"Guessing" tornado intensity

[Gabe Garfield]

To be honest with you, I have generally overestimated (at least mentally, if not verbally) the intensity of a tornado based on my observation.

One such instance that immediately comes to mind is the first Quinter tornado of 23 May. The tornado was large (~1/4 mile in diameter) and appeared to have a very vigorous debris fan. I immediately suspected that it was at least a strong tornado, if not violent. Well, I talked with Josh Wurman about it, and he was surprised that I thought that it was violent; he could only find winds in the DOW data justifying a rating of EF2, at most. Sure enough, when I went on the damage survey a few days later, I was able to only find evidence of EF2 damage.

Another example is the Courtland/Belleville, KS after-dark wedge of 29 May of this year. That tornado grew to almost 3/4 of a mile in diameter. To me, it looked a whole lot like Greensburg. Yet, on the damage survey the next day, we were only able to find evidence of low-end EF3 damage. It wasn't like there wasn't anything to hit -- several farm houses were destroyed. Trees and plant life seemed to be relatively unscathed as well.

After what I've seen this year, I've become much more reticent to even "ballpark" the intensity of a tornado.

 

[Kiel Ortega]

Not to hijack the thread, but here's a link to Jim LaDue's and my SLS paper about using the EF scale (figured some parties on the thread might be interested)
Experiences in using the EF-Scale since its inception

 

[Steven Maupin]

I think that Lanny is correct, as a member of the media I know first hand how pushy your editors can be, and how everyone loves ratings. But that being said as a journalist I have an ethical responsibility to report the facts, and what I see, I cannont (and shouldn't) make the decision to what strength a tornado is, I think that would be true to all chasers, it's not your job to decide how strong a tornado is, your job is to report what is happening so that people in the storm path can get to safety and emergency responders can get to where they are needed.

 

[Alan Broerse]

I think Steve Maupin is real close here......as a media chaser in OKC....it is our job to report the event as it unfolds. At my station we arent consumed with blowing up small events...some stations... (1) in our market cater to those energy junkies to give them the ride of their lives. My crews are more into saving lives...yet performing in the most professional manner possible. We try NOT to fabricate the facts....a good reporter can take any situation and make a story without hype. You always have to live with what you report... a dozen videos shot of your storm will verify your report...or discredit you. I do see some of the points that were made in this thread.....and other points are null. I would like to mention that high emotion plays into reporting any dangerous, life threatening, or just plain exciting event. I see this of hobby chasers reporting to the NWS exaggerating reports and stepping all over their tongues....I see this of the DOW crews....I see this in the media. Instead of throwing rocks at each other...we need to realize that most of us are out there for one or more of the same reasons and work on being better. I feel that hobby video chasers that drops the "F" bomb every other word is just as bad as a media chaser that uses the other "F" word...Fujita...in his or her reports. Its hard not to get excited when trying to witness the event....shoot video....drive thru a chaser circus...think of the right words to say when you know 500,000 people are tuned in ....but its an aquired skill. Something I help other people do is role play...in the off season.....sit down and watch a storm clip and paint the picture with words.....practice...get someone to critique you....its fun and beneficial.....just remember.....throwing rocks among glass houses......not nice.....LOL have fun.....

 

[Shawn Camp]

Dear chasers

I chase for Fox 4 Dallas which is Met- Ron Jackson and Chief Met- Dan Henry and I just report what I see I never ever try to speculate or rate the Tornado if I happen to see one. I belive that the only way to know is with true ground Mets on the ground doing a damage assesment of the area. I can understand people who do it there way but I believe that that may not be the best way to do it but I have been wrong before.

Sincerly

Shawn C.

"When Weather Breaks Trust Fox 4"

Keeping you informed and 4 Warned

 

[Lanny Dean]

I think Steve Maupin is real close here......as a media chaser in OKC....it is our job to report the event as it unfolds. At my station we arent consumed with blowing up small events...some stations... (1) in our market cater to those energy junkies to give them the ride of their lives. My crews are more into saving lives...yet performing in the most professional manner possible. We try NOT to fabricate the facts....a good reporter can take any situation and make a story without hype. You always have to live with what you report... a dozen videos shot of your storm will verify your report...or discredit you. I do see some of the points that were made in this thread.....and other points are null. I would like to mention that high emotion plays into reporting any dangerous, life threatening, or just plain exciting event. I see this of hobby chasers reporting to the NWS exaggerating reports and stepping all over their tongues....I see this of the DOW crews....I see this in the media. Instead of throwing rocks at each other...we need to realize that most of us are out there for one or more of the same reasons and work on being better. I feel that hobby video chasers that drops the "F" bomb every other word is just as bad as a media chaser that uses the other "F" word...Fujita...in his or her reports. Its hard not to get excited when trying to witness the event....shoot video....drive thru a chaser circus...think of the right words to say when you know 500,000 people are tuned in ....but its an aquired skill. Something I help other people do is role play...in the off season.....sit down and watch a storm clip and paint the picture with words.....practice...get someone to critique you....its fun and beneficial.....just remember.....throwing rocks among glass houses......not nice.....LOL have fun.....

I think we are getting ethics in true "reporting" and what we call "ground truth" intertwined. Can they/are they the same?
Yes, we are out there reporting what we are seeing and what is happening, real time with integrity and honesty as best we can
but, as I said in my last post: the main goal is ratings period! I do not care if your station is dead last in the market or the top dog....ratings are what makes sales, sales are what makes the station money. You get get the ratings, your station makes money. If you continually fail in the ratings sooner or later the axe will fall....generally sales people get it first, then your News director gets cut, the GM will then get cut and the list goes on and on until your station is sold. It is the nature of the beast.
To get those ratings up, ALL STATIONS expect you and the entire staff to "bring it up a notch"....it is expected and understood that you will do whatever it takes to get the story, including weather related stories and if you do not.....you better start looking for another job.
Here is the big issue, at what cost do you go to "get the story"? Do you hype it up? Do you run more live shots to make it appear your covering more news/weather? Do you spice up your reports by giving a little higher tone in your voice? Do you elaborate a little more during your reports especially as a scene is unfolding?
The answer to all these questions is YES. You do all of the above. No offense here Allen, but why do you think the other station is number one in your market? It is because, as you said, they cater to the "slime and crime" and thats what sells.
As far as the weather, it is no different....of course we want and try to give the utmost integrity in all of our reports but integrity and ethical reporting are two different things and imo should not be confused.
Also, please keep in mind that reporting while chasing(media chasers) and true reporting(reporters) are two different beast's and in no way should be thought of as the same.

 

[David Drummond]

Above and beyond anything else, weather coverage is entertainment, and if your coverage is not entertaining, you lose the market. It's widely known that in most all markets if you win the weather segment, you won the market. That is why Reed Timmer is doing so well with TornadoVideos.net, they are entertaining their audience and they are smart enough to realize that their audience in general is NOT storm chasers.

Of course the first by product of the on-air live entertainment coverage IS warning the public about what is coming, so they often go hand in hand and compliment one another and I have yet to meet an on-air met that didn't genuinely care about getting the information out and maybe giving people enough time to save their life and property.

It's one thing to stand in front of a radar and talk about what the pretty colors are, but when you supplement that with people out in the field describing things with their own eyes, it adds a whole new level, and how good those people are at translating what they see to something that is audibly entertaining makes a world of difference. Not everyone has developed those skills as well as they could have, as I am sure most of you have observed.

Throw in live video to the mix and you just can't get any better than that without the viewer being there live themselves.

That said, I don't personally believe in fabricating anything I am reporting. I have declined to do phoners at certain times because I literally had nothing interesting to report.

You have to realize too though that most of us chasers are a bit jaded to the excitement of some weather outside of extreme stuff. While we are used to a healthy barrage of CG strikes, of a little 60 mph outflow, that stuff is still pretty incredible to the average viewer. So when you think of it like that it's not that hard to report excitedly on all sorts of various whether going on, while still being accurate. Sometimes too, it's not just about what is going on, but about what isn't as well.

There is a reason the other station is number one. Just like Lanny pointed out.
I get pot shots taken at me by the other local stations all the time, but then again, I chase for the #1 in our market and I can't remember how many times I was reporting a tornado while they were on the other side of the CWA reporting small hail. I try and do my part anyway. This year I managed to stream the first live tornado in Lubbock television history which was pretty cool. Wasn't long after that one of the other stations "storm trackers" also signed up for the same streaming service I was using. LOL I guess I am doing pretty good, one of those stations stole some of my video to use in a promo for their own "storm trackers" which I think says volumes.

I've actually been put on the spot on-air as to what I thought the tornado intensity was. Of course at that point I can only guess based on years of experience and knowing what similar appearing tornadoes did in the past, but I am quick to follow it up with a disclaimer that a damage survey would need to be done after the tornado to really have an idea how strong it is. After you have seen quite a few tornadoes, you can get fairly decent with at least being able to tell if a tornado is weak, moderate or strong in the rotation assuming your close enough to get a good look at it.

 

[Bill Tabor]

I remember when I caught / witnessed the Seward F4 tornado some years back with Geoff Mackley that I told him it was strong...probably an F4 maybe even an F5. I think I might of even said it on the videotape. It was an educated guess. Perhaps this can be done, and with some degree of accuracy. I pretty sure I can call an F0, F1 is just a bit stronger. If it isn't insane but still apparently stronger than low end likely it is an F2 or F3. Of course and educated guess will never be as good as doppler measured winds or ground damage surveys.