OUN ratings from 5/4-5/5?

[Tony Lyza]

I know that OUN was having difficulty in reaching the Vici and Arnett areas to do surveys for those tornadoes, but it's been awhile. Have any ratings been assigned to those tornadoes (Arnett area 5/4, Vici area 5/5)?

[Jeff Snyder]

The only tornado for which I see a rating assigned was the tornado that hit Sweetwater on 5-5 --> see http://www.srh.noaa.gov/oun/tornadodata/ok/tornado2007.php

[Dick McGowan]

What about Macksville/St. John, KS tornadoes near dusk on 5/5? I assume it would be very difficult for them to get an accurate rating, since several of the tornadoes tracked over the exact same spot as the night before. I looked back at the video and drove by the area on 5/22. A farm was nearly hit twice in a row (missed by 100 yards or so) in less than 24 hours.

[Brandon Goforth]

I was also curious about the rating on the 5/4 Arnett, OK tornado.

[Brian Stertz]

It's been over a month ago and still no official write-ups from DDC or OUN. Has funding and staffing been cut so bad by NOAA that they are not doing timely damage surveys anymore? What's the deal??

[Shane Adams]

No idea about OUN but the DDC page has detailed track paths from the 5-4 tornadoes......I'm assuming that is the "write up".

[Kiel Ortega]

Arnette never really hit anything so I doubt they would have gone out to do a rating. They did rate Sweetwater, which I think kept them (OUN) from getting up to the Vici area for that tornado damage. It's incredibly difficult to get out and do damage surveys; and they are time consuming! I know when I went out to rate the El Reno tornado, we were there for almost 5 hours and I still would have liked to have taken more time (we were trying to rate 3 tornadoes that day for the PAR and CASA folks and then I blew the tire out on the Lab vehicle :D). Patrick Marsh and I went back out to survey tornadoes' damage (grammer, usage? :)) near Union City and Minco that happened before the El Reno tornado; these took an entire day (weren't as much surveys as they were damage hunts!)! Since Rick (OUN WCM) is on the board, I won't say too much more on the decision making on doing damage surveys

QUICK EDIT for example: just remembered taking into account driving, surveying, debating a rating and writing it all up, it took almost 13 hours to completely finish the Union City and Minco tornado reports. El Reno in total (minus changing a tire) was about 9 hours.

[Jay McCoy]

If you watch Reed Timmer's and Joel Talor's video of the 5/4/07 Arnett, Ok tornado you can see some debris being blown around so it obviously hit something. Maybe just a barn or storage buidling but there was damage. In that case OUN should have done a damage survery. It also destroyed a number of trees. It wasnt a large tornado but you can tell from the video it was pretty violent. I would also like to have know its rating. I though all tornados were suppose to be checked out and rated. Thsi was the only tornado in NW Oklahoma that day so it wasnt like they had dozens to check out. I would like to kow why it wasnt. I wasnt near as close as those guys but still got some good video/pics.

[Kiel Ortega]

If you watch Reed Timmer's and Joel Talor's video of the 5/4/07 Arnett, Ok tornado you can see some debris being blown around so it obviously hit something. Maybe just a barn or storage buidling but there was damage. In that case OUN should have done a damage survery. It also destroyed a number of trees. It wasnt a large tornado but you can tell from the video it was pretty violent. I would also like to have know its rating. I though all tornados were suppose to be checked out and rated. Thsi was the only tornado in NW Oklahoma that day so it wasnt like they had dozens to check out. I would like to kow why it wasnt. I wasnt near as close as those guys but still got some good video/pics.

In that case, I still don't think OUN needed to go out and do the survey. Nothing of significance was hit where on-ground investigation would really be needed. I think video/pics of stuff being hit should be sent to the NWS and they could have done the survey via the video/pics (we've had some success at doing this at NSSL using media pictures and Google Earth to locate and rate/classify damage).
At most, most farm outbuildings or trees can get is EF-2...really good trees that get debarked and look "spooky" can get a 3. But sending NWS officials out to survey tree damage or an old farm building that was falling apart anyways, is IMO, a little wasteful considering they have other duties. If you're really curious of a tornado's rating, follow behind, take picutres of the damage and then send them in; EF kit is available publicly (and from what I know, is being updated when they get pictures depicting different DODs) so even someone not really trained in surveys could do a survey that might be satisfactory; further, it would satisfy curiosity as much as help out the NWSFO.

[Rob Satkus]

Regarding the Arnett tornado...what seemed to be a well built barn or storage building was destroyed southwest of town at a farmsite and there was significant tree damage at the sight as well...this is based off media aerial shots...from what I could tell, this was not an old, decrepit building either. I am no expert but just from the video it looked to be high end EF-1 to EF-2...the tree damage seemed impressive. But once again, this was just based on a helicopter shot seen on the tee vee. I know Val Castor has submitted his video (which, no offense to Reed and the boys, was better in my opinion as he was just as close and podded...) to the NWS. I think when all is said and done, they will get it right. I am very curious to hear about the late night Vici wedge. If no survey was done, that really surprises me as this was a large tornado that did cause damage. That same day Tom Pastrano and I saw 4 tornadoes from near Roll to just east of Arnett on the storm just north of the Sweetwater cell, but as best we could tell, nothing was hit other than trees, so although a couple of the tornadoes were significant in appearance, I would imagine they will all go down as EF-0

[Jeff Snyder]

I am very curious to hear about the late night Vici wedge. If no survey was done, that really surprises me as this was a large tornado that did cause damage. That same day Tom Pastrano and I saw 4 tornadoes from near Roll to just east of Arnett on the storm just north of the Sweetwater cell, but as best we could tell, nothing was hit other than trees, so although a couple of the tornadoes were significant in appearance, I would imagine they will all go down as EF-0

It's worth noting that a tornado that only damages trees does not need to be rated (technically) EF0. There are two damage indicators (DIs) for trees -- DI 27 (hardwood tree) and DI 28 (softwood tree). The upper-bound for the highest degree of damage (DOD) for DI 27 is 167 mph, the upper-end of the EF3 category. Granted, I'm not sure that such a DOD (and the choosing of the upper-bound) was experienced in this case, but it does go to show that very high-end tree damage can be used to rate a tornado as strong as an EF3. For the accuracy of the tornado database, I would hope all tornado damage would be assessed, especially since the "it only hit trees, so we can't do an assessment" argument isn't as valid as before given that we have DIs for tree damage. I know Curtis Alexander's work with the DOW data indicates that, for the supercells on which they have data, the most common tornado is not of EF0 strength (I think the most common tornado intensity produced by supercells they captured was EF2). This is getting off-topic, however. I do think we may find that EF0 tornadoes do not constitute the largest number of supercell tornadoes. However, we won't really know this if assessments aren't performed and if damage is only "assumed" to be EF0.

See the description of DIs at http://www.spc.noaa.gov/efscale/ef-scale.html (click on DI27 and DI28). Note that the SPC page on the EF-scale does not have the most updated information. For example, DI2 (one- or two-family residences) now can be used to classify EF5 (upper-bound at 220mph), not limited to EF4 (upper-bound at 198mph) as an older version on the SPC server has. AFAIK, the latest version of the EF-scale can be viewed at http://www.wind.ttu.edu/EFScale.pdf

[Rob Satkus]

It's worth noting that a tornado that only damages trees does not need to be rated (technically) EF0. There are two damage indicators (DIs) for trees -- DI 27 (hardwood tree) and DI 28 (softwood tree). The upper-bound for the highest degree of damage (DOD) for DI 27 is 167 mph, the upper-end of the EF3 category.


Yeah, I am aware about the tree damage indicators, but I should have been more specific in my post. I was assuming, based on what has been posted about the lack of a survey and or the lack for a need to survey (I must humbly disagree with that policy, as an outsider) that these tornadoes would go down as EF-0, since no one will see what,if any damage was caused. We didn't see any tree damage, other than a few limbs down on Hwy 283 south of Arnett where one tornado crossed, but given the size and length of a couple of the tornadoes, there must be tree damage out there. I don't know if any EM's from that area have gone looking for damage, which will make a difference obviously.
I know that staffing can be an issue as well as other concerns, such as the fact that was a very busy period and surveys aren't a priority with ongoing severe weather, but some of these tornadoes were siginificant, not the run of the mill brief touchdown open field type. That is why I disagree with the no survey needed policy. But then again, I don't work for the NWS so I obviously don't know what goes on or is going on regarding these tornadoes, like everyone else I am just curious. I know there is an NWS'er or two on here as well as some SPC folks...can you guys shed any light on things? And...this is in no way a knock on the NWS...us wx weenie types get all paranoid if info isn't fed to us right away! ;)

Rob

[Jim Tang]

I suspect the NWS have done the surveys but have chosen to not release them to the public. With the destruction the May 4 outbreak caused, releasing the May 5 outbreak information could lead to confusion. I've already seen enough Youtube videos where tornado video from May 5 is labled as the Greensburg tornado by one of the commenters. Also keep in mind that OUN almost never releases their survey information unless it's a really big event (May 29, 2004 comes to mind).

[Ilya Neyman]

Regarding the NW Oklahoma tornado of 5/4 it's a little known fact that the now famous video of the violently rotating slender tube near the town of Arnett was actually the SECOND tornado from that storm. We were coming up on the storm from the ESE that evening and observed a cone-stovepipe type tornado out of a well-defined wall cloud while about 25-30 or so miles out. I reported this as a (visually) large tornado to KOCO at the time and we watched it as it was on the ground for quite some time, with my best estimate for about 10+ minutes or so after we got into view of it (already on the ground when we first spotted it). The tornado then reconfigured its shape becoming angled and more narrow as we paralleled the storm on Hwy 34 toward Vici. When we pulled into Vici the second, and famously viewed tornado was on the ground to our west crossing Hwy 60. This tornado was evident as a slender/tall tube extending from a relatively higher cloud base, with no visible wall cloud, thus very different from its predecessor earlier.

I've talked to a number of chasers out that day including Reed and Joel and so far have not personally come across anyone else that saw the first and larger tornado. Reed and Joel punched in from the northeast as they explained it and the rain core obstructed their view to the south until they got into close position for their footage.

If anyone else saw that first tornado(s) feel free to post here!

[jladue]

It's worth noting that a tornado that only damages trees does not need to be rated (technically) EF0. There are two damage indicators (DIs) for trees -- DI 27 (hardwood tree) and DI 28 (softwood tree). The upper-bound for the highest degree of damage (DOD) for DI 27 is 167 mph, the upper-end of the EF3 category. Granted, I'm not sure that such a DOD (and the choosing of the upper-bound) was experienced in this case, but it does go to show that very high-end tree damage can be used to rate a tornado as strong as an EF3.

The tornado south of Arnett (night of May 5) did max out the DOD for hardwood trees where it hit a friend's hunting camp near the Canadian river. Several vehicles nearby couldn't be found except for the hood of one car 1/2 mile to the southeast. So I'm not sure about going to max out the upper bound wind. The expected wind speed is enough for an EF3 rating. This DOD for trees would be enough to dismember a vehicle.

For the accuracy of the tornado database, I would hope all tornado damage would be assessed, especially since the "it only hit trees, so we can't do an assessment" argument isn't as valid as before given that we have DIs for tree damage.

I agree that every tornado should be surveyed if there were only a huge number of surveyors available to do the job. The local WFO is overwhelmed and I'm sure they would appreciate having damage pictures sent in. The most useful shots would be to take a zoomed out view, and then some detailed shots of any DI. It would really help to forward exactly where you'd taken the shots too.

I know Curtis Alexander's work with the DOW data indicates that, for the supercells on which they have data, the most common tornado is not of EF0 strength (I think the most common tornado intensity produced by supercells they captured was EF2). This is getting off-topic, however. I do think we may find that EF0 tornadoes do not constitute the largest number of supercell tornadoes. However, we won't really know this if assessments aren't performed and if damage is only "assumed" to be EF0.

I have to differ you here. Take a look at this distribution of tornado strength between discrete vs. linear modes from Elaine Godfrey's work here (http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/81687.pdf). I remember the sampling of tornadoes documented by the DOWs to be skewed toward high end relative to other climatologies. BTW, if there were a rating one step below EF0, the numbers would probably be exponentially bigger. I believe even the DOW data would show the proliferation of accessory vortices found around mesocyclonic tornadoes. The strength distribution profile found in the more modern tornado climatology agrees very well with strength distributions of other natural events (e.g., earthquakes, volcano eruptions, CMEs, etc.)


regards,

Jim

[Glen Romine]

I have to differ you here. Take a look at this distribution of tornado strength between discrete vs. linear modes from Elaine Godfrey's work here (http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/81687.pdf). I remember the sampling of tornadoes documented by the DOWs to be skewed toward high end relative to other climatologies.
Jim

As Jeff specified, the DOW climatology is based on supercell tornadoes (largely from the Great Plains region) - I don't think they included any QLCS type tornadoes in the study, and they were suggesting that tornadoes with a parent supercell storm appeared to have a preferred intensity in the EF2 range. Whether lumping in all tornadic vortices returns the overall distribution back toward log-linear is not answerable. Still, it seems plausible there is possible under-rating of QLCS tornado damage as well given the likelihood of the tornado at max intensity not interacting with appropriate structures for a 'proper' rating. Finally, could also be some bias from the tendency for QLCS type tornadoes to be more common in more 'developed' land areas, whereas supercell tornadoes are more common in the Great Plains where land improvements are more sparse.

As for Ilya's observations, you should probably share whatever you have with the NWS. There were several SPC folks on the storm, and I gather none of them saw the stovepipe either - though they would likely have approached the storm from the east. Surely some Texas Panhandle chasers would have been in better position to have seen this earlier tornado.

[Rob Satkus]

Regarding the NW Oklahoma tornado of 5/4 it's a little known fact that the now famous video of the violently rotating slender tube near the town of Arnett was actually the SECOND tornado from that storm. We were coming up on the storm from the ESE that evening and observed a cone-stovepipe type tornado out of a well-defined wall cloud while about 25-30 or so miles out. I reported this as a (visually) large tornado to KOCO at the time and we watched it as it was on the ground for quite some time, with my best estimate for about 10+ minutes or so after we got into view of it (already on the ground when we first spotted it). The tornado then reconfigured its shape becoming angled and more narrow as we paralleled the storm on Hwy 34 toward Vici. When we pulled into Vici the second, and famously viewed tornado was on the ground to our west crossing Hwy 60. This tornado was evident as a slender/tall tube extending from a relatively higher cloud base, with no visible wall cloud, thus very different from its predecessor earlier.

I've talked to a number of chasers out that day including Reed and Joel and so far have not personally come across anyone else that saw the first and larger tornado. Reed and Joel punched in from the northeast as they explained it and the rain core obstructed their view to the south until they got into close position for their footage.

If anyone else saw that first tornado(s) feel free to post here!

Tom Pastrano and I were on that storm from first tower until it slowly shriveled up and weakened northeast of Mooreland. We had a clear view of the base the entire time and never saw a tornado before the Arnett tube/stovepipe. When the initial wall cloud formed a rather bulky funnel developed with it and persisted for several minutes before gradually evolving into more of a classic cone shape, with the funnel slowly lowering, but not making contact. Finally after about 5 minutes or so, debris was visible and the condensation funnel made occasional ground contact, before developing into the slender tube...briefly taking on the slender/angled look before becoming the narrow drill press until it roped out. Total time from first observed debris until the tornado lifted was about 22 minutes. We were on Hwy 283 south of Arnett for the entire tornadic event and had an unobstructed view to the west, actually looking down into a valley..it may have looked like a large tornado from a distance, but I can assure you that it was a single tornado.

Rob

[Brandon Goforth]

Regarding the NW Oklahoma tornado of 5/4 it's a little known fact that the now famous video of the violently rotating slender tube near the town of Arnett was actually the SECOND tornado from that storm. We were coming up on the storm from the ESE that evening and observed a cone-stovepipe type tornado out of a well-defined wall cloud while about 25-30 or so miles out. I reported this as a (visually) large tornado to KOCO at the time and we watched it as it was on the ground for quite some time, with my best estimate for about 10+ minutes or so after we got into view of it (already on the ground when we first spotted it). The tornado then reconfigured its shape becoming angled and more narrow as we paralleled the storm on Hwy 34 toward Vici. When we pulled into Vici the second, and famously viewed tornado was on the ground to our west crossing Hwy 60. This tornado was evident as a slender/tall tube extending from a relatively higher cloud base, with no visible wall cloud, thus very different from its predecessor earlier.

I've talked to a number of chasers out that day including Reed and Joel and so far have not personally come across anyone else that saw the first and larger tornado. Reed and Joel punched in from the northeast as they explained it and the rain core obstructed their view to the south until they got into close position for their footage.

If anyone else saw that first tornado(s) feel free to post here!

Well, I set up that day near Cheyenne, OK, and as soon as the tower started going up just across the state line I was all over it. I saw the whole thing unfold from the ESE side of the storm and the first tornado was the "famous" one. It touched down briefly, then lifted and quickly touched back down again to stay on the ground for quite some time. Some people counted this as 2 tornadoes, but I count it as the same one, as it was the same funnel and lifted only briefly. In its very early stages it appeared that it might become a very large tornado, but instead developed into the tall/skinny tornado that we all know it for. It roped out just on the SW side of Arnett and a new wall cloud with strong rotation developed back to the east. There were reports that a brief tornado was produced once again from the old wall cloud on the northern side of Arnett, but I did not see this happen and I was just on the east side of Arnett at this time at the highway 283 and 60 junction. I observed several funnels from the 2nd wall cloud as it moved off to the NE, but as far as I could tell none of them ever came into contact with the ground. Here are a couple of pics taken right before the 1st tornado looking to the west from highway 283. I'd say that it was roughly 6-8 miles to my west as it was developing over the Canadian River.

[Ilya Neyman]

Thank you Rob and Brandon!

It's great to know that someone else was on this storm closer than we were. From our perspective as soon as the base was visible we saw the wide(r) tornado below its wall cloud...(reviewing video again now)...wider cone narrowing slightly toward the ground. Per Rob and Brandon's discussions/photos it is *possible* that our very first observation of the funnel could have been during its descending toward the ground stage as there were some rolling hills between our vantage point and the developing tornado, but later on it looked to be squarely on the ground. There was a period of time that lasted for several minutes where we lost visual of most of the base of the storm entirely as we were pulling into Vici. Before that time the tornado was visually thinning and looked to be in the process of roping/lifting. Coming out of a gas station in Vici is when we saw the tube to our west (this time obviously closer than earlier). This is part of the reason I assumed it was a second tornado as visually it was much different than before and also operating under the assumption that the previous one had lifted but since the other chasers were already in closer position to the situation I trust their observations without further scrutiny.

Either way it was a very impressive show for NW Oklahoma with the storm becoming a beast of an LP after tornadogenesis had concluded! Phenomenal structure was the second round that made the trip worthwile for those chasers who had missed the tornado coming back south out of Kansas. I too saw the several funnel attempts following the tornado but as previously alluded this didn't amount to much.

Great discussion!

[beaudodson]

I guess I am fortunate to live in the KPAH Region. They survey almost every tornadic event and even have gone as far to investigate areas they thought there might have been a tornado because of radar indications!

[Kiel Ortega]

I guess I am fortunate to live in the KPAH Region. They survey EVERY tornadic event and even have gone as far to investigate areas they thought there might have been a tornado because of radar indications! Great office!
I seriously doubt they survey EVERY tornadic event...because some tornadic events don't look tornadic! For reference, the Union City- and Minco-area tornadoes didn't look really tornadic on most of the radars (it did look interesting/slightly baffling on all radars--CASA, TDWR, 88D, PAR-- though)...especially on the TLX 88D. If damaged hadn't occured, I doubt it would have peaked any interest even though there were tornadoes. So while I think it's nice that PAH goes and does this (not criticizing that at all), I think the comment is a bit of slap to the face of other offices that do good work, but don't necessarily go out and survey "EVERY" tornadic event.

[beaudodson]

I seriously doubt they survey EVERY tornadic event...because some tornadic events don't look tornadic! For reference, the Union City- and Minco-area tornadoes didn't look really tornadic on most of the radars (it did look interesting/slightly baffling on all radars--CASA, TDWR, 88D, PAR-- though)...especially on the TLX 88D. If damaged hadn't occured, I doubt it would have peaked any interest even though there were tornadoes. So while I think it's nice that PAH goes and does this (not criticizing that at all), I think the comment is a bit of slap to the face of other offices that do good work, but don't necessarily go out and survey "EVERY" tornadic event.

Take it as you like - it is nothing against other offices. Like I said I feel fortunate to live in the KPAH Region because they do take it seriously. They do everything they can to go out and investigate tornado paths. Obviously (not sure what you mean by your example) if the tornado isn't reported then they can't investigate. During the big November Outbreak last year or the year before (can't remember right off hand) Paducah even investigated areas where radar mesos tracked. They take it seriously. I can assure you that if a tornado has caused damage then they do a survey. Period. Is that a slap to other offices? I don't know...nor do I really care. Offices can do surveys if they feel like it. Each office has a staff. Paducah isn't over-staffed and find themselves bored with too much time on their hands. lol They simply believe that it is important to be as thorough as possible with their storm reports. Does every office feel that way? Apparently not. Is that bad? I don't know...guess that is opinion. Like I said - I am just happy the KPAH conducts their surveys in that manner.

Am I proud of this local office for the way they conduct storm surveys (among other things)? Extremely!!!!!!! Can't say enough good things about them. Nothing against any other office...

[Brandon Goforth]

Take it as you like - it is nothing against other offices. Like I said I feel fortunate to live in the KPAH Region because they do take it seriously. They do everything they can to go out and investigate tornado paths. Obviously (not sure what you mean by your example) if the tornado isn't reported then they can't investigate. During the big November Outbreak last year or the year before (can't remember right off hand) Paducah even investigated areas where radar mesos tracked. They take it seriously. I can assure you that if a tornado has caused damage then they do a survey. Period. Is that a slap to other offices? I don't know...nor do I really care. Offices can do surveys if they feel like it. Each office has a staff. Paducah isn't over-staffed and find themselves bored with too much time on their hands. lol They simply believe that it is important to be as thorough as possible with their storm reports. Does every office feel that way? Apparently not. Is that bad? I don't know...guess that is opinion. Like I said - I am just happy the KPAH conducts their surveys in that manner.

Am I proud of this local office for the way they conduct storm surveys (among other things)? Extremely!!!!!!! Can't say enough good things about them. Nothing against any other office...

Well, I don't know if this has anything to do with it or not, but you are comparing storm reports from Kentucky with Oklahoma. With the number of supercell and tornadic occurrences around here I couldn't imagine anyone having to go out and survey paths from every storm that blows through OK with a meso indication on radar! That would be quite time consuming and really just pointless. I can understand not surveying tornadoes that did no damage (other than trees :) ), however, if the Arnett tornado did some structural damage to a home, barn, or whatever, then I'd think it should be surveyed, and probably has been.

[Shane Adams]

Just my opinion, but I'd think any tornado that was visually significant (as Arnette was) would be of interest for a survey team. I know there are costs and scheduling beyond my knowledge involved, but seems the worst-case scenario would be a nice drive to the country. Hell, if it were possible to get "licensed" to do surveys, I'd go along and do it, as long as it didn't conflict with a chase. And it would save money because all I'd want was my travel paid for, my time would be free. If we can train spotters who have virtually no experience to watch out for lives and property, I don't see how we can't train people to simply survey the damage.

Training citizens to do free damage surveys.....hmmm....there's a concept that would eliminate both time & cost issues.

[Greg Stumpf]

Hey, I've got an idea...if the WFOs are too short-staffed to survey each every tornado and suspected tornado event in their CWA (which is the case, even for PAH, believe me), then perhaps....

...some of you can volunteer to help out. If it really means that much to you to know the whole truth, then lend a hand, please.

The May 3 1999 survey would not have been possible without the gracious effort of many volunteers. Even with all those folks helping, it took many days (weeks) to determine the truth (as best we could determine). Also, not every one of the 68 tornadoes was surveyed with the same detail as "Storm A", even with all those folks volunteering.

[Brian Stertz]

I would be up for doing damage surveys if this was needed. I have already done the EF rating online training module, and know what damage would correspond to significant tornadoes. Now if we could just get some action around here in the KC Metro area. Put my name on the list !!

[Brandon Goforth]

Hey, I've got an idea...if the WFOs are too short-staffed to survey each every tornado and suspected tornado event in their CWA (which is the case, even for PAH, believe me), then perhaps....

...some of you can volunteer to help out. If it really means that much to you to know the whole truth, then lend a hand, please.

The May 3 1999 survey would not have been possible without the gracious effort of many volunteers. Even with all those folks helping, it took many days (weeks) to determine the truth (as best we could determine). Also, not every one of the 68 tornadoes was surveyed with the same detail as "Storm A", even with all those folks volunteering.

Heck, I might be interested in volunteering some time down the road, how does this work and who should we contact?

[beaudodson]

.

...some of you can volunteer to help out. If it really means that much to you to know the whole truth, then lend a hand, please.


It has been suggested before and is still a good idea. ANYONE can be trained to do this - especially with the new EF Scale and the computer program. Not a big deal. I am sure there are PLENTY of volunteers. You almost make it sound like there wouldn't be any volunteers. :) There are plenty.

[Greg Stumpf]

Heck, I might be interested in volunteering some time down the road, how does this work and who should we contact?
Contact your local WFO's Warning Coordination Meteorologist.

[Greg Stumpf]

You almost make it sound like there wouldn't be any volunteers. :) There are plenty.
If so, where were they on May 4, 5? Certainly none from the group ST subscribers b&c'ing about lack of surveys.

[Jeff Snyder]

If so, where were they on May 4, 5? Certainly none from the group ST subscribers b&c'ing about lack of surveys.

I think many of us never thought that volunteers would be able to perform surveys and assist w/ damage assessments. Personally, I'm very willing to help out in this regard, but I never thought anyone but NWS personnel could perform surveys or help in this regard.

[beaudodson]

If so, where were they on May 4, 5? Certainly none from the group ST subscribers b&c'ing about lack of surveys.
Are you certain that nobody volunteered their time? Did you contact the office? I have no idea. I would imagine that most people would never think of it. IF the NWS Offices made a call out to volunteers then I can ASSURE you that people would go! Why do you make it sound like those on ST wouldn't participate? Seems to me that the majority on here are already GIVING of their free time to operate ham/spotter nets, doing Skywarn Training, teaching classes on safety, promoting NOAA Weather Radio, spotting for their communities, giving the NWS video and photographs - for free, calling in reports, helping to rescue people after tornadoes hit communities, participating in NWA groups, donating money from videos to storm victims, volunteering their time to help clean up the Gulf Coast after the hurricanes, should I go on???

I don't think we have a group of bit*$ing people. I think we have an excellent group of people who care enough about meteorology to express their opinions and make suggestions on how to make things better. When the NWS requests help THESE ARE the people that are there. No offense and I enjoy your posts but I don't think that is very fair to the group as a whole.

[Jay McCoy]

As part of my Emergency Service not only do we do after event damage assessment but we are also the 1st onto the scene along with fire/pd/EMS. Earlier this year we had a severe thunderstorm collapse on top of the city that caused major damage to part of north amarillo. We resonded immediately and were on scene doing traffic/crowd control and driving around doing damage assessment for over 10 hrs before we were relieved by barracades and next shift pd units. We were then out again after a few hours sleep doing more damage assessment.

The reason I didnt volunteer to do it Arnett is its out of my area but my group does have mutual aid agreements with Oklahoma so if requested we can respond as we have for numerous small towns around here. Not only for severe wx but other events like the huge fires we had last year.

[Patrick Marsh]

I've lurked on ST for a while and never really felt the need to jump into a discussion, but I will for this one...

As Kiel Ortega previously mentioned, we did the El Reno, Union City, and Minco damage surveys. Before this experience, I was in the same boat as most of you. I thought all tornadoes should be surveyed. Now I realize that as things currently stand, it is not feasible. And unless you have done a damage survey, I don't think you can begin to understand how difficult it can be.

Kiel and I spent two entire days doing nothing but damage surveys and writing reports on the surveys. Even after this, neither one of us were satisfied that we found everything. However, without the use of a helicopter we could have spent every day for a month out there before finding the "next" piece of damage. Additionally, while we were out there we were "blocked" from a lot of places we wanted to go because of incredibly muddy ground / underwater roadways (remember a lot of roads are dirt roads). Is searching through a field of trees for more broken tree limbs worth the NWS's time to go back several days later when water levels have receeded? Will you even be able to tell which tree limbs were downed from the storm in question from earlier / later storms. Can you tell if the storm damaged that single outbuilding or is it simply just falling apart? Are people still going to be around 3 days later to ask? Chances are they will have resumed their normal routines.

In defense of Greg Stumpf's post about where the "volunteers" were on May 4 and 5, while I can't speak for him, I would argue that his intention was that most of the people on these boards were still out chasing. It is crucial to do damage surveys as soon as possible, preferably no later than the next day. Why you might ask? As Kiel and I found out on the El Reno survey, that even though we got to a location at 11am the following day (less than 12 hours after the tornado) enough of the damage had been cleaned up ithat sorting things out became really complicated. We were very lucky that an individual from the local VFW had taken pictures before they started cleaning and was willing to share these photos with us. These images slightly altered our original thinking as to track of the tornado.

So here is my question. How should a local NWS office proceed in doing storm surveys when there is severe weather possible the same day as the survey? Should they jeapordize the warning process to complete a storm survey? While Kiel and I were doing the surveys we actually had to worry about severe weather while we were out in the field.

The best thing people can do is to spread the word that people need to report damage to the proper authorities and this needs to make its way to the NWS. Kiel and I found damage on the survey that completely altered the start point of the tornado, and we found it by "accident" (won't go into the details on this now). Additionally, while surveying the Union City tornado, we came across damage from a tornado 2 months earlier that no one reported. The only reason we know when the tornado occurred is the fact that residents told us when it had occurred (and it jived with radar data). They never bothered to report the damage to anyone since it was an abandoned outhouse and some downed tree limbs. Thus no one outside of the locals knew about it.

The bottom line becomes that for most tornadoes in rural areas, it's extremely hard to do a damage survey. When you add multiple tornadoes in rural areas it becomes nearly impossible to survey EVERY storm. When you add additional threats of severe weather on top of the previous two, it is impossible.

Just for clarification, Kiel and I didn't write the official report. We didn't even give the official classificiation. We wrote a report based on what we found, listed explicity what DIs we found, provided pictures of the DIs, and the offered a suggested rating. Rick Smith took our information and pictures and further analyzed the information and wrote what was seen in the LSR. Please don't think that if you volunteer you are going to be giving the official ratings. In essence, Kiel and I were information gatherers.

Oh, by the way, there was the report of a tornado on May 8 near Lawton. Kiel and I went down there and looked in the surrounding areas but found nothing. We weren't about to survey the exact location that was reported to us for this storm. Why? It occurred in Fort Sill over the bombing range. If anyone wants to go survey that, feel free.

EDIT FOR SEVERAL BLATANT GRAMMATICAL MISTAKES

[jladue]

Just for clarification, Kiel and I didn't write the official report. We didn't even give the official classificiation. We wrote a report based on what we found, listed explicity what DIs we found, provided pictures of the DIs, and the offered a suggested rating. Rick Smith took our information and pictures and further analyzed the information and wrote what was seen in the LSR. Please don't think that if you volunteer you are going to be giving the official ratings. In essence, Kiel and I were information gatherers.



Thanks Patrick for mentioning this. The one thing the NWS needs is for you to send them some pictures along with when, where, and what direction you took them. Take some panned out shots showing the damage indicator with respect to its surroundings. Then take close up shots of the damage showing some key information about it that might help show how it got damaged. Include different angles too. That's all. Any WCM from any office will be very appreciative.

[Greg Stumpf]

Why do you make it sound like those on ST wouldn't participate?...I don't think we have a group of bit*$ing people. I think we have an excellent group of people who care enough about meteorology to express their opinions and make suggestions on how to make things better. When the NWS requests help THESE ARE the people that are there. No offense and I enjoy your posts but I don't think that is very fair to the group as a whole.
Not sure I was "condemning" (and I say that very loosely) the entire ST community (otherwise, that would include many friends), only the ST members who were complaining about the lack of surveys from the OUN WFO. None of them seemingly had lent a hand to help out (or else, wouldn't they have told us?).

In the future, don't wait for the WFO to request help. Be proactive. Contact your local WCM. Volunteer help. Be the first to act.

[beaudodson]

Not sure I was "condemning" (and I say that very loosely) the entire ST community (otherwise, that would include many friends), only the ST members who were complaining about the lack of surveys from the OUN WFO. None of them seemingly had lent a hand to help out (or else, wouldn't they have told us?).

In the future, don't wait for the WFO to request help. Be proactive. Contact your local WCM. Volunteer help. Be the first to act.
That would be nice if the local offices would allow volunteers to help. Not sure how many offices would turn away people that showed up at their door-step to go do a storm survey. If the NWS is interested in doing something like that then it would be easy for them to request volunteers. All the people you mentioned above, I am fairly certain, read their local NWS Home Pages and so on. I have not seen anything to lead me to believe that the NWS is looking for storm survey volunteers. Again it would be easy for OUN (or other offices) to let people know this. Some of the staff have posted in the forum. I don't recall seeing them ask for volunteers...perhaps they did though.

Using volunteers, who know what they are doing, to help with storm surveys would be a good idea if the NWS Offices wanted that. I am sure none of us can speak for the different offices in tornado alley...but I am sure they read the forum.

[Jay McCoy]

[quote=Jay McCoy;141803]If you watch Reed Timmer's and Joel Talor's video of the 5/4/07 This was the only tornado in NW Oklahoma that day so it wasnt like they had dozens to check out. I would like to kow why it wasnt. Iquote]

Apparently because you guys didn't go volunteer to do a storm survey and rate it. :) OUN can't keep up with the storm surveys and local storm reports. Several threads on the subject. Maybe because they cut their staff. Don't know. Must be some reason though because a lot of other offices are able to do the surveys and local storm reports in a timely manner. Different policy perhaps for Oklahoma. No wonder tornado alley has moved :P And I thought it was because there was less tornadoes in Oklahoma over the past few years! ;) :) :cool: /sarc

This was the only tornado event that day in Oklahoma so they knew about it. Also they were in that area the next day due to the sweetwater tornado on 5/5 so it wouldnt be a stretch to run up the road a bit and survey this one also.

As for volunteering I already explained that I dont live in Oklahoma but do help out with damage assessment in my area and with mutual aid agreements we can help Oklahoma if they ask but they did not. Like I also said I am just surprised at their system where they dont survery every tornaod that causes damage cause I know AMA does. If no damage is reported they may not but if damage is reported then they go check it out.

Maybe they are too busy playing with all the new toys that office gets :). I know I would love to play on the new phased array for a day or 2...lol . Now if they would just get a tornadic storm close enough to it for it to get a good tryout but it seems most the tornados liked the northwestern parts of the state this year where radar coverage sux.

[Kiel Ortega]

That would be nice if the local offices would allow volunteers to help. Not sure how many offices would turn away people that showed up at their door-step to go do a storm survey. If the NWS is interested in doing something like that then it would be easy for them to request volunteers. All the people you mentioned above, I am fairly certain, read their local NWS Home Pages and so on. I have not seen anything to lead me to believe that the NWS is looking for storm survey volunteers. Again it would be easy for OUN (or other offices) to let people know this. Some of the staff have posted in the forum. I don't recall seeing them ask for volunteers...perhaps they did though.

Using volunteers, who know what they are doing, to help with storm surveys would be a good idea if the NWS Offices wanted that. I am sure none of us can speak for the different offices in tornado alley...but I am sure they read the forum.
No one is saying to show up at the WFO and volunteer. Just do the survey...unless the area is closed off due to damage (don't go past blockades...if the damage is that serious then the NWS will probably be out there). You can take pictures and then send them to the appriopiate office. The appriopiate person at the office is the WCM. And if you can't find an email for the WCM, most offices have other ways to get in contact with them (like a phone). Let them know you have damage photos, I'm sure they'll be appreciative. And if they aren't, their loss.


This was the only tornado event that day in Oklahoma so they knew about it. Also they were in that area the next day due to the sweetwater tornado on 5/5 so it wouldnt be a stretch to run up the road a bit and survey this one also.No, OUN was not out on 5/5 in Sweetwater (survey was done on 5/6 if I recall correctly). Due to the weather situation (remember, OUN still had to issue warnings on 5/5 even though an all important survey of Sweetwater was needed :rolleyes:) OUN was in warning ops. And last I checked, Sweetwater was damn near in TX. So taking into account driving time, I don't think Rick could have just "popped" up to the Arnette area to do that survey due to time constraints (and I'm pretty sure he went into TX to try and get a good handle on the Sweetwater tornado, so he was driving around searching for damage---which is very TIME CONSUMING). The Arnette tornado not being surveyed isn't going to hurt climatologies...it isn't going to hurt any science...it's not going to affect warning operations. So get over it!

[Jeremy Miller]

I really hope this doesn't come over as silly. If there is a manpower problem with getting out to do a survey. Why then couldn't the nwsfo in charge call an off shift meteorologist in, pay them over time to do the accessment. Or ask a local tv station meteorologist to do a priliminary asessment.

I hope again, this wasn't a silly question. I agree that warning duties takes priority over doing a survey. But if there have been reports of significant damage, and the nws is streched manpower wise, then why couldn't some of what I mentioned above be used?.

Take care and God bless,

Jeremy

[beaudodson]

No one is saying to show up at the WFO and The Arnette tornado not being surveyed isn't going to hurt climatologies...it isn't going to hurt any science...it's not going to affect warning operations. it!

If a stormy chaser is in the area it would prob be easy for them to take damage photos and so on. As many chasers as there are out in that region...it shouldn't be that difficult. IF the NWS wants to run their operations that way.

Most offices do the surveys themselves. IF OUN wants people to volunteer to do their storm surveys (and so on) then I guess they should just come out and say that. Rick never mentioned that, I don't believe, and he has commented in the different threads. So I guess he could come back and respond to that.

Sounds to me like some are advocating a new way of doing storm surveys - involving the chase community. Not sure how local emergency management will handle that...among other agencies. Surveys are usually done "immediately" after an event. Asking non-government workers/volunteers to go in and do a storm survey might work and it might not. Are they going to say "I am here on behalf of the NWS to do a survey" - if so then I guess they need to first call the NWS and ask them "hey are you guys going to come survey my damage out here or should I do it myself."

When you start messing around with areas that have been hit by tornadoes you run the risk of the police asking you what you are doing and then having to prove that you are not there for the wrong reason - good example of what problems can come up is what happened out in Greens last month. Not a good situation.


At this point I guess we are just...

http://www.bittermancircle.com/my%20images/BeatDeadHorse.gif

[Jay McCoy]

The Arnette tornado not being surveyed isn't going to hurt climatologies...it isn't going to hurt any science...it's not going to affect warning operations. So get over it!

Very professional answer :rolleyes: . Obviously OUN has either staffing issues or are just too busy with research. Funny how AMA, LBB, DDC all have the time to do surveys on any tornado that causes damage but poor OUN is just sooo busy even though the other offices have been hit much harder. Between amarillo, LBB and ABQ we have had 6 towns sustain major damage this year yet they can still survery ALL the tornados that have caused damage. I remember the night of 3/28/07 that amarillos WCM was on scene within about 90 minutes after a tornado passed north of Miama. They surveryed all the tornados that night even though it took 2-3 days. McClean had minor damage to only 1 house and a mesonet tower yet it was surveyed as were many others.

Beau is right. We are beating a dead horse. It wont change OUN's operating style. sad

[Kiel Ortega]

Very professional answer :rolleyes: . Obviously OUN has either staffing issues or are just too busy with research to do what they are paid for. Funny how AMA, LBB, DDC all have the time to do surveys on any tornado that causes damage but poor OUN is just sooo busy even though the other offices have been hit much harder. Between amarillo, LBB and ABQ we have had 6 towns sustain major damage this year yet they can still survery ALL the tornados that caused damage. I remember the night of 3/38/07 that amarillos WCM was on scene within about 90 minutes after a tornado passed north of Miama. They surveryed all the tornados that night even though it took 2 days. McClean had minor damage only to 1 house and a mesonet tower yet it was surveyed as were many others.

Beau is right. We are beating a dead horse. It wont change OUN's operating style. sad
What operating style?! It was ONE TORNADO! Holy crap...you all act as if it were they skipped out on an outbreak. That was my point...one tornado...oh well---isn't going to hurt. Hey, since you all are so enraged, why don't you make sure to keep track of all tornadoes and all tornadoes not surveyed by offices and ***** about it; call them lazy and tell them they aren't doing their job; I'm sure they'll appreciate it? Are you going to do it? No. So why now...why this ONE EVENT...excuse me...one tornado!?! In fact, please let me know next time you slack off at work and don't go 1000%...I got a few choice words for you:rolleyes:.
That's nice the WCM was on a scene within 30 min, but on 3/28/07 why wasn't he in the office (save vacation or he had the day off) helping with warning operations (3/28 was an active day, right)? The NWS isn't paid to do just damage surveys...they got a lot of other duties...severe weather warnings being much more important. 5/4 and 5/5, I'm glad surveys weren't really completed because I know where the OUN mets were...doing warnings or monitoring the situation like their supposed to! Just b/c an on ground survey wasn't done doesn't mean the tornado won't be rated.
I guess should follow you all's logic and walk across to hall sometime to yell at Rick for not making Patrick's and my damage survey of the Union City and Minco tornadoes much more public :rolleyes:!
I don't work for the OUN office, so don't think I talk for them; nor do I think it's them being busy with research (NWS is operations, so research isn't their primary goal)--so you can take back your little "professional answer" comment (just like your Sweetwater comments earlier, sounds like your're making bad assumptions). I think it's completely ridiculous that you and Beau make comments (some really snide and ignorant) on the operation of a NWS office without actually talking with them; and for pulling these grandiose ideas that every tornado that ever happens in the U.S. is surveyed.

[Jeremy Miller]

Another thing I forget to mention in my previous post. If an NWS office for some reason isn't able to send someone out, whether it be due to warning operations during a severe weather event and/or what something else. I remember hearing of a national response team I believe out of Norman, O.K. that can be sent in to survey damage. Does anyone know of this, which I am quite sure some or maybe a good majority of those here know of it.

Does this response team make it easier for the nwsfo envolved to evaluate the damage, determine tornado or no tornado and if it is a tornado to asign an EF intensity.

I think every nws office does their best to serve their local warning area.
Damaged structures can be rebuild, yes priceless family items cant be replaced. Neither can live's be replaced. As long as the warnings get out and people have a method of recieving thos warnings in a timely fashion so they can take appropriate action, then nws is doing exactly what they should be.

Take care,


Jeremy

[Patrick Marsh]

For those of you who are picking on this one office, I would like to know what YOU use the damage surveys for?

[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 :D). 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 :eek:. No wonder Rick never replied...his reply woulda been used next year :D!

[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.

[beaudodson]

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,
That is for sure. That office does have some of the better (best perhaps) enhanced web pages. :) They are cerftainly to be complimented on that subject and the other subjects you mentioned! :)

[Greg Stumpf]

In the future, don't wait for the WFO to request help. Be proactive. Contact your local WCM. Volunteer help. Be the first to act.

I went away from ST for the last week or so after posting my last comment. I'm kind of surprised that my suggestion to "be proactive" was immediately followed (and even quoted!) by continued ranting about how the WFOs don't ask for volunteers, etc. E., g.:

That would be nice if the local offices would allow volunteers to help.

Huh? Of course, any WFO would be more than happy to accept volunteers. Where did you get this notion?

I will only say it one more time - "be proactive". You will be pleasantly surprised.

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.
It is a very good idea, but it has me wondering. Paralleling the need for WFOs to put warning services ahead of damage survey services for a multi-day event, how many chasers would be willing to give up a day's chase to help a WFO survey an event during a multi-day severe weather episode. Quoting from a completely unrelated thread....

*waiting*

I didn't think so...[Hopefully, ST members see this as somewhat tongue in cheek.]

Actually, I have done this and got lucky. I surveyed the northern supercell (near Red Rock OK) on 8 May 2003, even though there was a risk of severe weather warranting chasing on 9 May 2003, the day we were surveying. We completed our survey, and then returned back to OUN via Binger, and following the late evening tornadic storm back into OKC (but broke off at dark). Our decision to conduct the survey was made knowing the risk we could miss chasing an event later that day, and we got lucky because the one storm was "in our path" back home and occured late.

[Jeff Snyder]

It is a very good idea, but it has me wondering. Paralleling the need for WFOs to put warning services ahead of damage survey services for a multi-day event, how many chasers would be willing to give up a day's chase to help a WFO survey an event during a multi-day severe weather episode. Quoting from a completely unrelated thread....


Are surveys supposed to be performed on the mets own time, or are they 'on the clock'? In other words, are they being paid while performing surveys, or are surveys performed solely on a person's "off-time"?

[Greg Stumpf]

Are surveys supposed to be performed on the mets own time, or are they 'on the clock'? In other words, are they being paid while performing surveys, or are surveys performed solely on a person's "off-time"?
I'm not sure what this has to do with my remarks, but from what I understand, the WFO mets are on the clock when they perform surveys, and sometimes must be on overtime (which strains an office budget, BTW).