NOAA weather Radio

[Ben Cotton]

A direct feed... KCCI and a few other stations I know of gave the NWS a direct link, so the office had immediate access and could pan/zoom just like we do. They also had velocity data. Those boxes were pulled, and repeated attempts to get around it with HQ have been rejected.

Ah..gotcha. Does seem counter-productive to me, but when was the last time the HQ of any organization issued decisions that made sense to the people actually affected by them?

And just to return to the topic of the thread.... hooray for AHR!


BC

 

[rdale]

"but when was the last time the HQ of any organization issued decisions that made sense to the people actually affected by them? "

Wouldn't have been the "no surprise weather service" motto either ;>

Any idea why the 1040 tone wouldn't have gone? That's not something that has to be manually activated is it?

 

[Chris Geelhart]

I've been watching this thread from afar, but I want to take issue with the people who keep saying that the NWS didn't sound the 1050 tone. The implication I keep getting from that is the lack of 1050 tone was an intentional oversight by lazy NWS employees. Yes, the equipment malfunctioned at a very unfortunate time, but that hardly constitutes the dereliction of duty implied by the comments.

Having a rather thorough knowledge of how the NWR software works, since I maintain it at our office, my first question would be: Was Vandenburgh County the ONLY warning that had this problem with the 1050 Hz tone? If so, that would seem to eliminate:

1) NWR database setup -- probably all of the warnings would not have a 1050 tone if the product was not set up correctly;
2) Transmitter malfunction -- Since the SAME codes went out, the transmitter was on the air. If the 1050 Hz tones sounded for other warnings on that transmitter, that would seem to eliminate the possibility of the tone burst actually being slightly out of tune (i.e. not actually at 1050 Hz)

Since the original article seemed to imply that "some" receivers did not receive the 1050 Hz tone, were there others that did? Could be a problem with a particular model of receiver. A good starting point would be to ask these people if they get the Wednesday tests.

The database logs indicate if there indeed was a 1050 Hz tone transmitted with a particular message.

Disclaimer: I don't work at PAH, and thus don't know the inner workings of their database, how they QC NWR broadcasts, etc.

When the IND radar was broken during the May 30, 2004 outbreak, did anyone say "the NWS didn't turn the radar on?"

This is just guessing on my part, but I would suspect the following reasons for HQ not allowing NWS to use private radars:

1) Liability
2) No direct control over the radar
3) Not wanting to appear to "promote" one particular TV station over another

Again, just my opinions.

Chris G.

 

[rdale]

#3 was what I heard, but that makes no sense. We are giving it to you, you are not asking just one particular station... We would not advertise it in any form, just like we don't tell people "We are the official radar provider for the City of Lansing" because we gave one to the EOC/911 center.

- Rob

 

[Chris Geelhart]

#3 was what I heard, but that makes no sense. We are giving it to you, you are not asking just one particular station... We would not advertise it in any form, just like we don't tell people "We are the official radar provider for the City of Lansing" because we gave one to the EOC/911 center.

Maybe you or your particular station wouldn't do that, but that wouldn't necessarily be the case with every station. Even if it wasn't advertised, I could see some issues arising with other stations if they feel you are "connected" to the competition.

Plus, some TV radar systems frankly aren't worth using. Not every market can afford the SuperMegaDoppler5000 with 1 million watts of power.

Chris G.

 

[rdale]

"Plus, some TV radar systems frankly aren't worth using."

I agree, but that doesn't mean you should reject them all...

 

[Greg Stumpf]

I'm not aware of any NWS directive against WFOs using local TV radar images to augment their warning decision process. In fact, a number of WFOs are using Siutation Awareness Display Systems (SADS), like the prototype at the Norman WFO, which include live images from the local television stations, or links to local tv radar images from their web pages.

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/oun/newsletter/aut...utumn2004/#sads

There are many folks in NWS that want to find a way to integrate *all* the radars in the country together. One of the bigger hurdles is coming up with an agreement with the various private sector companies involved (the radar owners, radar manufacturers). Actually, the privates have an advantage, because they can already blend their own radar networks with the free government weather radar data.


g

 

[rdale]

"I'm not aware of any NWS directive against WFOs using local TV radar images to augment their warning decision process."

Not sure how "official" it is, all I know is that the offices which had live feeds were told to remove them. Our offer was denied for the same reason - regional HQ said no (apparently in response to national HQ.)

"One of the bigger hurdles is coming up with an agreement with the various private sector companies involved"

I can't imagine that would be a big hurdle, most radar owners (from what I gather) would have no problem allowing a feed. Barons already offers their stations' live radars integrated with NEXRAD with Threatnet.

 

[Greg Stumpf]

Not sure how "official" it is, all I know is that the offices which had live feeds were told to remove them. Our offer was denied for the same reason - regional HQ said no (apparently in response to national HQ.)

This seems to contradict the indirect involvement I have with developing more SAD-like systems at the local WFOs. I'll have to find out more specifics. Plus, I've seen a Baron VIPIR system at the Hunstville WFO as recently as April 2004 (not sure how much it was actually used or if it is still there).

Barons already offers their stations' live radars integrated with NEXRAD with Threatnet.

Threatnet data, as we all know, is quite lower resolution than what can be seen on television/web pages. Actually, an agreement that I allude to would be to allow (free or paid) government access to the base data from the commercial radars, so that the data could be integrated into present NWS operational systems (ORPG and AWIPS) and future multiple-radar systems and applications. And there are a number of radar vendors and radar owners that would have to be considered.

 

[rdale]

"Plus, I've seen a Baron VIPIR system at the Hunstville WFO as recently as April 2004"

Could that have been part of the UAH radar system?

"Threatnet data, as we all know, is quite lower resolution than what can be seen on television/web pages."

No, it's the same resolution as what we get here at the station. I think you are referring to the NEXRAD data on Threatnet, I'm talking about the live TV radar feed via Internet to non-mobile Threatnet.

"And there are a number of radar vendors and radar owners that would have to be considered."

Understood, but if you look for data other than from Barons or RadTech radars you may not have much use ;>

 

[Tony Cook]

I don't know what goes on inside the Huntsville WFO, but they are just down the hall from me. UAH and a local TV station (WHNT) jointly operate a dualPol radar:

http://nsstc.uah.edu/ARMOR/
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/ARMOR/webimage/
http://www.whnt.com/Global/story.asp?S=3177784

UAH essentially has complete control of the radar, except for severe weather episodes, during which time WHNT can take over operations (for sector scans, etc.). I know the HSV NWS has access to and uses the data from this radar. They have issued Severe Tstorm warnings based on hail signatures from the DualPol.

This is a unique situation, though, in that the UAH ATS department is literally in the same building as the Hunstville WFO. Also, Baron Services is located about a mile away.

And, yes, one of the local stations in competition with WHNT was none too pleased when WHNT got the radar (although they had a chance to get in on the deal before WHNT, and passed on it).

TonyC

 

[Kevin Bowman]

Here in the Chicago area i have never seen the radio advertised by ALL on air meteorologist. Of course this has everything to do with what happened a few hundered miles south of here Saturday night. i personally think its great that the people cities look to are telling the populations to buy these things

The NWS office in Chicago is also taking part
"A WEATHER RADIO NEXT TO YOUR BED WILL WAKE YOU UP IN THE EVENT OF A WEATHER WARNING. "

I also have never seen this towns meteorologists take a situation this seriously. You had tom skilling talking about the triple point and going indepth about shear. you had the guy on channel 5 saying the exact same thing. People were talking about the risk today unlike most other times when they are like , Severe storms, naw ive never seen a tornado.
Maybe the weather channel saw us complainning cause greg forbes is still there at 1230 at night.

Funny you should mention Tom Skilling getting technical. His forecasts are always pretty technical, no wonder they last 10 minutes sometimes. :wink: I've met him twice at spring seminars in Batavia, IL. I consider him a subject matter expert, maybe better than Greg Forbes? Anyway, Tom is da man, and all other Chicago mets should bow down to him.

Speaking of NOAA WEATHER radio (to get back on topic), it seems to have turned to NOAA ALL HAZARDS radio. This is starting to include amber alerts for missing children. Now I know this is a horrible thing and the public should know about it. I don't think the EAS should need to broadcast them. I've heard amber alerts on EAS, NOAA, and as severe alerts on local weather websites. I hope they don't start the NOAA alert tones for amber alerts in the middle of the night.

Ive met Tom Skilling also at the Fermilab seminar, he is a awesome guy to talk to. i also had time to talk to joe schafer there. it is awesome how they put it together and how they open up on the breaks

 

[Andy Wehrle]

Actually - this appears to be true. Here is the coverage for WW0843 and WW0844:

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/products/watch/ww0...43_warnings.gif

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/products/watch/ww0...44_warnings.gif

Evansville is clearly within the second box - but is more than a county outside of 843. Box 844 was issued at 2:00am local, and the tornado had already passed through the mobile home park by that time. So, if you want to hack at the SPC performance, this I guess gives you some extra ammo. Will be interesting to see if the official assessment will consider this event as within a watch box or not. Glen

Actually, the tornado was well within the timeframe of severe thunderstorm watch #844, which included the Evansville area. Box 844 was issued at 2 AM EASTERN standard time, which would be 1 AM CST, or about an hour before the tornado occurred.

URGENT - IMMEDIATE BROADCAST REQUESTED
SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WATCH NUMBER 844
NWS STORM PREDICTION CENTER NORMAN OK
200 AM EST SUN NOV 6 2005

THE NWS STORM PREDICTION CENTER HAS ISSUED A
SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WATCH FOR PORTIONS OF

EXTREME NORTHEAST ARKANSAS
MUCH OF INDIANA
WESTERN AND CENTRAL KENTUCKY
WESTERN OHIO
WESTERN AND MIDDLE TENNESSEE
LAKE ERIE

EFFECTIVE THIS SUNDAY MORNING FROM 200 AM UNTIL 700 AM EST.

Also, if you look at the initial radar image at the start time of the watch (0656 UTC, or 12:56 CST, 1:56 EST), the storms had not reached the Evansville area yet.

So the Evansville tornado was well within the severe thunderstorm watch. However, the tornado watch (845) was not issued until after the fact.

 

[Glen Romine]

Actually, the tornado was well within the timeframe of severe thunderstorm watch #844, which included the Evansville area. Box 844 was issued at 2 AM EASTERN standard time, which would be 1 AM CST, or about an hour before the tornado occurred.

Good eye Andy. I thought EVV was in eastern time zone - but they are within a small cluster of 5 countiesdown there that follow the central time zone apparently. Indiana is such a messed up state when it comes to time zones. Apparently the local EM's were incorrect in their report regarding the watch status.

Glen