Spotter Network explosion

[Tyler Allison]

I like the true/false idea. However, using only static images may cause a problem if you were to use examples of "is this a tornado"

Yeah...that was my biggest complaint with every SKYWARN class I've been to. They do the whole "is this a tornado?" slide show and unless it's a monster wedge with a cow flying in the picture you can't be absolutely sure without more situational information..so the answer always turns out to be "maybe". Well that's not good for training.

 

[Rick Smith]

We have been getting more reports via SpotterNetwork, and we appreciate it!

Regarding the discussion regarding training...

Remember that while the NWS has specific definitions of what constitutes a severe storm, sub-criteria reports can often be very helpful in the warning decision making process.

For example, a pea-size hail report can be helpful as we try to "calibrate" our hail algorithms in the early stages of an event. We won't care so much about them if we're getting baseballs all over the place, but they have their place.

Null reports can also be helpful ("I am seeing blowing dust and scud, but it appears to be outflow and not a tornado").

Just something to consider.

Rick

 

[Tyler Allison]

good points Rick. Thanks for the feedback!

 

[rdale]

The good thing about SN is that it doesn't tie up communications resources... Unless someone is being stupid (reporting lightning strikes, or considering 30mph as causing wind damage, or reporting blue skies overhead ) I don't see too much of a problem.

 

[Adam Lucio]

I like the new icon drag for where the event actually took place.

Last year I reported a tornado in South Dakota from my position along I-90 which was quite far and the icon appeared over the expressway and I thought to myself "uh oh thats not where the tornado was I hope I dont get dinged for a false report]

So that is definitely an awesome improvement. I only see it getting better in time.

Not to be biased but perhaps someday you can link up with NWS offices and only approve applications from people who can proove they have received training. Before SN I was signed up with KLOT as an E-spotter and I had to proove Ive attended training before Jim Allsop approved my application.

 

[David Drummond]

That's interesting to me Rick, because it's in direct conflict to every SKYWARN class I have ever been to, and I have been to them put on by 5 different NWSFO's, including Norman's a few years back.

There is often a handout sheet of what type of reports are wanted.

Is this something more recent now?

We have been getting more reports via SpotterNetwork, and we appreciate it!

Regarding the discussion regarding training...

Remember that while the NWS has specific definitions of what constitutes a severe storm, sub-criteria reports can often be very helpful in the warning decision making process.

For example, a pea-size hail report can be helpful as we try to "calibrate" our hail algorithms in the early stages of an event. We won't care so much about them if we're getting baseballs all over the place, but they have their place.

Null reports can also be helpful ("I am seeing blowing dust and scud, but it appears to be outflow and not a tornado").

Just something to consider.

Rick

 

[Tyler Allison]

Not to be biased but perhaps someday you can link up with NWS offices and only approve applications from people who can proove they have received training. Before SN I was signed up with KLOT as an E-spotter and I had to proove Ive attended training before Jim Allsop approved my application.

I've already talked to several NWS offices about this and they refuse under privacy concerns. When I explain that no private information need transfer hands and that I'll do all the heavy lifting they still refuse.

SN could be a lot better if the NWS was willing (and by NWS I mean as a whole, individual people/offices are great to work with). Slowly but surely, we'll get there eventually...assuming we all haven't died from global warming by then.

-Tyler (ex-federal employee who knows the politics)

 

[rdale]

That's interesting to me Rick, because it's in direct conflict to every SKYWARN class I have ever been to, and I have been to them put on by 5 different NWSFO's, including Norman's a few years back.

It's nice to see a null report on a storm that looks like it could produce (similar to seeing video of no funnel live.) It's one thing to have every Skywarn spotter calling on the phone or checking in to the net to say "nothing is happening." That ties up SIGNIFICANT resources, both in airtime on the net and answering the phone. Seeing an icon pop up under 60kts GtG saying "no funnel" takes no resources at all.

 

[Tim Stoecklein]

That's interesting to me Rick, because it's in direct conflict to every SKYWARN class I have ever been to, and I have been to them put on by 5 different NWSFO's...

I think it depends where you are at, and the warning coordinator is David. I've had TOP and PUB both request all hail reports, at least early on in the storms lifecycle, but with the option of then asking for only reports meeting severe criteria. They cite the same reasoning as Rick, to "calibrate", or even to see a more specific pattern in the lifecycle or track of the storm.

I'm on the fence, and typically won't report smaller hail unless directly asked by NWS or net control. Just another example of the differences in various areas.

 

[Greg Stumpf]

That's interesting to me Rick, because it's in direct conflict to every SKYWARN class I have ever been to, and I have been to them put on by 5 different NWSFO's, including Norman's a few years back.

That's probably because with radio communications, bandwidth is a limited commodity that should be carefully managed. However, with online spotter reporting which has become mainstream, either via SN, or other means, one can make many more reports, and it is easier to filter out any reports below a specific needed threshold. I too agree with Rick from a warning decision standpoint - knowing a storm or a portion of a isn't severe or is non-tornadic can be just as important. From a scientific standpoint, this is also important for calibrating algorithms, hence, SHAVE.

 

[Tyler Allison]

Greg, BTW...if you ever need a special type of format or access to the historical archive for your SHAVE project let me know.

 

[Gerrit Gulden]

Having a quiz at SN would be great IMO. Not only will the Applicant be able to prove his/her knowledge about storm structure, severe weather criteria, reporting criteria and general knowledge about weather but there will also be that info that could help an applicant become more aware of what to report and what not to report.

If you decide to put together these quizes on your own, maybe check with all of the stormtrack members to see if they could Offer you Tornado/ Tornado Look alike, Wall Cloud, Overshooting Top cloud, Microburst, downburst and all those types of photos of severe weather and severe weather look alikes along with general photos like lightning, flooding, etc and make the quiz a learning tool as well as a way to prove proper knowledge of storms.

hopefully this could help put an end to bogus reports.

-gerrit

 

[Rick Smith]

That's interesting to me Rick, because it's in direct conflict to every SKYWARN class I have ever been to, and I have been to them put on by 5 different NWSFO's, including Norman's a few years back.

There is often a handout sheet of what type of reports are wanted.

Is this something more recent now?

We've always needed this type of information. But I think the more "passive" reporting techniques like eSpotter and SpotterNetwork make it much easier to provide this type of information without tying up phone lines, radio time, etc Getting a report to pop up on every forecaster's workstation still allows him/her to triage the information depending on what's happening (a pea size hail report will get only a quick glance if they are dealing with much bigger hail already) and it only takes a second or two. A phone call relaying the same information can take much longer.

We've gotten some very useful reports for things not on the "official" events to report list. And of course, we've also received others that would not be useful in any situation (the thunder is loud, my cable is out, it's raining real hard, the sirens are going off, etc)

Of course, I can't speak for any other office, but we appreciate any report that might help a forecaster make a warning decision.

Rick

 

[Bob Schafer]

I've made a couple calls recently to advise that "nothing's happening", but I did, and do, so cautiously. i.e., I know to not do this under most circumstances, but there are times when it seems appropriate:

1) There is high probability that few, or no, other WELL trained/experienced spotters are in the area.
2) The storm has features that could be easily misinterpreted.

Those reports seem to have been appreciated. I didn't use SN because I swear every time I need to make a report I find myself in a no-data hole. Grrr.

I also tend to do this early in a storm's lifecycle, sort of letting the office know that "Pssst, I'm out here."

 

[scott r currens]

One type of non-severe report I have been making lately is gustfronts in relation to Tornado Warned storms. There were a few recent chases in NE with Tor warned supercells that were undercut buy cool outflow.

That is what the "other" category is for, right?