OUN ratings from 5/4-5/5?

[rdale]

I remember hearing of a national response team I believe out of Norman, O.K. that can be sent in to survey damage.

The Quick Response Team (QRT) has some members here so I'll let them give details, but they respond to major events (where greater than EF3 damage is suspected.) Not general tornadoes.

I've done many surveys on less than notable events and passed all the info on to NWS, GRR even developed training specifically for those interested in doing damage reports.

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/grr/education/ has INVEST training and a slideshow about QRT's from the Fujita seminar at CMU earlier this year.

 

[Glen Romine]

I don't really see why it is assumed that an NWS office member need be dispatched to chase after every possible tornado report to try to identify damage. Perhaps many EM's are viewed as wholly incompetent individuals to assess and report damage back to the local NWS office. Otherwise, were the individuals reporting deemed worthy of doing so, there seems little reason to send out a survey team at taxpayer's expense. Several folks just seem to assume that the rating, which has yet to be assigned, will be woefully inadequate because an OUN NWS office member didn't drive out there and have a long look for themselves. Maybe they had all the information they needed to make the appropriate rating, and since there was no substantial property damage or injuries, and have made finishing up the rating assignment a lower priority. Certainly this dialogue will do little to accelerate that process.

Also, if nothing else, this discussion will hopefully serve to illustrate that most tornadoes are not surveyed. While it may be a sufficient novelty for some forecast offices to survey nearly every tornado report, the vast majority are not ever surveyed and rely on reports of substantial damage or injuries/fatalities (or in other words, a signficant event) to warrant a detailed survey.

 

[Jim Tang]

I can understand that a NWS offices can have problems WRT surveying. After all, May 4, 5, and 6 were all major severe wx days, so it is understandable that OUN would have to place tornado surveying in a back seat. But I've noticed other times where OUN has not surveyed, when IMO, they could have. Maybe I'm misinformed though. First example would be May 29, 2004. If I'm wrong and there was a survey conducted, please enlighten me.

As for this event, I couldn't care less now; just get the tornadoes into the database, even if they are given EF0 ratings. That's what matters most to me, and likely many others here.

 

[Kevin Scharfenberg]

Also, if nothing else, this discussion will hopefully serve to illustrate that most tornadoes are not surveyed. While it may be a sufficient novelty for some forecast offices to survey nearly every tornado report, the vast majority are not ever surveyed and rely on reports of substantial damage or injuries/fatalities (or in other words, a signficant event) to warrant a detailed survey.

Thank you Glen...there seems to be this widespread notion that all offices except OUN survey all tornadoes that might have done any damage. It simply isn't the case now, and has never been that case! In fact it's rare for any office to do this, and from where I sit, it's a massive waste of time and money. Why some Stormtrackers are suddenly jumping down the throat of OUN because their own curiousity isn't being satisfied in a timely manner is beyond me. Several of us have detailed that the correct information IS getting into the record via post-assessment of damage photographs from the forecast office as well as relayed surveys from local officials, but apparently this just isn't "good enough" for some people here, who can offer nothing but criticism.

And Patrick Marsh is very right to ask, why is an NWS ground survey so darn important to average Joe chaser? What critical need exactly does this fill that a local official's survey or remote photograph assessment couldn't fill? I'd think it would be far more important for the WFO to be refining their forecasting and warning techniques, doing research, case studies, and training, rather than driving all day to document some tree limbs broken and deciding whether that barn roof got high-end-EF0 or low-end-EF1 damage. Silly and counterproductive. This is a very silly discussion indeed.

 

[Shane Adams]

I want to make it real plain that I was 100% sincere with my post about training citizens to do damage surveys...it wasn't a tongue-n-cheek stab at anyone or any office.

But I will say this, there's nothing silly about storm chasers being curious about storm damage. Much like Sharf doesn't get the curiousity of some chasers, I don't get why that curiosity is seen as bothersome, finicky, or some sort of self-absorbed closure. Considering much of this information (tornado reports in general) is made possible by chaser reports (mine included), it kinda puts me off that my curiosity (as well as others') is seen as a burden and an annoyance. Sucks that this little rift has to exist, but I can't pretend it doesn't piss me off a little. It can't be much more of a chore to copy and paste something to a web server than it is to dub a video and take it to a NWSFO.

My attitude is kinda like "if you don't wanna share, I don't either."

 

[Brian Stertz]

I agree totally with Shane on this one...since when does true interest concerning a significant storm event become fully realized as a waste of time and money? I think we have started down the abyss with the new NWS and a cheap apathetic attitude. Now if damage surveys are going to be blown off...why was there this sudden need for the EF rating? It seems very dumb to spend a ton of tax money to symptomize and categorize tornado damage, and then weakly diagnose it with a broad-brush unsurveyed opinion. I guess we can all crawl back to our chase caves as we await the second season and just take a wild stab at tornado intensity ratings from now on. Apathy sucks and history will suffer.

 

[rdale]

I want to make it real plain that I was 100% sincere with my post about training citizens to do damage surveys...

As noted above - it is being done (at least at GRR.) Not just "citizens" but spotters.

But it sounds like you have a different "beef" -- if I'm reading you right they have the surveys and the damage info but aren't releasing it to you when you've asked. Others are complaining because the office isn't surveying 100% of all tornadoes... Which is it?

Now Brian says that the whole EF scale was a waste... This thread really is going on some tangents -- but I completely disagree with that statement. Just because all tornadoes are not surveyed should not be cause to never survey any tornadoes. That line of thinking makes no sense.

 

[Shane Adams]

My "beef" is real simple....the surveys are done and conclusions reached. I don't care how long it takes to complete the survey...I'm happy to wait until it's concluded...I'd just like a PNS when it's done. I mean, why go public at all if releasing survey results is an issue? Because quite frankly, without chasers and wx-enthusiasts (a very small %age of the country) no one gives a damn what the NWS is doing when it's not storming in their own areas. I guess I'm looking at this wrong....seems it'd be a cool thing to know there were people who were eagerly awaiting the results of your work. But in this case it seems to be a PITA. I'm guilty of curiosity, I admit it.

I'm glad some members of the survey teams have been up front and honest with their opinions on this issue. Tells me what to do from now on (or what not to do).

 

[Jeff Snyder]

I'm not sure many think that absolutely every single tornado should be surveyed. However, I'd at least argue that it's worthwhile to survey as many tornadoes as possible. For example, I've seen a damage survey and/or damage rating from 1 tornado from 5/5/07, but there were 9 tornadoes apparently reported (per http://www.srh.noaa.gov/oun/tornadodata/ok/tornado2007.php ), or approx 11%. Yes, I know more may have been assessed, but what are we to assume if we haven't seen or heard anything about such tornadoes more than a month after the event? Perhaps we should just be patient and wait for Storm Data, but how can releasing preliminary information hurt? OUN does an excellent job on their surveys that have released as PNSs, but I've seen many other NWSFOs that release full lists of tornadoes for multi-tornado events, giving (apparently) all the information they have.

I, and many others, understand realistic and logistical problems with surveying every tornado. Perhaps the answer is to train willing spotters and/or chasers to accurately observe and record damage. I know some in here have suggested that chasers should have volunteered to perform assessments / observations of tornado damage before complaining about the situation, but I'm not sure many folks actually thought that the NWS would allow us to perform such observations/assessments (I'll stick with 'observations' since the assignment of rating will lie with NWS personnel, i.e. WCM). If this is not sanctioned by NWS, how do we identify ourselves when a sheriff asks us what we are doing. Do we get some identification to give us a little credibility in the eyes of law enforcement and emergency management officials? Do we go out as "citizen journalists" and get what we can without causing issues with local officials? Again, I don't think many have a problem with many tornadoes being unsurveyed. Local officials (EMs, law enforcement, etc) may well be qualified for assessments, and that may be the most valid options for many of the more short-lived tornadoes and/or those that occur a long distance from the WFO. However, it'd still be nice to have some updated information. Storm Data is nice, but I don't think it's too unreasonable to request information within 3 months of an event.


If the EF-scale allows for tornadoes to be rated up to EF3 based on tree damage alone, does a tornado that only damages trees preclude it from being considered a "significant" tornado? By most definitions, "significant" tornadoes are those that are "strong" or "violent", i.e. EF2-EF5. No longer do significant structures need to be hit in order for a tornado that even have the possibility of being considered a siggy tor. I will continue to reiterate that I don't think it's feasible for every tornado to be surveyed, and it's not the best use of time and money for an NWS person to drive around a forest to look for a few broken trees in hopes of finding a tornado track, but the lack of significant structures hit should not preclude a tornado from being rated as significant. FWIW, I think many would argue that the tornado climatology does serve a meaningful purpose. Some researchers and people may not care about tornado intensity, but many would argue otherwise. I can't imagine Harold Brooks would come in here and say that tornado ratings are meaningless. Heck, even from an operational standpoint, the value of climo, "pattern recognition", and tornado intensities is apparently quite important, otherwise we wouldn't have PDS tornado watches, "tornado emergencies", hatched tornado probabilities, the "significant tornado parameter", etc.

 

[Kevin Scharfenberg]

Jeff, I have to reiterate that trees (or a couple of barns, or whatever) can be rated via digital photographs or a local official/spotter/chaser with some basic EF-scale training. It doesn't take a WFO person to drive out there every time and put eyes on it. I think we're coming to the same basic conclusion - a local official, spotter, chaser, average joe can take damage pix and send them in for tornadoes with minimal damage and the tornado will usually get a good rating.

Well at least Shane is one person being honest, this controversy stems simply from impatience and curiousity. The NWS isn't hiding anything, it does release damage survey information - in the form of Storm Data, which the OUN office puts on the web for free when it becomes official (note: most offices do NOT do this): http://www.srh.noaa.gov/oun/stormdata/

As I mentioned before, gathering all the data takes some time for every tornado. Remember the NWS has millions of tax payers to serve, and their first priority is protection of life and property (i.e., watches warnings and advisories). I suspect satisfying the curiousity of a few chasers in a timely manner is very far down on the priority list, as it should be. Another thing is becoming clear in this thread -- it's obvious a lot of people don't know what goes into a final rating for a tornado. That is, the information trickles into the office with newspaper clipping services (that run weeks behind and take weeks to go through), official situation reports from local officials (they can take their sweet time), followup calls that go unanswered, etc. Heck, last year a few of us went out on an autumn hike in the Wichita Mountains in southwest Oklahoma just to pin down a tornado track we had heard about from park officials from a couple of months before and passed the info on to OUN.

In addition, usually only a couple of people on staff handle all this data analysis and they have shift duties and more pressing requirements. I would point out that the OUN office spends a lot of extra time on severe weather services such as incredible enchanced web pages, a great Skywarn net and training, a local 1 km run of the WRF to run in rapid update, a lot of forecaster training and case studies, and experimental warning activities in the Hazardous Weather Testbed. Quite frankly, I'm glad the office spends their limited time and resources on these above and beyond activities first and foremost.

Not speaking for them, but I'm sure OUN would be happy to devote a lot more resources to survey and quickly publish results for every tornado, but some of those things I listed above would have to be scaled back or eliminated. And I would be willing to bet that the same people who are constantly b#tching about this and constantly b#tch when a model data website runs a little behind (and sends nasty e-mails to the volunteers who run those sites) would be the first ones b#tching if OUN's enhanced services were taken away.

 

[Kiel Ortega]

If the EF-scale allows for tornadoes to be rated up to EF3 based on tree damage alone, does a tornado that only damages trees preclude it from being considered a "significant" tornado? By most definitions, "significant" tornadoes are those that are "strong" or "violent", i.e. EF2-EF5. No longer do significant structures need to be hit in order for a tornado that even have the possibility of being considered a siggy tor. I will continue to reiterate that I don't think it's feasible for every tornado to be surveyed, and it's not the best use of time and money for an NWS person to drive around a forest to look for a few broken trees in hopes of finding a tornado track, but the lack of significant structures hit should not preclude a tornado from being rated as significant. FWIW, I think many would argue that the tornado climatology does serve a meaningful purpose. Some researchers and people may not care about tornado intensity, but many would argue otherwise. I can't imagine Harold Brooks would come in here and say that tornado ratings are meaningless. Heck, even from an operational standpoint, the value of climo, "pattern recognition", and tornado intensities is apparently quite important, otherwise we wouldn't have PDS tornado watches, "tornado emergencies", hatched tornado probabilities, the "significant tornado parameter", etc.

The problem with going on tree damage is it can really suck. Let's say trees and power poles were hit. Before the surveyor can get there, the power company comes in and fixes the power poles. Now you have tree damage (a DI) but no power pole damage (another DI). That'll severely skew the rating even if the trees are torn to shreds. I bring this up b/c this happened to me when I surveyed up around the VNX radar (which I did b/c OUN was surveying the NW OKC tornado [has PNS]---which actually first touched down near Union City, caused damage, was seen by the public and never was reported until May when me and Patrick were out there---and they had a possible weather situation on their hands that day---the Norman tornado warning happened that day). The LSR was of downed power poles/lines. I only found tree damage. I didn't get to see what happened to the power poles (were they snapped or just blown over or was there damage to cross-members---all DODs). Going further down the road, I found a house that seemed to have been hit. Well, it looked okay (mud on the side) but a large tree in the yard looked to have been significantly damaged. I say "looked to" b/c the owner had already chopped it down and was hauling it off. Further, he cleaned off the road pretty good of limbs and whatnot. Patrick brought up this clean up issue before and it's a big one; because the debris field is a nice thing to see. So the NWS chasing down tree or power pole damage, IMO, is ill-advised as who knows if they'll actually find it. And even if they do, how accurate of a rating can really be given. That's why the suggestion of volunteering. To be clear, to volunteer for helping out a survey, all that is needed is some pictures. And LaDue gave some good tips earlier on how to take good pictures so a rating might be given to photographed damage.

I think the point to most of my posts (in this thread and the other) is that it's just one event; not gonna hurt much. My post about ratings and the weakness of them was done in the context of the argument that everything should be surveyed. I was trying to point out the inherent weakness in tornado ratings and what conclusions you can draw from that climo or even from the rating itself. I hope I didn't go too far to say that surveys are worthless...considering I do them! But I hold the position that there is not a good, objective way to fairly rate all tornadoes (middle of a field compared to the middle of a city) and that in turn causes significant problems for climos and pattern recognition (a famous PhD once said "mesoscale accident" ).

It'll (5/4 Arnette) get a rating and the NWS has information on all of the tornadoes (5/4-5/5). But this bashing of the office and this "it's the end of the world"-attitude b/c a PNS wasn't issued was a little ridiculous. I think that was what I was responding to more. I think there are bigger issues for the NWS than damage surveys and public statements (warning ops is a HUGE one!). Yeah, I like the info statements, but I'm not going to be too sad or mad if there isn't one b/c hopefully that means they're working on the other issues (I doubt they're sittin' in the office, pickin' their noses....but who knows ). Futher, someone dug up a thread from over a year ago and comments made by OUN's WCM from over a year ago were suddenly applied to this year . No wonder Rick never replied...his reply woulda been used next year !

 

[Jay McCoy]

Like many of us have said we know logistically it is almost impossible to survery every tornado in your warning area (unless it was a slow year). I never once said ALL tornados should be surveryed. I only said the ones that cause damage to manmade structures. If you can get the whole picture from photos sent in then fine. That will work. Now after that it should be simple to type up a quick statement about the event. Thats all anybody asks.

I guess I just dont see why OUN is one of the only ones not capable of this. Thats all I have asked yet it still hasnt been responded to except to bash me personally and say they have better things to do. The other offices like AMA, LBB, DDC all have the same responsibilities with forecasts and warning the public and to be honest were much busier this year yet they were able to put out statements about events within days listing all the tornados from each event without having to wait until the end of the year to put it in storm data. Amarillo had many more tornados and big events than Oklahoma this year yet they were on top of every one of them in a timely manner and still was able to get forecasts and warnings out for other events.. imagine that.


I am sorry if this rubs some people the wrong way but as a taxpayer we are allowed to voice our concerns and opinions of the job being done by the NWS. If they cant do the job because of budgets etc.. then say so but then it should effect all offices not just a few.

 

[Patrick Marsh]

I've spent a lot of time thinking about this topic and I think I have a solution. A previous post explaining how AMA's WCM responded to the tornado 90 minutes after it occured (even though there was an outbreak ongoing in his CWA) is what gave me the basis for this idea...

Let's require the NWS to predeploy! That's right. If severe weather is forecasted in a WFO's area of responsibility, the lead forecaster must pick his "target" area and head on out there. In fact, every forecaster should have to do this. NWS HQ will purchase a GR2AE license for every forecaster, a laptop, and a cell phone data plan. Thus, while predeployed, forecasters can still monitor radar and issue warnings. If they issued a tornado warning, they are done for the evening as the remainder of the time they are out surveying it - including tracking down all meso tracks. Now we can solve the LSR problem and the survey problem in one fell swoop.

Now what do we do if a forecaster's target area is wrong? Well he or she should be required to reimburse the NWS for the gas used to predeploy and time (after all, maybe this was just a way for them to get a free vacation or to just get out of the office). This will cut down on a lot of other things people complain about too...SPC busting so much, Watches being too large, false alarm tornado warnings, etc....

Sound like a silly idea? Well so is this topic. The NWS is doing their best and if you don't like it, then apply for the next open Intern position and get in there and change it. Checking out USAjobs.com I see that there are several open right now. Otherwise quit criticizing and recognize these people for the work they do.

Just as an aside, I really hope there is a miscommunication between people regarding when the WCM was on scene. I would hope he was in the office during the actual event.

 

[Glen Romine]

I guess I just dont see why OUN is one of the only ones not capable of this. Thats all I have asked yet it still hasnt been responded to except to bash me personally and say they have better things to do. The other offices like AMA, LBB, DDC all have the same responsibilities with forecasts and warning the public and to be honest were much busier this year yet they were able to put out statements about events within days listing all the tornados from each event without having to wait until the end of the year to put it in storm data.

Well, the short answer is nobody on here likely knows - aside from the WCM and MIC at OUN, who are ultimately responsible for deciding whether to survey any particular event or not. Severe events this past season in the Texas panhandle region typically were 1 day events - allowing clear conditions the following day to do surveys. Weather systems can tend to draw out over longer periods of time over the larger and more climate diverse OUN CWA. Since the first responsibility is warning, not verfication, this may have delayed surveys to the point of not justifying the trip to remote locations too long after the event happened. Further, budget issues may vary greatly between offices, which may have precluded OUN from affording the non-essential surveys. Next, the politics are more heated at OUN relative to other locations, which unfortunately could also influence decisions on what events to survey.

Probably like many others who witnessed in person or at least watched the closeup video of the Arnett tornado, I was optimistic a survey might be done to try and estimate that tornado's strength as it was visually impressive despite being fairly narrow. I would not, however, expect the WCM to compromise the safety of individuals in his CWA to do so. Severe weather followed in the OUN CWA for the next 5 days in a row following the Arnett tornado. From all of the severe events that occurred during that period, I think 3 were eventually surveyed - two of which mostly done by NSSL staff. PNS statements were issued for those events.


Do some offices find time to write up more detailed summaries following tornado events? Perhaps - but I would note that the Arnett event was only 1, maybe 2 tornadoes with a brief secondary spinup reported. Few offices do writeups for individual tornado events. I would be very surprised if even the Texas panhandle offices did writeups for single tornado events without reports of injuries/fatalities, striking a metropolitan area (obviously rare in the panhandle regions), or considerable structural damage. While some damage was reported with the Arnett tornado, I've seen no reports of considerable damage, mostly trees and a few barns and a few vehicles tossed. Had the event occurred closer to Norman, it probably would have been surveyed as part of ongoing local field campaigns.

 

[Tony Lyza]

Well geez louise, I ask a simple question and look what happens!

I did not start this thread in any way as a criticism of OUN. I was really just curious as to whether anyone knew if a survey has been completed or if ratings were assigned.

As I stated in another thread, I'm more toward that camp that believes that as much detailed info as is possible to collect needs to be collected from damage sites, especially those with major damage, such as is reported in an OUN LSR from 5/5. However, I'm also very cognizant of the situation OUN faced with repeated severe wx in the post-5/4-5/5 period. I hardly believe that tornado documentation is not important because, as I stated, it at the very least gives us some sort of quantitative idea as to what a certain setup produced in terms of severity of tornadoes. If there was no need for the original Fujita Scale, it would have not been implemented by Pearson as hastily as it was in 1971. Just because it's not necessary for one specific area in the field of meteorology does not mean that it's not necessary for another. I also am not so sure that being curious about ratings is a bad thing. Curiosity is a simple part of human nature. If not for curiosity, why would there be archaeologists or palientologists trying to learn about the ancient and prehistoric times? With that said, should curiosity trump public safety? NEVER. Therefore, after some thought, I can't say I have a beef about what has happened in this situation.

Perhaps, in the future if a situation as this arises, having chasers in the area survey the damage would be a great idea, as many have suggested. Also, perhaps requesting info from the public via the media about damage to property may result in gathering enough info to adequately preserve the tornado database while keeping public safety the top priority.