-
While Stormtrack has discontinued its hosting of SpotterNetwork support on the forums, keep in mind that support for SpotterNetwork issues is available by emailing [email protected].
Legislation to Create a National Disaster Review Board
- Thread starter Mike Smith
- Start date
Boris Konon
EF4
So any idea why it looked like this?
Boris Konon
EF4
CYA attitude? Are some so afraid of missing a tornado that does damage or worse that the social environment/pressures result in this behavior?
It's not confined to tornado warnings. Ever see the "carpet bomb" SVRs that extend for 100s of miles along the length of a squall line? I recall one squall line that had solid SVR warnings from ORF to SAV (so not just a single WFO doing this). It was one of those low-topped, cool season events. The thing is gradient winds were already strong ahead of the squall line gusting to 35-45 mph, and you looked at actual obs when the squall line passed (there are a *lot* of METAR sites these days for ground truth), and none were showing any increase in winds, gusty or otherwise.
Is this really good forecast/warning science being applied? And I don't want to hear, "better safe than sorry." That is an outdated ideology overall when it comes to wx now. The forecast science has advanced immensely in the last 30 years alone, but IMHO we are not taking full advantage of this progress. instead relying on outdated tropes and mindsets. And you can say excessive/over-warning promotes apathy and confirmation bias, which ends up costing lives as well (look at the Joplin tornado).
And I know what some may be thinking, the forecast science concerning tornadoes still is not good enough, so that's why FAR for tornado warnings are high. I agree completely. However there is a perplexing problem, and Mike Smith has pointed out many instances over the last several years alone in the central and eastern U.S. There have been clear and obvious signatures on radar and actual ground reports for tornadoes, and yet no warning or the warning is delayed/late and lives were lost. These were not borderline cases either, radar signatures were screaming at you, at least to the point that one should err on the side of caution to issue a tornado warning. We all look at the same data, so it makes you wonder what is going on here. It has happened far too many times to be just something like equipment or dissemination issues.
One more thing that has become an issue in recent years that is a big factor -- heaven forbid you criticize or call-out something or someone! One is often met immediately w/ vitriol, hate, and worse, or at the very least, "there is no fault here." How is this good overall? Mistakes happen, ppl screw up (accidentally and deliberately), it's part of society, so deal w/ it respectfully! Don't insult our intelligence by being an a-**** or disingenuous! Science progresses by trial and error. Sure there are numerous social/political/economic factors that mess w/ the science, but in the end, learning from mistakes and trying to improve is a solid, noble sentiment that never (or shouldn't) goes/go out of style!
If I had to guess, it seems to me like that warning area is an example of something called a sliver polygon, which are common in the GIS world (wikipedia article). If the NWS is using some sort of GIS tool to draw tornado warning polygons it makes sense that something like this could occasionally happen.
Jeff Smith
EF3
I read earlier on social media that a tornado went unwarned in/near Tuckerman Arkansas in the wee hours yesterday 4/28. Posted radar pic had a nice cc drop too.
Mike Smith
EF5
Here is an essay that I believe makes some important points. If you agree, please contact your congresspeople.
www.mikesmithenterprisesblog.com
The Crisis in the National Weather Service
The National Weather Service is falling apart. That is the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn by informed observation of its cumulati...
Matt Zumbrunn
EF2
Its always interesting watching a storm cross out of the Wichita or Tulsa NWS office coverage area to the Springfield area. Seems like the warnings get more frequent and the polygons get massive.
One thing that irks me is how many times you see the velocity, it has a CC drop, and it is unwarned or radar indicated. If folks with a $10 weather app can see it, can the meteorologist at the warning desk not? Does a warning meteorologist have other duties that could pull them in multiple directions?
Its an apples to oranges comparison, but I held a Reactor Operator license from the NRC. When I was the "at the controls" operator that was your only focus. If you needed to go to the bathroom, leave to use a phone, etc you briefed another RO and then turned over the controls. It was always clear who was the "at co". Does the warning person have relief? Do they turn over? I am legit curious.
Mike Smith
EF5
Your description of how it worked at a nuclear reactor was how it worked at WeatherData, Inc/AccuWeather Enterprise Solutions. The warning meteorologist(s) was tasked with monitoring storms at all times and had to be relieved by another meteorologist to use the restroom, take a break etc. There was a briefing when a handoff occurred.
I don't know how the NWS handles it. It has been decades since I was in a NWS office during a severe weather event.
Boris Konon
EF4
Well, the SGF CWA since Joplin, look at the disparity of TORs compared to surrounding CWAs. This is not being scientific or objective, it is knee-jerk reaction to a single event that is in the past and succumbing to the recency bias logical fallacy. It is purely psychological, not physical.
Issuing more warnings b/c of a past event makes no sense from meteorological POV. It’s not like suddenly an area hit by an EF5 tornado is more vulnerable to tornadoes, or the climo has changed, but look at the excessive amounts of warnings issued since. How does this really serve the public? Oh, it may make officials breathe easier from the CYA attitude, but that I find self-serving. For the masses, which count most in the end, you just promote more apathy due to too many warnings, which end up costing lives. Once again, we have the mindset "more is always better." No, it is not!
Something like Joplin can happen anywhere, and "city buster" tornadoes are eventualities. Even warning issues aside, when a large and intense tornado tracks through a major populated area, there are going to be casualties. Some may find statement this insensitive, but it is the hard truth. Look at 5/3/1999 in the OKC area. Warnings up the wazoo. Ppl could see the Bridge Creek/Moore tornado 10-15 mi away approaching (people tend to take action more when they can clearly see the threat), and still over 40 fatalities.
Another CWA w/ excessive TORs?, Jackson MS. And this is nothing new, goes back decades. A SPC meteorologist, now retired, told me there have been so many warnings, they got the nickname "Action Jackson."
It occurs w/ watches as well. Not as prevalent, but ever take a look at the number of svr tstm watches for the DCA area (not necessarily the entire CWA). It is much higher than the surrounding area. That’s not due to climo or some local influence that makes tstms svr more often in this area, it is due to...well, it's not hard to figure out. And I get it, there are social/economic/political pressures always present, but at what point do such compromise the met science to a point where it is doing significantly more harm than good? And also, don't deny you may issue more watches or warnings for a given area/region b/c of non-meteorological factors. Be transparent. Most will get it, and understand, at least in part.
Mike Smith
EF5
I was not aware that "disabling your storm warnings"was trending last week. A really bad sign but not surprising if you issue 25+ tornado warnings without a tornado. The Crisis in the National Weather Service
Note the graph and the sinking PoD. The graph stops in 2004. The numbers have only gotten worse since. The NWS has taken down its tornado warning accuracy stats. I suspect because of embarrassment.
Note: I had mistakenly typed "2014" above.
The NWS tornado stats are back up.
Note the graph and the sinking PoD. The graph stops in 2004. The numbers have only gotten worse since. The NWS has taken down its tornado warning accuracy stats. I suspect because of embarrassment.
Note: I had mistakenly typed "2014" above.
The NWS tornado stats are back up.
Attachments
Last edited:
Mike Smith
EF5
Some of you may be aware this came up earlier today in a popular weather Substack: There is confusion about the various proposals to create a NDRB. I am aware that one, by Illinois Representative Sorensen, calls for solely meteorological disasters to be examined and solely federal agencies to be the subject of reviews. There is other flaws in that proposal. However, those can be easily remedied with a few thoughtful amendments.
My proposal: "The purview of the DRB would be on natural disasters including:
There are also questions about how all of this works. Here's a first-hand example:
WeatherData Inc (the company I founded in 1981 and sold to AW in 2006) was the subject of an NTSB investigation after the 1997 derailment of the Southwest Chief near Kingman, Arizona. The derailment was a result of a flash flood which moved a bridge causing a track misalignment. We provided the storm warning service for BNSF Railway over which the Chief operated. Then-NOAA head Conrad Lautenbacher -- who had never visited us, never had a conversation with me, and knew little to nothing about commercial meteorology (he was yet another oceans guy at NOAA) -- made some extremely unfortunate remarks to the media in the wake of the accident.
Understandably, his remarks caused a great deal of confusion amongst the NTSB members. They wanted to visit us in-person to learn the truth. They brought a group of four (including their meteorologist), arranged interviews with me, and (confidential) interviews with the two mets who were working the storm warning desk at the time. They came away extremely impressed (they told me) and the NTSB Member and the met said they had no idea we were so "sophisticated" both from a scientific and technology standpoint. They further told me that, when they walked in, they expected to find a "slipshod" operation that merely repackaged NWS warnings and took credit for the NWS's work.
We received a clean bill of health: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/RAR9803.pdf in their final report.
The whole point of the NTSB, U.S. Chemical Safety Board and the proposed Disaster Review Board is positive -- to learn what works and get those practices inculcated into the entities involved. If you would like to see what a final report looks like, a link to the Kingman NTSB report is immediately above.
My proposal: "The purview of the DRB would be on natural disasters including:
- Hurricanes and tropical storms
- Tornadoes and other severe convective storms such as derechoes and downbursts
- Tsunamis
- Floods
- Wildfires
- Earthquakes
- Volcanic eruptions"
There are also questions about how all of this works. Here's a first-hand example:
WeatherData Inc (the company I founded in 1981 and sold to AW in 2006) was the subject of an NTSB investigation after the 1997 derailment of the Southwest Chief near Kingman, Arizona. The derailment was a result of a flash flood which moved a bridge causing a track misalignment. We provided the storm warning service for BNSF Railway over which the Chief operated. Then-NOAA head Conrad Lautenbacher -- who had never visited us, never had a conversation with me, and knew little to nothing about commercial meteorology (he was yet another oceans guy at NOAA) -- made some extremely unfortunate remarks to the media in the wake of the accident.
Understandably, his remarks caused a great deal of confusion amongst the NTSB members. They wanted to visit us in-person to learn the truth. They brought a group of four (including their meteorologist), arranged interviews with me, and (confidential) interviews with the two mets who were working the storm warning desk at the time. They came away extremely impressed (they told me) and the NTSB Member and the met said they had no idea we were so "sophisticated" both from a scientific and technology standpoint. They further told me that, when they walked in, they expected to find a "slipshod" operation that merely repackaged NWS warnings and took credit for the NWS's work.
We received a clean bill of health: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/RAR9803.pdf in their final report.
The whole point of the NTSB, U.S. Chemical Safety Board and the proposed Disaster Review Board is positive -- to learn what works and get those practices inculcated into the entities involved. If you would like to see what a final report looks like, a link to the Kingman NTSB report is immediately above.