End of an institution? The (in)significance of chaser reports

[Tim Shriver]

Tim,
I don't know which NWSO you are associated with but I would hazard a guess to say that they took an extreme approach to the budget cuts which is NOT reflected by NOAA / NWS. As for refering reports to 911, that is an absolutly asinine response as now you have just swamped and overloaded the primary call center for responders!! Our NWSO (FWD) has adamatly preached at Skywarn classes and other presentations, DO NOT call 911! And please remember that you are speaking of only 1 NWSO that seems to have taken a skewed approach, not the majority of the field offices.

This is one of the reason I resigned as a representitive of our group to our local WFO. I didn't like the way we were treated during the "almost Federal Shutdown" last year. It's their way or not at all.
Its too bad as I consider some of the NWS staff there good friends.

I hope this changes someday...

Tim

 

[Aaron Kennedy]

I will take exception to this statement regarding "saturation".

Ya, hence my example. I never expect us to reach saturation in my home territory (North Dakota)

 

[Andy Jackson]

I will take exception to this statement regarding "saturation". While this may be true at a few of the NWS offices, it defintly does not hold true for the office I volunteer (FWD)! Example: several months ago and even on April 3, there were numerous storms with radar indications of rotation, etc. but we were not receiving any ground truth reports. We brought up the chaser streaming websites and SN and were amazed to discover that there were 10-20 chasers on the storms BUT NO ONE CALLED IN! We used the streaming video (THANKS for providing the streaming video!) and even called several of the better known chasers (numbers obtained through SN) so at least we were able to obtain some information. But, the main point is, depending on the location, chasers DO NOT call in reports.

I would prefer to call in stuff but really there is no list of report numbers for those who are from out of town. So SN really is the only way to go it seems, if you want to contribute and are non-local. I think 911 would be an excellent option because it keeps the level of seriousness to the report and there is accountability but I'm sure most local 911 offices are running a light staff and it ties up the lines as you expressed.

 

[Jake Orosi]

In speaking with people who are jaded or derisive about storm chasers, it seems to me that they are under the impression that when certain chasers brag about "saving lives" they're implying that the video footage (or "weather data") they collect somehow does this in some direct or indirect way. Either that or (to those who've encountered a select few special people) referring to bad whacker tricks like using stickered-and-lightbarred vehicles to "control" traffic or assert authority at "scenes".

Remember that the only thing the public knows about storm chasers is what storm chasers show them: to wit, them videos. I've seen hundreds easily, but I think I can count on one hand the number of times I've heard a chaser on a video or live stream calling in a report on the radio or a cell phone. Of course most of the time the call is made before a chaser starts filming and most live dash cams don't have audio. But the point is, the public can't just divine that all the calls are made when they're not looking. All they can know is what they see. And it leads to the impression that the "helping the public" part is all talk.

 

[Greg Higgins]

After reading numerous comments that the NWS "doesn't publish phone numbers" I sat down and built a spreadsheet with the phone numbers for "tornado alley". It appears that those offices that don't experience "severe weather" don't have a "dedicated storm reporting number" so I included the local office public number (designated on the spread sheet with (P)). Below is the information. PM with your email if you want the actual spreadsheet in Excel 2011 format.

[TABLE="width: 775"]
[TR]
[TD]Local Office[/TD]
[TD]3 Letter[/TD]
[TD]State[/TD]
[TD]Phone Number All numbers are for storm reports except: (P) designates a public office number.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Amarillo[/TD]
[TD]AMA[/TD]
[TD]TX[/TD]
[TD]1-800-275-8165[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Austin / San Antonio[/TD]
[TD]EWX[/TD]
[TD]TX[/TD]
[TD]1-830-606-3617[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Brownsville[/TD]
[TD]BRO[/TD]
[TD]TX[/TD]
[TD]1-956-504-1432 (P)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Corpus Christi[/TD]
[TD]CRP[/TD]
[TD]TX[/TD]
[TD]1-361-289-0959[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Fort Worth / Dallas[/TD]
[TD]FWD[/TD]
[TD]TX[/TD]
[TD]1-800-792-2257[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]El Paso[/TD]
[TD]EPZ[/TD]
[TD]TX[/TD]
[TD]1-575-589-4088 (P)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Houston / Galveston[/TD]
[TD]HGX[/TD]
[TD]TX[/TD]
[TD]1-281-337-5074 (P)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Lubbock[/TD]
[TD]LBB[/TD]
[TD]TX[/TD]
[TD]1-806-745-4260[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Midland / Odessa[/TD]
[TD]MAF[/TD]
[TD]TX[/TD]
[TD]1-800-597-3320[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]San Angelo[/TD]
[TD]SJT[/TD]
[TD]TX[/TD]
[TD]1-325-944-9445[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Oklahoma City[/TD]
[TD]OUN[/TD]
[TD]OK[/TD]
[TD]1-405-325-3816[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Tulsa[/TD]
[TD]TSA[/TD]
[TD]OK[/TD]
[TD]1-918-838-7838 (P)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Dodge City[/TD]
[TD]DDC[/TD]
[TD]KS[/TD]
[TD]1-800-824-9943[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Goodland[/TD]
[TD]GLD[/TD]
[TD]KS[/TD]
[TD]1-800-272-7811[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Topeka[/TD]
[TD]TOP[/TD]
[TD]KS[/TD]
[TD]1-800-432-3929[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Wichita[/TD]
[TD]ICT[/TD]
[TD]KS[/TD]
[TD]1-800-367-5736[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Hastings[/TD]
[TD]GID[/TD]
[TD]NE[/TD]
[TD]1-402-462-4287 (P)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]North Platte[/TD]
[TD]LBF[/TD]
[TD]NE[/TD]
[TD]1-308-532-4936[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Omaha[/TD]
[TD]OAX[/TD]
[TD]NE[/TD]
[TD]1-402-359-5166 (P)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Kansas City / Pleasant Hill[/TD]
[TD]EAX[/TD]
[TD]MO[/TD]
[TD]1-816-540-6021 (P)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Springfield[/TD]
[TD]SGF[/TD]
[TD]MO[/TD]
[TD]1-417-863-8028 (P)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]St. Louis[/TD]
[TD]LSX[/TD]
[TD]MO[/TD]
[TD]1-636-441-8467 (P)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Des Monies[/TD]
[TD]DMX[/TD]
[TD]IA[/TD]
[TD]1-800-759-9276[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Quad Cities[/TD]
[TD]DVN[/TD]
[TD]IA[/TD]
[TD]1-563-386-3976 (P)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Denver / Boulder[/TD]
[TD]BOU[/TD]
[TD]CO[/TD]
[TD]1-303-494-4221 (P)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Grand Junction[/TD]
[TD]GJT[/TD]
[TD]CO[/TD]
[TD]1-970-243-7007 (P)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Pueblo[/TD]
[TD]PUB[/TD]
[TD]CO[/TD]
[TD]1-719-948-9429 (P)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Lake Charles[/TD]
[TD]LCH[/TD]
[TD]LA[/TD]
[TD]1-337-477-5285 (P)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]New Orleans / Baton Rouge[/TD]
[TD]LIX[/TD]
[TD]LA[/TD]
[TD]1-504-522-7330 (P)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Shreveport[/TD]
[TD]SHV[/TD]
[TD]LA[/TD]
[TD]1-318-631-3669 (P)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Little Rock[/TD]
[TD]LZK[/TD]
[TD]AK[/TD]
[TD]1-800-482-8471[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Update: 27 Apr 2012[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[Mike Hardiman]

It appears that those offices that don't experience "severe weather" don't have a "dedicated storm reporting number" so I included the local office public number (designated on the spread sheet with (P)).

All NWS offices have a toll free spotter line. In most cases, including the office I work at, it is unpublished, and therefore not on your list.

 

[Mike Hardiman]

Yes, it makes perfect sense. It is given out to our trained spotters and COOP observers, and maybe a handful of others (retired mets, contract observers, WSMR mets). In the past, we had problems with it leaking out, and during severe weather we were getting non-Spotter related calls tying up the line.

 

[John Wetter]

Interesting conversation. I think the talk by some research mets is a pretty direct reaction to both the media reaction to the 'over-crowding' issue, and also as a reaction to the current culture of the 'storm teams' with official sounding titles that are really just a group of chasers. It's human nature to want to 'belong' so I'm not going to go in to that, much like warnings, I'll leave that to the social scientists!

I think chasers and spotters have a significant impact on the warning process. I also think a good deal of NWS, and perhaps some research mets do as well. I think chasers of some ilk then boil that down even further in that them contributing to the warning process means they directly are "Saving Lives." This is of course an over-exaggeration of the individuals contribution to a life being saved or lost, but it boils it down quickly for the media.

So, do chasers save lives? No. Do spotters save lives? No. None of them directly do. BUT, they all have SIGNIFICANT input on the warning process which also should not be under-estimated. As part of Patrick's post, I agree that there is a confirmation bias, but I also think that much of a spotter's contribution is a qualitative nature making it much harder to directly measure and/or assess.

There are a few things from this and other discussions that I think people are close to thinking/saying through their words but have not been directly referred to:

-To Tim's comments, unfortunately most of what you're referring to were from comments from a single WFO that was way out on the end of the branch when communicating impacts of the possible shutdown. They may have interpreted the shutdown that way, but I know of no other WFO that did. It's unfortunate Tim let this have such a large impact on his personal participation, but perhaps the office is de-emphasizing their spotter operations as it is a manpower intensive, therefore expensive, area.
-Different offices hold different weighting with spotter reports. I won't name office names, but I can think of one that has the spotter report desk right in the middle of the ops area with it being a mandatory staffed position during warning operations... I also know an office that shares a border with the previous that doesn't have an active spotter program and only teaches a couple spotter classes a year, along with not having a healthy relationship with the EM's in the area. There is such a heavy academic bias that spotter reports aren't something that they use as a resource.
-Over-all, spotter organizations also need to update their operations. The era of a few people going out and sitting on the west side of town and reporting in if they see something has also passed. What is the difference now between a chaser that reports and a spotter? Not much, or perhaps nothing.

I personally am still going to be reporting when I see something. I also will continue to lobby the NWS to keep spotters integrated in their operations, though I know the expense that it is certainly means that the number of spotter classes will be reduced likely leading to a lower local response to severe storms, making chasers that report even more important.

 

[tedchaat]

Reporting has become so quick and easy that even if the contribution seems insignificant, it's no real burden to the reporter to make that tiny contribution. You're already using all the hardware and most of the software you need since you've already got a GPS and radar software. Reporting becomes as easy as getting the client, making a few clicks, typing out a few words and hitting send. I don't think it's the end of the reporting era, it's the end of an era on how reporting is done. We're shifting from cumbersome and tightly controlled nets to faster, open to the public, internet based reports.

if your referring to e-spotter reports ,their easy to use and you can send reports at the click of a button. lately what i have noticed is that its not how easy it is to send in spotter reports its whether or not the nws acknowledges the report.
Even on the ham when sending reports through the skywarn repeater to the forecast office, there's been times when they would even say " i don't know why they wont take that report" .
I'm gonna keep calling them in, and if they take them they take them ,if they don't they don't.

 

[rdale]

ESpotter is falling by the wayside, SN is much more responsive (plus it's guaranteed to get out to all partners instantly.)

 

[Shane Adams]

The thing I find more interesting is, exactly where is the line for a chaser report (or anything for that matter) to be considered "direct" VS "indirect"? How technical are we going to be about the definition? I've heard the overall opinion that chasers are never directly responsible for saving lives, not ever. At all. Our reports are merely a cog in a bigger machine of processes, and will always be considered "indirect". Okay.

On October 4, 1998 (and I'm sure I've told this story before on here, some of you charter members might remember) Matt Sellers and I stumbled onto a large tornado in progress west of Stillwater, OK. At the time, I had recently been chasing for KWTV in OKC, and still had all their report hot numbers. I figured they already knew, but I called it in anyway. The guy on the other end of the line was freaking out, asking "Where exactly? How big? Which way is it heading???" They had no clue about the tornado, and we were the first report across their wire.

A few days later at work, I saw a special on KWTV about that event. An older couple was on talking about how they had just sat down to eat dinner. They had the television on in the background, when suddenly Gary England came on with an urgent tornado warning for folks just west of Stillwater. The couple got up from dinner, walked to the front door of their trailer home, and looked outside. A tornado was barreling across the field directly towards them. They had just enough time to run to their shelter, before taking a direct strike that destroyed their home. They said they never would've gotten up if it weren't for Gary on the TV.

A few months later, while calling KWTV to see if they were interested in some tornado video we'd shot in Arkansas on the 1-21-99 event, Gary picked up the line and personally thanked us for calling in the Stillwater tornado; I hadn't even been talking with him and I never brought it up, it was all him.....which means it was a significant enough event that he remembered.

So I ask you all now......were we not, at least in part, directly responsible for saving those two lives? As much as any other piece of the warning process that day? If the answer is 'no', then I would have to reason that no part of the process is directly responsible for saving lives.

 

[rdale]

Directly means you told the couple. If that was the case, you directly saved their lives. Since the path wasn't one to one, it was indirect.

 

[Shane Adams]

Directly means you told the couple. If that was the case, you directly saved their lives. Since the path wasn't one to one, it was indirect.

Hence, no part of the warning chain is ever directly responsible for saving lives. Hence chasers are just as important/meaningless to the process as anything, and lives saved are a direct result of people saving themselves by taking action. Got it.

 

[rdale]

Hence, no part of the warning chain is ever directly responsible for saving lives.

The last link (siren, TV guy, etc. / whatever is the last straw getting people to take shelter) semantically is probably considered "direct". The rest are indirect.

 

[Mike Johnston]

The last link (siren, TV guy, etc. / whatever is the last straw getting people to take shelter) semantically is probably considered "direct". The rest are indirect.

There's really no need to get caught up in semantics when common sense will suffice.

Let's take the analogy of calling a good offensive play in a football game. The offensive coordinator in the booth decides a particular play to call in a particular situation and phones his call down to the sideline. Now, perhaps the third string QB hand signals the call to the huddle and the play ends up working. Was it the offensive coordinator or the guy that signaled the play in the was "directly responsible" for communication of the play? Just because the guy signaling it to the huddle was the last in the line of communication doesn't necessarily mean he was "directly responsible." In the case of outdoor warning sirens, is it always the guy that presses the button that is directly responsible for saving lives as a result of the warning? That's ridiculous logic.

The fact is that warnings are a system. But, in any given situation, there could be a crucial or critical decision by an individual that could make the difference. In Shane's account, I think it's fair to say that his own action was the crucial link. And there have obviously been other situations where chasers' reports were critical, perhaps the most critical, in the performance of the warnings system. So, chasers have nothing to apologize for in this regard.