"Guessing" tornado intensity

[Chris McBee]

Here in Oklahoma, during tornadoes, the local media goes into a frenzy, regularly scheduled programming is pre-empted, helicopters are in the air, etc. But during the media circus, it is not uncommon to see media chasers just making a bold "guess" at the intensity of the tornado. They will do live reports, often saying things like "possible F3" or "likely an EF4."

A good example were the tornadoes on May 24 in northern Oklahoma. As I was filming the tornado, I had a news channel's live stream on my car radio, saying things like "mile-wide, May 3-style, probably F4..." I believe the tornado was rated an EF2. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong on that.

In some cases, from helicopter shots, destruction is immediately visible after the tornado, and some quick and dirty damage assessment might be possible, but it seems like chasers on the ground are just basing it on the width of the tornado or other perceived markers of intensity.

My question is, should we lend any credence to this?

[rdale]

Not at all, unless it comes from actual damage on the ground. While you can imply that a mile-wide tornado will be rated higher than a rope, it all depends on what it hits.

[Chris McBee]

Just to clarify, I know there are lots of media chasers who are ST members and I am certainly not singling anyone out. The main one I have in mind is with KFOR in Oklahoma City.

I just find it a little unprofessional to guess at intensity of a tornado. Granted, it might make some people take it a little more seriously and seek adequate shelter if they think the tornado is stronger than it really is, but the media is out there to report news, not speculate.

Am I totally off base here?

[Jerry Prsha]

Ok, if we can't figure out wind speed via radar then I'm confused. (insert sarcasm here) Why is the DOW supporting the TIV if you can't properly speculate what tornadoes the TIV should or should not enter?

:)

[Andrea Griffa]

I prefer to trust myself as for the visual rating of the tornadoes.
As to me it's not a feat to realize what kind of tornado you have in front: the important is to use your mind and observe with critical spirit: you can get many informations from the shape, from the type of debris in the air, from the rotation velocity and so many others. Those elements are sufficient to understand if you have to do with a weak or strong or a violent tornado; it stands to reason that it's impossible to understand if a tornado is EF2 or EF1 or thereabouts.

[Jeff Smith]

Just to clarify, I know there are lots of media chasers who are ST members and I am certainly not singling anyone out. The main one I have in mind is with KFOR in Oklahoma City.

I just find it a little unprofessional to guess at intensity of a tornado. Granted, it might make some people take it a little more seriously and seek adequate shelter if they think the tornado is stronger than it really is, but the media is out there to report news, not speculate.

Am I totally off base here?
I remember that day, I heard a certain met/chaser screaming on a phoner "It's a mile wide, it's a mile wide!!" and arguing with the on-air met when he was told not to get too close....he kept saying, "I'm ok, I'm ok" then seconds later screaming in the phone "It's right in front of me!!!"....
....just about made me sick. I understand the adrenaline when you're close, but geez, think of the little old ladies in the rockers for cryin' out loud...they're probably freaking out! And the little kids watching!

[rdale]

Why is the DOW supporting the TIV if you can't properly speculate what tornadoes the TIV should or should not enter?


I'm confused - are you saying the TV mets that estimate EF scale based on how the tornado looks are actually using DOW data?

[Lanny Dean]

[quote=Chris McBee;201507]Here in Oklahoma, during tornadoes, the local media goes into a frenzy, regularly scheduled programming is pre-empted, helicopters are in the air, etc. But during the media circus, it is not uncommon to see media chasers just making a bold "guess" at the intensity of the tornado. They will do live reports, often saying things like "possible F3" or "likely an EF4."

A good example were the tornadoes on May 24 in northern Oklahoma. As I was filming the tornado, I had a news channel's live stream on my car radio, saying things like "mile-wide, May 3-style, probably F4..." I believe the tornado was rated an EF2. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong on that.
quote]

It is important to remember just who you are dealing with, by that, I mean the media.
Having worked in the media for many years as a severe weather reporter/photographer, I understand first hand what ratings really mean, most particularly in a big weather market such as OKC.
There are a few months out of the year that are called "sweeps" or ratings months....May is one of them and probabably the biggest even for markets that might be metered such as OKC.
Weather plays a huge role in "sweeps" especially during the May book.
News directors are in such a frenzy to keep/get ratings up that in some cases it is understood that you will do what it takes to get the job done (get the story) and you will often go above and beyond what is verbally asked of you but more so expected. Much was the case for me while I was still at KAKE during the Greensburg event.
I am not making any excuses for the ignorance put forth by such people...hell I was one of those people, but to understand why they do what they do, you have to understand the media in general.
Of course not all markets are like this, conversley, not all News directors are like this but news is news and what all markets want are ratings.
If you have to slime and crime it to get some ratings then so be it....thats the thought process.
Just my two cents worth.

[Dennis Sherrod]

Yeah, this is one of the things that really does get to me too. You hear this pretty often, people, TV mets, chasers, etc rating tornadoes as they are going across some area. Any of us can say it is big, little, fat, etc, but not the EF ratings.
This makes as much sense as when you hear chasers saying:
"There is a tornado on the ground."
Where else is it going to be? If it is in the air, is it not a funnel?
It is only a tornado once it is on the ground.

[Jeff Snyder]

To go along with some people's tendency to over-rate tornadoes in real-time (i.e. "OMG, it's an F4 easy !!!!1!!ONE!!1"), I also find that many folks tend to stretch the meaning of "large". Heck, it seems like any tornado that's not a minuscule "rope" is reported as a "large" tornado by someone. I was just watching some vids on youtube from a popular OKC TV station, and one of their experienced chasers kept talking about how the tornado was a "large" tornado and quite violent. I was left scratching my head, as it looked nothing like more "large" tornadoes I've seen, nor did it look like a "violent" tornado. There is no set criterion for the diameter of a tornado in order for it to be called "large", but I think it should at least be >1/4 mile wide (if not >1/2 mile). Of course, some folks use the adjective "violent" not to directly refer to the EF4-EF5 ratings but to note that the winds are particularly strong (presumbly in comparison to most winds we see). We've also seen and heard the same thing on "Storm Chasers" in a couple of the recent episodes. Some folks seem much more liberal with their use of "violent" and "large" adjectives, and it doesn't speak well for credibility or non-sensationalism.

[Shane Adams]

It's pretty simple to visually assess whether a tornado is weak, strong, or violent. I've more or less dropped the F-scale from my vocabulary, because it really doesn't mean anything other than to insurance agents and engineers.

For my personal standards, I'd consider a 'large' tornado to be a 1/4 mile wide or wider, but that's just me. As for the media overhype, I don't even really hear the words they say anymore, because I know they will include "May 3", "half-mile-wide", and "violent". I just go by what I'm actually seeing as opposed to hearing.

Tornadoes, even weak ones, are an awesome sight in their own right, I've never understood the need to hype them up. Be like calling a 30ft wave 50ft. But then it's all about buzzwords.

[Rob Wadsworth]

You know, this all soumds like there needs to be a standard "weather speak" here in the media/spotters to decribe accurately what they are seeing.
eg- low cloud base with wedge vs high cloud base stovepipe,
rain wrapped vs clear/visaible,
weakening vs strengthening, and more. It may help the NWS to get these verbal cues straight to understand for warning purposes, and the media can get better reports out to the public with a reasonable understanding of the sitution in question.

I've often wondered if a hand held radar unit (like the police use) could be used and modified so that a chaser/spotter could get the wind speed clocked - and that way it could give a reasonavle estimate for wind speeds at the 0-10m level - so that surface friction can be added for the final estimate...
Sorry for the ramble...

[Brian Stertz]

Large tornado means to me 1/4 mile wide or bigger. Always has and always will. The problem comes when dealing with those nutty egg-beater types multiple vortex tornadoes. Trying to maintain a clear head when calling those in. Is it a wedge in the making or just a couple dancing vortices that may never organize into a full fledged brush hog. Then there is the Xenia OH circa 1974 kind....:rolleyes:

[shane turner]

*** Yeah I have seen this on TV on several occassions where people saying its a mile-wide its got to be an F4 or F5 tornado even though the tornado ends up getting rated EF2 or EF3. Just recently a tornado hit somewhere in South Carolina and it was reported to NWS in Wilmington that two brick homes were totally destroyed. By hearing that description I thought maybe that could rate as an EF4 tornado. Come to find out the brick homes only had their roofs taken off and a couple walls missing and rated EF2. It seems that some people report things as gone when there actually heavily damaged. To me gone means there is very little or no trace of debris of what used to be there.

[Greg Higgins]

It seems that some folks are hung up on "wind speed" when in reality, the EF scale is based on "damage assessment". Based on todays building construction, or lack thereof, there have been several recent tornadoes that were rated fairly high at the time and then after the damage assessment was completed, downgraded considerably. One example is the Arlington, TX tornado of several years ago. The original rating was an F-3 (before the EF scale was in use). Several days later after the engineers, NWS staff, etc. reviewed the damage, it was downgraded to an F-1. Why? Because the construction of the homes was substandard! No brick ties, not enough fasteners in the slab and for the roof assembly, etc. Refer to papers / talks / presentations from Tim Marshall, a forensic engineer, meteorologist and respected storm damage evaluator (not to mention a "decent" chaser).

Greg Higgins

[Gabe Garfield]

To be honest with you, I have generally overestimated (at least mentally, if not verbally) the intensity of a tornado based on my observation.

One such instance that immediately comes to mind is the first Quinter tornado of 23 May. The tornado was large (~1/4 mile in diameter) and appeared to have a very vigorous debris fan. I immediately suspected that it was at least a strong tornado, if not violent. Well, I talked with Josh Wurman about it, and he was surprised that I thought that it was violent; he could only find winds in the DOW data justifying a rating of EF2, at most. Sure enough, when I went on the damage survey a few days later, I was able to only find evidence of EF2 damage.

Another example is the Courtland/Belleville, KS after-dark wedge of 29 May of this year. That tornado grew to almost 3/4 of a mile in diameter. To me, it looked a whole lot like Greensburg. Yet, on the damage survey the next day, we were only able to find evidence of low-end EF3 damage. It wasn't like there wasn't anything to hit -- several farm houses were destroyed. Trees and plant life seemed to be relatively unscathed as well.

After what I've seen this year, I've become much more reticent to even "ballpark" the intensity of a tornado.

[Kiel Ortega]

Not to hijack the thread, but here's a link to Jim LaDue's and my SLS paper about using the EF scale (figured some parties on the thread might be interested)
Experiences in using the EF-Scale since its inception (http://ams.confex.com/ams/24SLS/techprogram/paper_142166.htm)

[Steven Maupin]

I think that Lanny is correct, as a member of the media I know first hand how pushy your editors can be, and how everyone loves ratings. But that being said as a journalist I have an ethical responsibility to report the facts, and what I see, I cannont (and shouldn't) make the decision to what strength a tornado is, I think that would be true to all chasers, it's not your job to decide how strong a tornado is, your job is to report what is happening so that people in the storm path can get to safety and emergency responders can get to where they are needed.

[Alan Broerse]

I think Steve Maupin is real close here......as a media chaser in OKC....it is our job to report the event as it unfolds. At my station we arent consumed with blowing up small events...some stations... (1) in our market cater to those energy junkies to give them the ride of their lives. My crews are more into saving lives...yet performing in the most professional manner possible. We try NOT to fabricate the facts....a good reporter can take any situation and make a story without hype. You always have to live with what you report... a dozen videos shot of your storm will verify your report...or discredit you. I do see some of the points that were made in this thread.....and other points are null. I would like to mention that high emotion plays into reporting any dangerous, life threatening, or just plain exciting event. I see this of hobby chasers reporting to the NWS exaggerating reports and stepping all over their tongues....I see this of the DOW crews....I see this in the media. Instead of throwing rocks at each other...we need to realize that most of us are out there for one or more of the same reasons and work on being better. I feel that hobby video chasers that drops the "F" bomb every other word is just as bad as a media chaser that uses the other "F" word...Fujita...in his or her reports. Its hard not to get excited when trying to witness the event....shoot video....drive thru a chaser circus...think of the right words to say when you know 500,000 people are tuned in ....but its an aquired skill. Something I help other people do is role play...in the off season.....sit down and watch a storm clip and paint the picture with words.....practice...get someone to critique you....its fun and beneficial.....just remember.....throwing rocks among glass houses......not nice.....LOL have fun.....

[Shawn Camp]

Dear chasers

I chase for Fox 4 Dallas which is Met- Ron Jackson and Chief Met- Dan Henry and I just report what I see I never ever try to speculate or rate the Tornado if I happen to see one. I belive that the only way to know is with true ground Mets on the ground doing a damage assesment of the area. I can understand people who do it there way but I believe that that may not be the best way to do it but I have been wrong before.

Sincerly

Shawn C.

"When Weather Breaks Trust Fox 4"

Keeping you informed and 4 Warned

[Lanny Dean]

I think Steve Maupin is real close here......as a media chaser in OKC....it is our job to report the event as it unfolds. At my station we arent consumed with blowing up small events...some stations... (1) in our market cater to those energy junkies to give them the ride of their lives. My crews are more into saving lives...yet performing in the most professional manner possible. We try NOT to fabricate the facts....a good reporter can take any situation and make a story without hype. You always have to live with what you report... a dozen videos shot of your storm will verify your report...or discredit you. I do see some of the points that were made in this thread.....and other points are null. I would like to mention that high emotion plays into reporting any dangerous, life threatening, or just plain exciting event. I see this of hobby chasers reporting to the NWS exaggerating reports and stepping all over their tongues....I see this of the DOW crews....I see this in the media. Instead of throwing rocks at each other...we need to realize that most of us are out there for one or more of the same reasons and work on being better. I feel that hobby video chasers that drops the "F" bomb every other word is just as bad as a media chaser that uses the other "F" word...Fujita...in his or her reports. Its hard not to get excited when trying to witness the event....shoot video....drive thru a chaser circus...think of the right words to say when you know 500,000 people are tuned in ....but its an aquired skill. Something I help other people do is role play...in the off season.....sit down and watch a storm clip and paint the picture with words.....practice...get someone to critique you....its fun and beneficial.....just remember.....throwing rocks among glass houses......not nice.....LOL have fun.....

I think we are getting ethics in true "reporting" and what we call "ground truth" intertwined. Can they/are they the same?
Yes, we are out there reporting what we are seeing and what is happening, real time with integrity and honesty as best we can
but, as I said in my last post: the main goal is ratings period! I do not care if your station is dead last in the market or the top dog....ratings are what makes sales, sales are what makes the station money. You get get the ratings, your station makes money. If you continually fail in the ratings sooner or later the axe will fall....generally sales people get it first, then your News director gets cut, the GM will then get cut and the list goes on and on until your station is sold. It is the nature of the beast.
To get those ratings up, ALL STATIONS expect you and the entire staff to "bring it up a notch"....it is expected and understood that you will do whatever it takes to get the story, including weather related stories and if you do not.....you better start looking for another job.
Here is the big issue, at what cost do you go to "get the story"? Do you hype it up? Do you run more live shots to make it appear your covering more news/weather? Do you spice up your reports by giving a little higher tone in your voice? Do you elaborate a little more during your reports especially as a scene is unfolding?
The answer to all these questions is YES. You do all of the above. No offense here Allen, but why do you think the other station is number one in your market? It is because, as you said, they cater to the "slime and crime" and thats what sells.
As far as the weather, it is no different....of course we want and try to give the utmost integrity in all of our reports but integrity and ethical reporting are two different things and imo should not be confused.
Also, please keep in mind that reporting while chasing(media chasers) and true reporting(reporters) are two different beast's and in no way should be thought of as the same.

[David Drummond]

Above and beyond anything else, weather coverage is entertainment, and if your coverage is not entertaining, you lose the market. It's widely known that in most all markets if you win the weather segment, you won the market. That is why Reed Timmer is doing so well with TornadoVideos.net, they are entertaining their audience and they are smart enough to realize that their audience in general is NOT storm chasers.

Of course the first by product of the on-air live entertainment coverage IS warning the public about what is coming, so they often go hand in hand and compliment one another and I have yet to meet an on-air met that didn't genuinely care about getting the information out and maybe giving people enough time to save their life and property.

It's one thing to stand in front of a radar and talk about what the pretty colors are, but when you supplement that with people out in the field describing things with their own eyes, it adds a whole new level, and how good those people are at translating what they see to something that is audibly entertaining makes a world of difference. Not everyone has developed those skills as well as they could have, as I am sure most of you have observed.

Throw in live video to the mix and you just can't get any better than that without the viewer being there live themselves.

That said, I don't personally believe in fabricating anything I am reporting. I have declined to do phoners at certain times because I literally had nothing interesting to report.

You have to realize too though that most of us chasers are a bit jaded to the excitement of some weather outside of extreme stuff. While we are used to a healthy barrage of CG strikes, of a little 60 mph outflow, that stuff is still pretty incredible to the average viewer. So when you think of it like that it's not that hard to report excitedly on all sorts of various whether going on, while still being accurate. Sometimes too, it's not just about what is going on, but about what isn't as well.

There is a reason the other station is number one. Just like Lanny pointed out.
I get pot shots taken at me by the other local stations all the time, but then again, I chase for the #1 in our market and I can't remember how many times I was reporting a tornado while they were on the other side of the CWA reporting small hail. I try and do my part anyway. This year I managed to stream the first live tornado in Lubbock television history which was pretty cool. Wasn't long after that one of the other stations "storm trackers" also signed up for the same streaming service I was using. LOL I guess I am doing pretty good, one of those stations stole some of my video to use in a promo for their own "storm trackers" which I think says volumes.

I've actually been put on the spot on-air as to what I thought the tornado intensity was. Of course at that point I can only guess based on years of experience and knowing what similar appearing tornadoes did in the past, but I am quick to follow it up with a disclaimer that a damage survey would need to be done after the tornado to really have an idea how strong it is. After you have seen quite a few tornadoes, you can get fairly decent with at least being able to tell if a tornado is weak, moderate or strong in the rotation assuming your close enough to get a good look at it.

[Bill Tabor]

I remember when I caught / witnessed the Seward F4 tornado some years back with Geoff Mackley that I told him it was strong...probably an F4 maybe even an F5. I think I might of even said it on the videotape. It was an educated guess. Perhaps this can be done, and with some degree of accuracy. I pretty sure I can call an F0, F1 is just a bit stronger. If it isn't insane but still apparently stronger than low end likely it is an F2 or F3. Of course and educated guess will never be as good as doppler measured winds or ground damage surveys.