• After witnessing the continued decrease of involvement in the SpotterNetwork staff in serving SN members with troubleshooting issues recently, I have unilaterally decided to terminate the relationship between SpotterNetwork's support and Stormtrack. I have witnessed multiple users unable to receive support weeks after initiating help threads on the forum. I find this lack of response from SpotterNetwork officials disappointing and a failure to hold up their end of the agreement that was made years ago, before I took over management of this site. In my opinion, having Stormtrack users sit and wait for so long to receive help on SpotterNetwork issues on the Stormtrack forums reflects poorly not only on SpotterNetwork, but on Stormtrack and (by association) me as well. Since the issue has not been satisfactorily addressed, I no longer wish for the Stormtrack forum to be associated with SpotterNetwork.

    I apologize to those who continue to have issues with the service and continue to see their issues left unaddressed. Please understand that the connection between ST and SN was put in place long before I had any say over it. But now that I am the "captain of this ship," it is within my right (nay, duty) to make adjustments as I see necessary. Ending this relationship is such an adjustment.

    For those who continue to need help, I recommend navigating a web browswer to SpotterNetwork's About page, and seeking the individuals listed on that page for all further inquiries about SpotterNetwork.

    From this moment forward, the SpotterNetwork sub-forum has been hidden/deleted and there will be no assurance that any SpotterNetwork issues brought up in any of Stormtrack's other sub-forums will be addressed. Do not rely on Stormtrack for help with SpotterNetwork issues.

    Sincerely, Jeff D.

"We can build homes to survive tornadoes like Kentucky suffered. We just haven’t."

I no longer have my NWS Chat account, having passed it along when I handed over the running of the Ham Skywarn here to someone who could devote more time to it, and the folks I knew at the local NWS office have moved on or retired, so I no longer am privy to the unseen workings going on there. But it wasn't than long ago and I've seen nothing to indicate much change has happened since then. Thus I have to rely on secondhand information regards some things and I temper that against knowing something of the sources. I have recently seen what I believe to be credible evidence of some very worrying things happening in the survey done after the mid-month outbreak Dec 2021, as well as in other instances. One instance involved a large building which received a preliminary report posted by the NWS that some felt was under-rated, which wasn't modified but was completely removed from the final report. And other areas where much severe damage had been shown on video and had been reported to the NWS were apparently not even surveyed although they were clearly in the main and continued damage path. There are numerous vids showing several DI's clearly well in excess of the ratings they got at EF-2 and EF-3 level. Major errors seem to be happening which reach beyond what could be considered reasonable error or omission. If you can convince me you can use the specifics to briing about the needed change I'll gather what I've seen and send it to you. Otherwise my time would be wasted in the doing,

I'm not a tin-hatter, and I know how exceedingly rare EF-5 level is so I'm not arguing that. It's more than my scouring/trenching example that convinces me the system is broken (and you can see a few instances of that in the 2011 outbreak in AL to be specific) so if it's not the people causing this then it has to be how the system is being done. I think I see where the problems are arising from and I think I see ways of rectifying that which could be easily implemented. All I want is better accuracy, a goal all of us should share, but if my words fall on deaf ears then no good can come of anything. I'm no longer in a position where I can even access the ears who need to hear my thoughts. It's both sad and frustrating to me when better is possible but isn't done- on that I think we'd agree.
 
Ground scouring is in fact factored in. Its been mentioned on more surveys than I likely can recall. Same with debarking of trees.
Except that there are DIs for trees (DI 27 for hardwood and DI 28 for softwood) and both of them include "Trees debarked ... " as DOD 5 (but different values for EXP, LB and UB depending on the DI) . As far as I know, there is no DI for ground scouring, so, an EF rating cannot be determined based on ground scouring with the current EF scale.
 
Back
Top