Calling out SN reports publically

[rdale]

Funnel clouds are NOT a severe criteria.

They did issue a SPS at the time, and they issued a LSR after the fact. Just the way things should work.

Not sure where you getting your information, once again.

SPECIAL WEATHER STATEMENT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE MILWAUKEE/SULLIVAN WI
221 PM CDT SAT JUN 5 2010

WIZ057-058-063-051945-
COLUMBIA-DANE-DODGE-
221 PM CDT SAT JUN 5 2010

...STRONG THUNDERSTORM MOVING THROUGH DANE COUNTY...

AT 219 PM CDT...NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DOPPLER RADAR INDICATED A
STRONG THUNDERSTORM NEAR SUN PRAIRIE...MOVING NORTHEAST AT 25 MPH.

FUNNEL CLOUDS...PEA SIZE HAIL...WINDS GREATER THAN 30 MPH...BRIEF
HEAVY DOWNPOURS...ARE POSSIBLE WITH THIS STORM.

* THE THUNDERSTORM WILL BE NEAR...


EAST BRISTOL AND DEANSVILLE BY 230 PM CDT...
nwsbot: MKX: 2 Se Sun Prairie [Dane Co, WI] trained spotter reports FUNNEL CLOUD at 05 Jun, 02:10 PM CDT -- time is estimated. seen by many spotters...law enforcement officials...and the general public from sun prairie...madison...mcfarland...and cottage grove areas. there was no ground contact and no damage reports. many pictures on the web and personal social sites. funnel cloud probably lasted some 15 minutes...and evidence from spotters supports idea that it developed...disspated..and reformed again under rain-free base of thunderstorm that was moving northeast.

 

[Tim Shriver]

"Funnel clouds are NOT a severe criteria"

Wrong again,,please see our WFOs directives via SulCom at the link below:

http://www.sulcom.info/summer_procedures/criteria/criteria.htm

The conditions in RED text (numbered 1 through 7) normally trigger or verify a warning (also called “Severe Conditions.”) The conditions in BROWN text (numbered 8 through 13), although important, are considered residual (also called “Non-Severe Conditions.”)

1. Tornado or Waterspout
2. Funnel Clouds
3. Wall Clouds (indicate if it is rotating)

These look reportable to me:
http://www.channel3000.com/slideshow/weather/23804687/detail.html

Must of missed the SPS, so stand corrected on that,,,but 15 minutes after the
initial reports started coming in.

Getting a little off topic and I dont want to hi-jack the thread any longer.

Tim

 

[rdale]

"Funnel clouds are NOT a severe criteria"

Wrong again,,please see our WFOs directives via SulCom at the link below:

I did not say they are not REPORTABLE criteria, I said they are not SEVERE WEATHER WARNING criteria.

 

[Tim Shriver]

I did not say they are not REPORTABLE criteria, I said they are not SEVERE WEATHER WARNING criteria.

You said " Funnel clouds are NOT a severe criteria."

SulCom says it is severe criteria and "normally trigger or verify a warning"

Seems to clearly state this on the webpage shown.

In the end it is the NWS Mets call. I respect that. But they
do make mistakes and this was one.

We are all human,,,I think..

Tim

 

[rdale]

You said " Funnel clouds are NOT a severe criteria."

Correct. Read the NWS directives.

SulCom says it is severe criteria and "normally trigger or verify a warning"

Don't care. SulCom <> NWS.

In the end it is the NWS Mets call. I respect that. But they
do make mistakes and this was one.

That is the stupidest thing you may have ever said on this forum. Don't disrespect people if you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Jason Foster]

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

You do constantly belittle things that are not ham radio. You tried and failed to comment on a post I made on SkywarnOnline forum about technology advancing beyond ham radio, and being on the threshold of possibly making ham radio obsolete in regards to reporting severe weather. Perhaps in not so many words...I'm not going to bother to look up your posts...but it is clear your love of amateur radio has made you resistant to these new technologies. I personally don't find your views objective and hence carry little weight here and/or there. Your resistance to embrace newer technologies such as SN, web streaming, cell phones, etc. I hope is not hindering others in your group or your community. I don't know either way since I'm not living or chasing in your area, but your posts on various forums has made it pretty clear to myself and I suspect others.

 

[Tim Shriver]

You do constantly belittle things that are not ham radio. You tried and failed to comment on a post I made on SkywarnOnline forum about technology advancing beyond ham radio, and being on the threshold of possibly making ham radio obsolete in regards to reporting severe weather. Perhaps in not so many words...I'm not going to bother to look up your posts...but it is clear your love of amateur radio has made you resistant to these new technologies. I personally don't find your views objective and hence carry little weight here and/or there. Your resistance to embrace newer technologies such as SN, web streaming, cell phones, etc. I hope is not hindering others in your group or your community. I don't know either way since I'm not living or chasing in your area, but your posts on various forums has made it pretty clear to myself and I suspect others.

Wow...can we move this some where else? I would like to continue
airing this in its own thread.

Perhaps the "Tim is a Dork" thread in the Bar?

I really want to hear it all....

Thanks,

Tim

 

[Jason Bolt]

Tim, your beef with SN is well documented on this forum. The question at hand, hard as some may be trying to derail it, is using the report function to contradict another report. It's a valid question. Same as Dean's question about reporting non-severe wind as a way to relay that a warned storm may be below severe limits. Both can be useful reports in the right context. Tyler et al seem to trying to maximize the usefulness of SN and while it is not yet perfect it has become a great tool. I'm sure raising issues like this one give their team food for thought as they continue to improve SN.

 

[Chad Berryhill]

Perhaps I'm missing something (I'm not sure why chase tours are being discussed, as it seems quite off-topic to me), but this is the explanation given by David:

Yeah my mistake regarding David. My first read on this was quick and caught a few key words. I thought he was questioning the report itself. Again, my mistake and apologies to David.