Anybody else annoyed by this?

[Nick Dawson]

Last night in NW Missouri I was spotting a storm instead of chasing it. (broke atm so spotting is better for me) I had a scanner and was listening to the storm reports. There was a cop car about a mile from me, I could see his lights flashing, and he reported a wall cloud.

This was NOT a wall cloud. The cloud went from horizon to horizon, at least as far as I could see with the rain, and there was absolutely no rotation. It's reports like these that lead to false warnings from the NWS because emergency personnel report "rotating wall cloud" and the NWS can't just ignore that.

Soon after I heard the cop send in his report, I called in to the sheriff station and made a report of my own saying that it was a shelf cloud. Does this bother anybody else? Has it happened to many of you guys? Just wondering is all.

[Shane Adams]

Get used to it. Inaccuracies are many in the reporting/warning world.

The thing that really bugs me these days is how whenever a warning statement is issued for a storm that involves a confirmed tornado anywhere near a populated area, it's always a "large and destructive" tornado. We called in the first multi-vortex tornado near Dighton, KS on May 23. The tornado only lasted a minute or so, and did no damage that we could see. However, a few minutes after the tornado ended and the new updated warning statement was issued, "storm chasers were tracking a large and destructive" tornado near Dighton. I guess it's better the err on the side of caution, but IMO it's overkill.

[Jeff Snyder]

However, a few minutes after the tornado ended and the new updated warning statement was issued, "storm chasers were tracking a large and destructive" tornado near Dighton. I guess it's better the err on the side of caution, but IMO it's overkill.

I have a hunch that the NWS received a report of a "large" tornado, but only the mets @ the NWSFO working that day could answer that. The definition of "large" (i.e. the size that constitutes the "large" designation) seems to vary from person to person (chaser to chaser, spotter to law enforcement official, etc), and, without video or instant pictures, the NWS is likely to err on the side of caution if they receive a "large tornado" report. I've seen some so-called "large" tornadoes that were certainly not what I would call "large". I think >1/4 mile wide when I think of a "large" tornado, but that's just me.

Re: problems with accurate reporting... I had 3 interactions with law enforcement folks on 5/23/08 in NW KS, and all three police officers had very little (if any) idea what a "wall cloud" was. One near Ness City was worrying about outflow scud near the RFD gust front, and one N of Hays admitted that he had received very little spotter training. The latter officer stated that he wanted to learn more about storms and spotting, as he said his own training was quite ineffective. I don't know who trains the law enforcement folks up there, but it was blatantly obvious that the accurate assessment of storm features by these folks was lacking. Of course, this isn't necessarily to blame the individual officers, but it does seem that spotter training (at least of law enforcement in that part of KS) could be improved. (Can't draw too many conclusions with such a small / 3 / sample size) All 3 interactions, though, were very positive, and the law enforcement folks were very courteous and professional, and they seemed genuinely concerned about their community.

[Nick Dawson]

Yeah, at times I think people get excited and report the first lowered cloud as a wall cloud because they know a tornado could be in the area soon. The only thing I saw rotating in that shelf cloud was a slightly lowered portion of the cloud sort of rolling up like a bottom lip. I'm guessing that was his rotation. Another clue was that the winds shot up quickly after the cloud went by, coming from the direction of the storm.

Oh well I guess.

[Bobby Prentice]

Spotter reports are notoriously unreliable. The reasons are many, but two of the biggest are:

1. Lack of good, comprehensive training and experience. Storm spotting is not easy! Many experienced scientists/storm chasers aren't always sure about what they see either.

2. Storm spotters generally have a high bias and over-report the weather. After all, they want to see exciting weather and be the hero who saves their town!

During my twenty years as a NWS meteorologist, trainer, and storm chaser, I've found that the best storm spotters are those who are emotionally (psychologically) mature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maturity_%28psychological%29), been trained by top-caliber National Weather Service meteorologists (e.g. Al Moller, Ft. Worth), and have many years of experience. Most NWS offices have a good idea who their best/most trusted spotters are.

In general, storm chasers are better than storm spotters because they are more passionate, have a much greater range of education/training/experience, and submit reports with a more critical eye (e.g., every cloud is not a rotating wall cloud).

[David Drummond]

In all the years I have been out there, I have noticed one thing that stands out in every single event. If tornadoes are in the forecast that day, and if a tornado watch is out, there are always some spotters that WILL see tornadoes, whether they are there or not. If I had a quarter for every hanging cloud that I saw get reported as a tornado or funnel, I could retire and chase in that armored SUV that was posted in another thread.

Then again, just this year, I watched as chasers just down the road from me (I could see them) were reporting landspout tornadoes on the spotter network that were actually gustadoes that clearly had formed on the edge of a forward moving gust front, complete with the little pointy edge scud cloud on it, and it all clearly had linear movement. After a few of these reports I just gave a call to the NWS because I knew the folks there and told them what was really out there. I don't know if they just wanted to see tornadoes, or really didn't know the difference, but that is just scaring people for no reason.

[Elinor McLennon]

I was in orlando/marshall/perry oklahoma a few weeks ago and took alot of grief from some folks I know about my report to NWS. I reported a definite funnel but could not confirm "tornado." NWS replied and told me it was confirmed...I thanked them and went on about my business....picture taking and chasing.
But what kills me is that the folks who gave their report seconds after mine had no better advantage of seeing the tornado than I did. It was rain wrapped and we could NOT see if it was on the ground.
I was soooooooo mad because I knew they did this to "one-up" me. They also tell good fishing stories!
So, in that scenario what would any of yall reported?
I know alot of LEO's that agree with yall about needing more detailed training for storm spotting. I also know some that would prefer to be in a shelter hiding:):) Don't know an easy answer for getting them the training they need.
But, I do know this.....in the area where I live, people laugh at weather watches/warnings. I hear this constantly "they always say we're gonna have storms and we never do, so therefore i don't believe anything they say."
Something needs to be done because false reports, media hype, etc is causing people to let their guard down....and someone will pay the ultimate price someday.

[David Drummond]

Report what you see, nothing more, nothing less. If your not sure, describe it to them and tell them you aren't sure. Let NWS make the call since they do anyway. No shame in not being 100% sure. Even after 24 years, I still see stuff I sometimes am not 100% sure it's what I think it is. I guess that's the cool thing about storms, they always surprise you with something different.

There used to be a "3/4 rule" that was taught in spotter training, I don't know if it still is. Basically, it was that if the funnel was 3/4 of the way to the ground, it was most likely in contact (if not visually) and you called it in as a tornado.

[Elinor McLennon]

If the 3/4 rule is out there, then I goofed. But, i did what you said...reported what i saw...nothing more, nothing less. I agree with you David.....I let NWS decide what needs to be done.....and may I throw in a positive. I've only contacted OUN/NWS a few times but they have always been very courteous, professional and very helpful.

[Dennis Sherrod]

Elinor,
You are correct in your reporting and as David said; Report what you see and nothing more. They can make their decision on that.
It does not matter what others think or what they think you saw. You are doing what you feel is best and no one can ask for more. As some other threads here also show, some people will try to contradict what someone else says they saw.
I had one about 10 days ago near Hill City that I was about 80% sure was a tornado, but wasn't sure to call it this. NWS took the report as I just said and about 5 - 8 minutes later it was a definite and I then reported that also. But based on the first report, a Tornado Warning was issued.

[Elinor McLennon]

I gotta wonder, do those guys at NWS get flooded with reports from people like me?
If so, how do they decide which report is accurate?
Who do you listen to in that scenario?
I feel kinda guilty doing a report via ham radio to NWS....maybe cause I figure when I see 10,000 cars chasing the storm that they already know what's going on....kinda like "here's your sign."
Plus, I figure if they are bombarded with good info and/or bad info that my report is just another of many for them to sort through. It's obvious they don't have alot of time before they have to make a decision regarding public warnings/statements.

[Dennis Sherrod]

I gotta wonder, do those guys at NWS get flooded with reports from people like me?
If so, how do they decide which report is accurate?
Who do you listen to in that scenario?
I feel kinda guilty doing a report via ham radio to NWS....maybe cause I figure when I see 10,000 cars chasing the storm that they already know what's going on....kinda like "here's your sign."
Plus, I figure if they are bombarded with good info and/or bad info that my report is just another of many for them to sort through. It's obvious they don't have a lot of time before they have to make a decision regarding public warnings/statements.

I look at it like, if I do nothing and think; well, someone else may call it in or they already know, the NWS may not know at all.
What if everyone else is thinking the same thing or they are too busy filming to call it in?
Maybe NWS just needs that one more phone call you are making to really make the decision.
Personally, I would rather make the call and say I am not sure, than do nothing and then something bad really happens. I do not want that on my mind. At least I know that I tried to do what was right, to the best of my knowledge at that given time. Also, I have been known on occasions, to call back the next day or so, and ask if my report was what they needed or any kind of feedback they may have that would be helpful to us both the next time. This has always been received by NWS very well.

[Chris Bowman]

I gotta wonder, do those guys at NWS get flooded with reports from people like me?
If so, how do they decide which report is accurate?
Who do you listen to in that scenario?
I feel kinda guilty doing a report via ham radio to NWS....maybe cause I figure when I see 10,000 cars chasing the storm that they already know what's going on....kinda like "here's your sign."
Plus, I figure if they are bombarded with good info and/or bad info that my report is just another of many for them to sort through. It's obvious they don't have alot of time before they have to make a decision regarding public warnings/statements.

There are times when the phone calls can get overwhelming. July 3rd 2005 comes to mind. Part of how we decide if a report is accurate is what type of storm it is, the environment and who it comes from. I would say, if you see something severe or close to severe we would like to know about it so we can make better decisions. If a report sounds odd we will try and verify it. Multiple reports of the same thing naturally enhances one's confidence that it is real.

[Shane Adams]

I was in orlando/marshall/perry oklahoma a few weeks ago and took alot of grief from some folks I know about my report to NWS. I reported a definite funnel but could not confirm "tornado." NWS replied and told me it was confirmed...I thanked them and went on about my business....picture taking and chasing.
But what kills me is that the folks who gave their report seconds after mine had no better advantage of seeing the tornado than I did. It was rain wrapped and we could NOT see if it was on the ground.
I was soooooooo mad because I knew they did this to "one-up" me. They also tell good fishing stories!
So, in that scenario what would any of yall reported?
I know alot of LEO's that agree with yall about needing more detailed training for storm spotting. I also know some that would prefer to be in a shelter hiding:):) Don't know an easy answer for getting them the training they need.
But, I do know this.....in the area where I live, people laugh at weather watches/warnings. I hear this constantly "they always say we're gonna have storms and we never do, so therefore i don't believe anything they say."
Something needs to be done because false reports, media hype, etc is causing people to let their guard down....and someone will pay the ultimate price someday.

This event will never be logged as it actually happened. There was too much insane stuff going on and nobody saw everything. I observed two tornadoes while KOCO's guy was doing a live phoner and he never mentioned either one....another chaser who was a few miles away from us saw them as well. I called the first one into OUN and while I was on the phone, a second one formed...so I reported two tornadoes with very accurate location details....neither showed in LSRs. The OUN official tornado count from that day isn't even close to what I actually saw....but there's just no way to coordinate with the NWS regarding video submissions. I work during the week, and since we can no longer just stroll by with a casual phone call to set up a meeting (security security security), it's impossible to be there when they see your video. A chaser needs to be present when the NWS people watch the video....trying to explain things in detail via emails just doesn't work.

[Elinor McLennon]

Just curious as to Shane's location. We also saw 2 at the same time. We were at I35 and Hwy 51. We saw the first one and then the 2nd formed just to the North East of the first. The 2nd one was alot harder to make out.

[Maggie Kahman]

Last night in NW Missouri I was spotting a storm instead of chasing it. (broke atm so spotting is better for me) I had a scanner and was listening to the storm reports. There was a cop car about a mile from me, I could see his lights flashing, and he reported a wall cloud.

This was NOT a wall cloud. The cloud went from horizon to horizon, at least as far as I could see with the rain, and there was absolutely no rotation. It's reports like these that lead to false warnings from the NWS because emergency personnel report "rotating wall cloud" and the NWS can't just ignore that.

Soon after I heard the cop send in his report, I called in to the sheriff station and made a report of my own saying that it was a shelf cloud. Does this bother anybody else? Has it happened to many of you guys? Just wondering is all.


I could see how that would get frustrating, but wouldnt you rather have a false report rather than an actual tornado on the ground and no report at all?

[Glen Romine]

The definition of "large" (i.e. the size that constitutes the "large" designation) seems to vary from person to person (chaser to chaser, spotter to law enforcement official, etc).... I've seen some so-called "large" tornadoes that were certainly not what I would call "large". I think >1/4 mile wide when I think of a "large" tornado, but that's just me.



So, this is a thread hijack, admittedly, but this aspect does seem to come up too often. When individuals are reporting a large tornado - this generally does lead to enhanced wording in warnings, etc... and should not be abused to the extent possible. One problem that I think comes up too often is that large tornadoes seem to be reported on occasion when the viewer cannot actually see the ground contact of the circulation. When a large, low to the ground rotating wall cloud develops, from a distance this may appear to be a large tornado. However, sometimes this is not the case, where only a small or no tornado actually exists at the time. So, size estimates should best be reserved for when you can clearly see the ground contact of the tornado. Then, you have to try and best estimate how big it is using whatever measures are available, like # of telephone poles, trees, etc...

[Shane Adams]

Just curious as to Shane's location. We also saw 2 at the same time. We were at I35 and Hwy 51. We saw the first one and then the 2nd formed just to the North East of the first. The 2nd one was alot harder to make out.

I don't mean the two simultaneous tornadoes.....before those, I saw what looked like two tornadoes south of there, closer to Orlando. I was about a mile east of I-35 on OK51 looking WNW. Maybe the ground was lower than what I could see, but there was violent rotation and full condensation to the ground (from my vantage point) on both. These two tornadoes were not simultaneous, they were a few minutes apart.

A friend of mine was two miles west of me (west of I-35) and saw them as well. Maybe somehow we couldn't see the ground, but regardless I can't imagine these things weren't at least 3/4 to the ground.

[Elinor McLennon]

Shane,
we were also about a mile east of I35. a couple of guys that were there said we had just missed 2 tornadoes a few minutes before our arrival.
we tried to head north from there on 86....sadly, so did at least 60 other vehicles.
i did have to chuckle at the helicopter from kansas....they flew right over us, not much higher than the power lines.....it looked like they were watching all of us as if we were nuts.....and i think a few people confirmed that for them:)
i couldn't see the ground but i think you're right...at least 3/4 to the ground.