please copy n paste where I said SN was a bad idea? Please do Sir...

The temp was 75 and dropping according to three PWS units
and the air aloft was cold. The lack of a wall cloud or wide area circulation
lead me to ask that question. Guess it's better to be here where its happening.
The lack of a warning when good solid spotter reports were submitted
made ask why no warning? That's why I asked about the cold air funnels
as they do not tornado warn for those most of the time.
Taking things out of context again?

We meet monthly. We also have post event meetings and we do correct
people on the air. We do follow up in real time and after the event.
We also have strict reporting protocols. Again, you do not know us
or even bother to remember that I have said this to you over and over again.

It is clear what your ideals are and I do not appreciate you
taking something said in a private chat (please read the disclaimer that
the NWS has about NWSChat and use of information from said chat function)
and posting it. While you may disagree with me on many things I at least follow the rules and play fair.

As for SN I have never said it was no good. I have disagreed with some of the
new policies and stated due to the new policies our group may choose to no longer use it.
But I am also one of the first SN Coordinators and had one of the largest spotter group memberships on SN. You left that out also.

Sorry, Mods delete this if you wish as this is not worth any more of my time.

Tim

 

[rdale]

The lack of a warning when good solid spotter reports were submitted made ask why no warning?

No spotter or SN reports of a tornado were received by NWS MKX with that storm. If you got some and held them -- well, that's another story. Temps were actually rising as the warm air moved in. Air aloft is always cold.

 

[Tim Shriver]

No spotter or SN reports of a tornado were received by NWS MKX with that storm. If you got some and held them -- well, that's another story. Temps were actually rising as the warm air moved in. Air aloft is always cold.

I called the WFO directly with our spotters report. Another of our spotter
leaders sent in a funnel cloud report via eSpotter but eSpotter never indicated that they acknowelged it, Dane county 911 reports
to the WFO as well and the WFO itself says they received at least
a dozen reports of funnel clouds.

You are right, no tornado reports, just dozens of funnel cloud reports.
Last I knew funnel clouds were severe criteria and would trigger a
tornado warning or at least a SPS - Special Weather Statement. But nothing
was issued including any LSRs!

Not sure where you getting your information, once again.

Tim