Is this the end of the accurate tornado climatology data-base? Budget cuts.

[beaudodson]

Budget cuts - budget cuts. I would imagine this will only grow worse with time.

This is from our local NWS Office - they informed us about it earlier in the month. Today they sent out an email.

Given the high volume of tornado and downburst events in recent years coupled with NWS budgetary realities, I am asking for your help in surveying damage within your respective county/jurisdiction, specifically damage that is below the EF2 threshold (or equivalent downburst damage). We will still come on site for damage at or above the EF2 level or for extenuating circumstances (casualties involved etc.) of lesser damage.

End of their message

With the NWS no longing doing the surveys it appears they will depend on local emergency managers (some of which will not participate) or others to send in the information.

It would seem to me that this will basically destroy the data base - as we know it. At least for the lower end events.

Also on Tuesday it was announced that the following is being shut down (unfortunately).


Due to the tough budget times and NOAA’s choices about the allocation of their funds, we regret to say that external funding of the Collaborative Program on the Societal and Economic Benefits of Weather Information (aka the Societal Impacts Program) has been discontinued. We have thus discontinued or suspended non-research related activities including WAS*IS, the Societal Impacts Discussion Board, the Weather and Society Watch, the Extreme Weather Sourcebook, and other information resources. As such we will be “taking downâ€￾ these webpages as we will not be able to maintain them.

 

[David Drummond]

They should train up some volunteers. I can thing of many chasers that would be more than happy to do this for free, myself included. If they could develop a standardized training protocol, and I don't mean a 1 hour class like storm spotting is.

 

[Joey Ketcham]

They should train up some volunteers. I can thing of many chasers that would be more than happy to do this for free, myself included. If they could develop a standardized training protocol, and I don't mean a 1 hour class like storm spotting is.

I agree. If the NWS created a volunteer program for doing damage survey and providing those who volunteer with proper training on doing the damage survey, I think that would be the way to go and many qualified people would probably volunteer to do this. Like David, I would volunteer for that.

 

[Jeff Snyder]

I think the idea of training non-NWS personnel to do damage assessments is interesting. The primary issue I see, however, is one of liability and "permission". There would need to be a sort of 'licensing', I would think, so law enforcement and citizens know that the person who is walking through private property a day after a tornado damaged said property is "legit" and not just Joe Q. Public trespassing. In other words, there'd need to be credentials to provide. In addition, it may be difficult to schedule surveys (you don't want 5 people showing up to a property off-and-on through the day), and it may be difficult to provide adequate training to ensure that the ratings are accurate and trustworthy. These issues may be overcome, don't get me wrong, but I don't think the NWS will adopt such a formal "volunteer" assessor policy. That's not to say that individual NWSFOs won't use volunteers from time-to-time....

 

[beaudodson]

I think the idea of training non-NWS personnel to do damage assessments is interesting. The primary issue I see, however, is one of liability and "permission". There would need to be a sort of 'licensing', I would think, so law enforcement and citizens know that the person who is walking through private property a day after a tornado damaged said property is "legit" and not just Joe Q. Public trespassing. In other words, there'd need to be credentials to provide. In addition, it may be difficult to schedule surveys (you don't want 5 people showing up to a property off-and-on through the day), and it may be difficult to provide adequate training to ensure that the ratings are accurate and trustworthy. These issues may be overcome, don't get me wrong, but I don't think the NWS will adopt such a formal "volunteer" assessor policy. That's not to say that individual NWSFOs won't use volunteers from time-to-time....

Yes - and that is why this will never happen - at least not in a manner that will be useful to the official database.

The NWS is going to train those who are interested - they already held one talk - they are doing a webinar soon. But, of course, that is for the select few who will want to participate.

It will be hit and miss on what counties decide they will put any effort into this. Some will - some won't.

In the end - it basically corrupts the database.

 

[Mike Johnston]

Interesting the social research programs are being discontinued, even as this area seems to be a hot topic these days - with the experiment on tiered warnings, all the talk about warn on forecast/probability-based warnings, etc. I don't know if the social science aspects of weather forecasts are truly cutting edge or just the 'flavor of the day.' But, when it comes to budget cuts, it's not unusual for the right hand of the bureaucracy to get out of synch with what the left hand side is trying to do.

 

[rdale]

These issues may be overcome, don't get me wrong, but I don't think the NWS will adopt such a formal "volunteer" assessor policy. That's not to say that individual NWSFOs won't use volunteers from time-to-time....

GRR has been doing storm damage survey training for years. I do it quite often when they can't get out to our low end stuff myself.

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/images/grr/education/INVEST2007.pdf

 

[beaudodson]

GRR has been doing storm damage survey training for years. I do it quite often when they can't get out to our low end stuff myself.

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/images/grr/education/INVEST2007.pdf

It has been done here on and off for years, as well.

The only difference now is the official policy shift. In the past the NWS (here in our region) has gone out and done the surveys themselves - but there have been times they have accepted the findings of emergency management officials (or people they trust).

 

[David Drummond]

If done a few unofficial survey's myself, that ended up being a spot NWS personnel couldn't get to for whatever reason, but I provided enough documentation they could make an assessment. Further, more formal training than what I had would have been more beneficial, and I think the idea has merit.

As mentioned, it would (and should) likely require something more involved than an hour or two sit-through lecture class that would end in some sort of officially recognized creditials. This could have the added benefit of weeding out the less serious, and producing volunteers that would be more valuable. Personally, I find inspecting how things were damaged by storms quite interesting and educational, and if I can turn that interest into something useful like this, all the better. There are all sorts of government agencies that used trained volunteers to fill in where needed, no reason why it can't happen here. NOAA/NWS already uses volunteers for a number of other things in an observation/recording capacity, beyond storm spotting even.

 

[beaudodson]

I don't think the concern is "could" it happen. I think the concern is that it won't happen - at least not in a meaningful way that will provide continuity for the tornado data-base. Whether that is important or not - I guess it depends on how you view climatology. Years ago there were many EF0 and EF1 tornadoes classified as straight line winds.

It isn't so much that volunteers can't do this. They can - if trained properly. I can guarantee you that some local emergency managers could care less. We can't even get some of them to participate in spotter training - let alone doing a tornado survey. Others will be excited to have the opportunity.

Another problem is that we have had emergency managers get angry at the NWS for not classifying "their" storm as a tornado. Even though it obviously was not a tornado.

Bottom line is budget cuts are starting to have an impact on more and more daily operations and procedures at the local and national level. One wonders what will be next - especially with the obvious train of debt mounting higher and higher. More cuts will be coming.

 

[Patrick Marsh]

As someone who has evaluated the storm reports databases extensively, I'll take the contrarian point of view here that this will have a negligible effect on the quality of the database. Why? The database is severely flawed already. Here's a figure from a presentation I gave in Huntsville yesterday. It shows the number of tornadoes by year, broken down by rating. You can clearly see a significant change in the number of F/EF0 and F/EF1 tornadoes beginning in 1990. You can also see in recent years an uptick in the number of EF1 tornadoes. The database is full of these kinds of artifacts, and I just don't see this change being any worse than the others.

As for wanting some training in damage surveys, here is a link to WDTB's EF-Scale Training: http://www.wdtb.noaa.gov/courses/EF-scale/index.html

 

[Timothy Finn]

All politics aside, I would be very interested in volunteering, and learning how to assess the damage. And I would like more than a one hour class, LOL.

My mechanical\engineering background tends to give me an eye for detail.

Tim

 

[beaudodson]

As someone who has evaluated the storm reports databases extensively, I'll take the contrarian point of view here that this will have a negligible effect on the quality of the database. Why? The database is severely flawed already. Here's a figure from a presentation I gave in Huntsville yesterday. It shows the number of tornadoes by year, broken down by rating. You can clearly see a significant change in the number of F/EF0 and F/EF1 tornadoes beginning in 1990. You can also see in recent years an uptick in the number of EF1 tornadoes. The database is full of these kinds of artifacts, and I just don't see this change being any worse than the others.

As for wanting some training in damage surveys, here is a link to WDTB's EF-Scale Training: http://www.wdtb.noaa.gov/courses/EF-scale/index.html

There is no doubt it is/was flawed. It was flawed in the past - perhaps now it is more accurate with new technology (radar advancements and a better understanding of how tornadic storms work - less "straight line wind designations")

This won't help the database. I would like to believe that the database is more accurate now vs three decades ago. Yes - there has been a jump in the number of EF0 and EF1 tornadoes - but that is a reflection of more accurate surveys vs two or three decades ago (and radar advancements). I think the database was on the right path towards becoming more accurate.

Now we are going the other direction - in my opinion.

Perhaps it was foolish to think that the NWS surveying these type of events was sustainable (or even important). Some would argue that it isn't important to have an accurate database of EF0 and EF1 tornadoes. I guess that depends on your views concerning climatology and accurate record keeping.

It will never be perfect - granted.

Perhaps they should stop doing surveys all together on the lower end tornadoes.

The NWS does depend on volunteers for rainfall and snowfall reports - I guess we could look at this with the same attitude. It isn't a perfect system and we have to accept the current state of financial budgets.

Our local office has done an excellent job over the years of getting performing storm surveys. Personally I hate to see us going the other direction - less accurate surveys. I would rather have the NWS make the determination. But - that is just me.

Patrick - you are right in the lesser of evils. There were issues in the past - there are issues now - there will be issues in the future. I guess in the end we have to accept the changes. I felt like we were moving towards a more accurate database over the last decade. A better reflection and understanding of the smaller EF rated events. I hate to see the changes.

I worry more about what is coming down the pike.

 

[beaudodson]

All politics aside, I would be very interested in volunteering, and learning how to assess the damage. And I would like more than a one hour class, LOL.

My mechanical\engineering background tends to give me an eye for detail.

Tim

There will be some classes hosted by the PAH office

To register for the April 17 (10 AM CDT) Webinar: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/210988665
To register for the April 18 (2 PM CDT) Webinar: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/726995624
To register for the April 23 (10 AM CDT) Webinar: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/416778624

 

[Patrick Marsh]

There is no doubt it is/was flawed. It was flawed in the past - perhaps now it is more accurate with new technology (radar advancements and a better understanding of how tornadic storms work - less "straight line wind designations")

In my opinion, there are more "straight-line wind" events that are being reported as tornadoes now than historically. Is the entire EF0 increase attributed to this? No, but I also believe it to be non-negligible.

And to be fair, the policy change in your local office has already occurred in several offices around the country. A lot of times these lower end events are photographed by the local EM and the photos get sent to the WCM who assesses the damage from these photographs. Is it ideal? No. But it's practical. The NWS cannot survey, and has not surveyed, every tornado in recent years. There simply are not enough man-hours to cover 1500+ tornadoes.