Fraud Allegations for the Center for Severe Weather Research (the DOWs)

[Mike Smith]

Hi James,

Always glad to read a comment. Tornado warnings improved up to around 2010. Since then, they have become less accurate.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2021/05/21/joplin-tornado-warning-improvement-nws/ And, the problem is not QLCS or F-0's. We are missing EF-2's and EF-3's fairly regularly these days.

As to tornado forecasts, I have not been able to obtain accuracy statistics.

 

[rdale]

We are missing EF-2's and EF-3's fairly regularly these days.

I think going back to the basics of tornado forecasting and warning might be helpful to you. Don’t dig in too far to the DOW data - but WDTD puts some great resources online. How many of those are you missing?

 

[Mike Smith]

First, it was....

We know that DOW and VORTEX work has dramatically improved tornado forecasting.

Then, to improve tornado forecasting...

I think going back to the basics of tornado forecasting and warning might be helpful to you. Don’t dig in too far to the DOW data.

This isn't even consistent, let alone scientifically accurate.

You, StormTrack readers, and everyone can see my forecasts on my blog and on Twitter. I'll let my record speak for itself.

 

[rdale]

You self-admitted that you miss a lot of EF2s and EF3s. That should not be happening - and missing those has little to do with understanding DOW research.

Anyways - you've made your attack on researchers, NWS, and just about anyone else you feel you needed to attack. I think it's time to return to the thread.

 

[Mike Smith]

Rob, I was using the royal we -- as in our profession -- not me personally.

 

[rdale]

Oh - thanks for clarifying. I can't answer for the royal you or explain why others are missing some of those tornadoes.

I can suggest that people interested in the actual research use some of the links I shared, showing how tornado forecasting and warnings are getting better as we understand the physical process better - thanks in part to these field experiments.

I'd encourage all AMS members to sign up for the free online SLS conference next week - here are some that would apply that relate to this topic;

Environmental Controls on Close Proximity Supercells Observed by TORUS on 8 June 2019

Observations of Rear Flank Internal Surges from the 2019 Targeted Observations by Radar and UAS of Supercells (TORUS) Project

Using Remote and In Situ Observations from TORUS to Investigate a Preexisting Air Mass Boundary and its Influence on a Tornadic Supercell on 28 May 2019

 

[Mike Smith]

372658, member: 97"]
I can't answer for the royal you or explain why others are missing some of those tornadoes.
[/QUOTE]

I can't explain it, either, Rob -- but it keeps occurring.

Here's an unfortunate example from this morning. There are two rotation tracks, the one to which I am referring has an arrow. I tweeted about the storm (also attached) because I was surprised there was no tornado warning and I thought people needed to be informed. The red polygon to the immediate south in that tweet's radar image was for a tornado farther south (longer rotation track to the east).

According to a news report from a BPT TV station, there are power failures just northeast of Beaumont and "children are being held in school and learning (yea, right with no power)." There was a lowered CC at least for a time. I don't have any more news on the damage at this point.

My point is that, [royal] we are missing tornadoes that seem relatively straightforward, all the way up to EF-3 intensity. Here is one of several from this past summer: Bensalem Tornado: Another Dangerous National Weather Service Warning Miss

My motivation for criticizing the DOW and VORTEX field experiments is that they do not seem to be getting us anywhere while tornado warnings are getting less accurate. The funds that are going to these projects would probably be better directed elsewhere: https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2021/05/21/joplin-tornado-warning-improvement-nws/ As you will read, the decrease in tornado warning accuracy is per the NWS's own statistics.

22338[/ATTACH]

 

[rdale]

Just to be clear - field projects are why we're here in the first place. Suggesting we stop studying tornadoes because we "know it all" would be ludicrous. Could you imagine someone actually saying "We have all the info on tornadoes and have nothing new to be learned about it"? That's not based in science. That is a statement when someone's ego exceeds his knowledge.

 

[Mike Smith]

As I said above, if we have studied (wild guess) 150 tornadoes with DOWs, what are we going to learn from #151 or 152? What have we had, six VORTEX projects, including the two recents in the Southeast?

While it is a cliche´, it is true: Einstein's definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Tornado warnings are getting less accurate. That isn't going to get fixed by endlessly chasing tornadoes with DOWs.

Some thoughts: Perhaps spending that money to build sophisticated training simulators (like the ones in aviation) would be useful. A NSSL scientist, prior to Dr. Jeff Kimpel passing away, found there were a number of interesting signatures in the WSR-88D Level I data that might provide clues to tornado development. Perhaps spending money on gap-filler radars.

All of the above might result in better services to the public. Continuing to chase tornadoes with DOWs doesn't seem very fruitful at this point.

 

[rdale]

Assuming that once we’ve studied 150 that we’ve studied them all is not the claim an expert would make.

Tornado warnings can be more accurate today than they were 20 years ago, largely in part to field experIntents.

Since you are not now - nor ever were - connected to field research, I’d say it’s a good call not to proclaim yourself a research expert

 

[Robert Edmonds]

Just to be clear the mobile Doppler's don't only study tornadoes. Having multiple Dopplers allow you to derive the wind vector. This data is can be so small scale it can't be injected by forecast models, and also the postprocessing takes a long time. 3d wind fields provide an enormous way to verify very fine scale simulations. While I work in CFD, and don't as often touch meteorology these days in my research, I could imagine that Orf would find the data valuable to compare his models against. This could inform things that you may not initially suspect, like what is the appropriate rain hail size distributions assumed in my model, how could that then be parameterized back to larger scales for the forecasting models? Just kinda throwing ideas out there, but 3d wind fields with vectors would be gold to me at certain points in my research past.

 

[rdale]

Good point - here’s a link to his research. It’s eye opening!

Leigh Orf | Simulation and visualization of thunderstorms, tornadoes, and downbursts

 

[Noah Anderson]

As I said above, if we have studied (wild guess) 150 tornadoes with DOWs, what are we going to learn from #151 or 152? What have we had, six VORTEX projects, including the two recents in the Southeast?

I know this is a tangential field, but as someone who does research in machine learning (where datasets consisting of pictures of household objects can number in the millions), the idea that 150 tornadoes surveyed by the DOWs is enough and "#151 or #152" couldn't possibly add anything that we don't already know is rather silly.

As a simple example: we need at least a few thousand images of different staplers to have enough data to teach a machine to recognize one, but we supposedly only need <200 scans of one of the rarest and most complex (not to mention, varied) phenomena on earth to fully understand them?

Please make it make sense...

 

[Mike Smith]

Rob,

There was a tragedy in southwest Mississippi yesterday evening.

There was a tornado in SW Mississippi yesterday at 6:50pm that killed a person. This is the radar ten minutes before. While QLCS tornadoes, both had lowered CC's. The fatality occurred on the east side of Picayune ten minutes after this data was collected. The southern tornado above, which caused the fatality, was approximately 5.6 miles from the location where the death tragically occurred.

Rob, you are right that tornadoes could (and should) be more accurate than ever. Unfortunately, they are not.

 

[Mike Smith]

As a simple example: we need at least a few thousand images of different staplers to have enough data to teach a machine to recognize one, but we supposedly only need <200 scans of one of the rarest and most complex (not to mention, varied) phenomena on earth to fully understand them?

It is very much a tangential field when compared to tornado warnings and staplers are not a good analogy to the problem. As far as I know, no one is using machine learning to attempt to issue real-time tornado warnings because that field is simply too complex.

My comment about DOW radars is correct. If they were making a material, positive contribution, warning quality would be going up. Instead it is going down. I do not blame that on the DOWs. I am saying they are irrelevant and I see no sign of that changing. Rob has posted a number of items attempting to defend the DOWs but none of those items is pertinent to real-time tornado warnings and tornado forecasts. I note no one else has attempted to refute my observation about the DOWs with evidence. That is not surprising to me because I do not believe that evidence exists.

Therefore, the money that is going to the DOWs should be going to directly solving the problem of deteriorating tornado warning quality.

I realize there is a natural instinct to want to defend the National Weather Service. I wrote an entire book (published in 2010) praising them and their storm warning performance. However, I could not write that book today.

While there will always be tornado fatalities, unfortunately, but it is doubly concerning when one occurs with a "warnable" storm as the southwest Mississippi tornado of yesterday evening was.