• After witnessing the continued decrease of involvement in the SpotterNetwork staff in serving SN members with troubleshooting issues recently, I have unilaterally decided to terminate the relationship between SpotterNetwork's support and Stormtrack. I have witnessed multiple users unable to receive support weeks after initiating help threads on the forum. I find this lack of response from SpotterNetwork officials disappointing and a failure to hold up their end of the agreement that was made years ago, before I took over management of this site. In my opinion, having Stormtrack users sit and wait for so long to receive help on SpotterNetwork issues on the Stormtrack forums reflects poorly not only on SpotterNetwork, but on Stormtrack and (by association) me as well. Since the issue has not been satisfactorily addressed, I no longer wish for the Stormtrack forum to be associated with SpotterNetwork.

    I apologize to those who continue to have issues with the service and continue to see their issues left unaddressed. Please understand that the connection between ST and SN was put in place long before I had any say over it. But now that I am the "captain of this ship," it is within my right (nay, duty) to make adjustments as I see necessary. Ending this relationship is such an adjustment.

    For those who continue to need help, I recommend navigating a web browswer to SpotterNetwork's About page, and seeking the individuals listed on that page for all further inquiries about SpotterNetwork.

    From this moment forward, the SpotterNetwork sub-forum has been hidden/deleted and there will be no assurance that any SpotterNetwork issues brought up in any of Stormtrack's other sub-forums will be addressed. Do not rely on Stormtrack for help with SpotterNetwork issues.

    Sincerely, Jeff D.

Forecasting Accuracy 2024 - Good or Bad?

Thanks for flagging this John. I wasn't really looking at things yesterday (June 5) because I was traveling back from Dallas to Philadelphia (flight delayed three hours and a baggage claim nightmare due to late equipment change, the Philadelphia airport was a nightmare just because of some non-severe thunderstorms). I did notice four tornado warnings in Maryland when I peeked at radar but the situation didn't really register with me during all the travel shenanigans. My "home" NWSFO of Philadelphia/Mt. Holly handles part of Maryland, so I'll be interested to learn what I can about this!

EDIT: I hadn’t looked closely enough when I wrote the above. The area in MD where the tornados occurred is covered by the Baltimore/Washington NWSFO, not Philadelphia/Mt. Holly, which I think covers only the Delmarva portion of MD.
There were warnings in the PHI CWA. I do not think these verified.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2024-06-11 110325.png
    Screenshot 2024-06-11 110325.png
    18.1 KB · Views: 1
That has nothing to do with the topic being discussed. That's an a posteriori argument. We're discussing the signs that were apparent before the event occurred, not what should have been forecast given the known results.
On the other hand, did SPC and LWX handle the situation well? SPC did issue Mesoscale Discussion 1177 at 6:13 PM CDT with a 20% chance of watch issuance with the typical "a WW is not expected, though trends will continue to be monitored" statement. At the time this was issued, they were reportedly working with one report of a brief tornado. However, numerous tornado warnings occurred shortly after, with one of them getting the PDS tag (whether or not it should have happened ... probably a discussion for that "other" thread). There was another downstream Mesoscale Discussion ... 1179 at 9:17 PM CDT ... still reporting on that area of convection ... also with a watch probability of 20%, and reaching into SNJ. So, there is evidence that they were indeed monitoring the situation, at least a little bit

LWX is releasing statements from the surveys (Tornado Damage Survey Summary), and one of the tornadoes has been surveyed with a 26 mile path length (and a 1 hour and 2 minute duration) and another with a 4.4 mile path length. We'll see if these numbers stick when finalized, but, they have had a number of days to review these.

From a "protection of life and property" perspective, what would have made SPC go from a 20% chance of watch issuance to actually issuing a watch? A lot of folks were certainly confused by the lack of one, especially with a PDS involved.

So, yes, with our current forecasting capabilities, this situation was likely forecast well ... but, this sure does look like a case where they could have (and many would argue should have) issued a watch.

Also, you mentioned looking at the mesoanalysis archive. I always treat the mesoanalysis as a good resource, but not perfect. The process described at Storm Prediction Center - Mesoscale Analysis Pages is (with some formatting by me but no content changes):

- The system runs at the top of each hour, using the latest 40km RAP forecast grids as a first guess.

- Next, the surface data is merged with the latest RAP forecast/analysis upper-air data to represent a 3-dimensional current objective analysis.

- Finally, each gridpoint is post-processed with a sounding analysis routine called NSHARP to calculate many technical diagnostic fields related to severe storms.

So, most of this relies on the RAP model. No model is perfect, and, once it was clear the the situation was not handled well, other approaches seem warranted (not that I have any good recommendations for those other approaches :) ).
 
Back
Top