Category Archives: SKYWARN

Believe it or not, some snowstorm forecasts on Facebook are bogus!

Snowfall forecast map from the European numerical weather prediction model run on Dec. 16, 2013 for the forecast period Dec. 22-23. What actually happened Dec. 22 and 23 wasn't even close to this!
Widely shared snowfall forecast map from the European numerical weather prediction model run on Dec. 16, 2013 for the forecast period Dec. 22-23. What actually happened Dec. 22 and 23 wasn’t even close to this!

Winter weather is just around the corner in Indiana, which means so are authentic-looking but bogus long-range snowstorm forecasts on social media.

It won’t be long before we see claims that a storm a week or more away will bring huge snow accumulations. Many will have official-looking forecast maps, like the one above (which turned out to be wrong, by the way).

But these posts won’t be the work of professional meteorologists. Many will be the creations of school kids, passing themselves off as weather experts.

This is Winter Weather Preparedness Week in Indiana, so it seems like a good time to prepare readers for the ominous-looking but unreliable snow forecasts they’ll soon see.

To understand what amateur weather enthusiasts put on social media, it helps to know something about the computer programs that professional meteorologists use to guide their forecasts. These programs are called numerical weather prediction models. They simulate Earth’s atmosphere by describing it in a complex series of very complicated mathematical formulas.

The programs built on these formulas run several times a day on supercomputers around the world. Much of the output of these programs is available on the Web, in both numeric and graphical form.

The output of computerized atmosphere models is inherently inaccurate for several reasons, including:

  1. It’s not yet possible to completely describe our chaotic atmosphere in mathematical equations and
  2. The programs don’t have access to enough data about what our atmosphere is doing at the time they run (e.g. what the temperature, wind speed and wind direction are 10,000 feet over any given part of the planet).

Nonetheless, these programs kick out predictions of what the weather might be at any location at any time, as far in the future as 16 days, despite that fact that no computer or human can reliably forecast the weather that far in advance.

Now, imagine a young weather enthusiast who craves attention and loves snowstorms (because they get him out of school). When he sees an indication of heavy accumulations in the output of a single computer model, he might paste that model’s map into a Facebook post in which he writes a dire forecast of impending doom. Such an amateur forecaster might not be aware of (or care about) the model limitations described above. But she’ll love all the “likes” and shares her post receives!

So how do I know what to believe? First, I’m automatically suspicious of any social media post that forecasts specific snowfall amounts more than a couple days in advance. Second, I ignore any forecast that doesn’t come directly from professional sources I trust, such as:

  • The National Weather Service.
  • Local, degreed broadcast meteorologists.
  • Certain commercial weather forecasting companies.

If that ominous snowstorm forecast didn’t come from one of the above, I won’t share it on social media. I hope you’ll join me in that practice.

How new friends changed my attitude about storm chasers

Storm chasers on a storm
Photo by Michael Enfield, used with permission

For some time, I’ve looked at amateur storm chasers with some disdain. I believed that too many were putting themselves into too much danger, just to see, photograph and/or video record tornados. I doubted that many chasers were truly motivated by improving public safety and even fewer were doing real science, no matter what they said. I was concerned that many chasers set poor examples for the general public and that their “antics” encouraged lesser informed people to take uneducated and unwise risks.

I’ve been a SKYWARN storm spotter for more than a quarter century. When talking to friends, family members and even journalists about my volunteer service to the National Weather Service (NWS), I was careful to make sure they understood that I’m not a chaser, like the people they’ve seen on TV or on the Web. My ultimate goal, I’d explain, isn’t to see tornadoes, it’s to help protect my community from possible storms by staying close to home and relaying valuable information to the NWS.

So it was with some trepidation that I attended an event in November, 2015 called INChaserCon, a one-day convention in the Indianapolis area for storm chasers. I’m glad I went. Some of the people I met there subsequently changed my thinking. They are admittedly driven by a desire to see tornadoes. But my subsequent experience with them demonstrated that they’re also very passionate about getting reports to the NWS.

After the chasers learned that I have access to NWSChat – a private, internet-based text chatroom run by the NWS – they invited me to join them on Zello, a smartphone app with which they communicate with each other—so I could relay their reports to the NWS via NWSChat.

That’s exactly what happened during the August, 2016 tornado outbreak in Indiana and Ohio. As a tornadic storm moved east from Kokomo into the county warning area of my local NWS office, storm chasers John Tinney, Eric Lawson and David Buell reported wall clouds, funnel clouds, etc. via Zello. I relayed those reports via NWSChat.

Then, a storm over my own home in Fort Wayne, Indiana received a tornado warning. Storm chaser Michael Enfield immediately headed toward that storm. Via Zello, he promptly reported a wall cloud, then funnel clouds and then a tornado for me to relay via NWSChat. The NWS survey report recorded the time of the tornado’s initial touchdown as 5:27 p.m. – the same time as Enfield’s report, confirming that he saw and reported the tornado when it first touched down. That storm eventually did EF-3 damage to a rural part of Allen County, Indiana.

Throughout the event, any time the chasers had something to report, if I wasn’t immediately available on Zello, they’d keep trying until I acknowledged their reports. Getting reports through to the NWS was clearly very important to them. By the end of the event, I had typed 50 reports into NWSchat. All but about 15 of those came from storm chasers on Zello. The rest came from storm spotters via ham radio.

By aggressively chasing storms, my new friends put themselves in positions to immediately report weather that was not near any traditional SKYWARN spotters at the time. By religiously reporting, they played significant roles in protecting people in the paths of the storms.

A Facebook post by Lawson sums up pretty well how this particular group of storm chasers sees things:

“I noticed a developing supercell heading towards Kokomo was looking really strong and rushed out the door. By the time I was on interstate 69 southbound the strong EF3 was already in progress and heading towards the town in which I have spent many days of my youth, and is home to many great friends and their families. Hearing reports of the devastation in progress on the radio made my heart sink. I was rushing south in horror wondering if anyone I knew had been hurt. This is the moment that things really changed for me, I felt less excited about seeing tornadoes, and much more concerned with providing accurate information to keep people informed.”

I have no doubt there are other storm chasers out there who rarely report their observations to the NWS. There are likely some that don’t care about anything but the excitement of seeing a tornado.

But I’m convinced that the storm chasers I know are not among these. They’ve changed my attitude about chasers.

Mobile phones, TV play major roles in tornado warning

Tornado damage in northeastern Allen County Indiana. NWS photo.
Tornado damage in northeastern Allen County Indiana. NWS photo.

When the National Weather Service issued a tornado warning for northeastern Allen County, Indiana at 5:14 p.m. Aug. 24, 2016, more people in the county got their initial alerts from mobile phones than any other information source, according to an informal, online survey conducted by the publisher of this blog.

Of people who indicated they were anywhere in Allen County at the time of the warning, slightly more than 32 percent said they first learned of the warning via their mobile phones (including “Wireless Emergency Alerts,” alerts from apps, text messages, social media, etc.). Television was the second-most-frequently cited initial warning source, at nearly 21 percent. Outdoor warning sirens, commonly referred to as “tornado sirens,” came in third, at 17 percent. Just under eight percent of respondents credited NOAA Weather Radio as their initial warning source.

Methods by which respondents indicated they first learned of the tornado warning.
Methods by which respondents indicated they first learned of the tornado warning. With this and all images in this blog, clicking the image will display a larger, clearer version.

The warned storm created a tornado in northeastern Allen County at approximately 5:27, according to a report from the northern Indiana weather forecast office of the National Weather Service. That was about 13 minutes after the NWS issued the warning. The tornado stayed on the ground until approximately 5:39, cutting a five-and-a-quarter-mile path to the northeast and doing damage consistent with the EF-3 rating on the enhanced Fujita scale.

Warned immediately

Nearly 62 percent of the survey’s 167 respondents indicated that they received the warning “immediately.” Another 19 percent said they received the warning with 10 minutes of its issuance, which would still have been a few minutes before the tornado touched down. Nearly 20 percent of respondents did not learn of the warning any sooner than 30 minutes after the NWS issued it, well after the tornado had lifted.

How soon people reported learning of the tornado warning.
Above: how soon people reported learning of the tornado warning.
The red, five-sided polygon encloses the part of Allen County to which the tornado warning applied. The dark yellow line within the polygon depicts the tornado's path.
The red, five-sided polygon encloses the part of Allen County to which the tornado warning applied. The dark yellow line within the polygon depicts the tornado’s path.

The NWS drew a five-sided polygon that enclosed 144 square miles to indicate the portion of northeastern Allen County to which the tornado warning applied. As a whole, Allen County encompasses approximately 660 square miles, so the warning polygon included less than a fourth of the county’s total area. The tornado’s entire path remained within the warning polygon, so people outside the polygon were not in danger.

Nearly half of all respondents indicated that they knew immediately whether they were within the warning polygon. Another quarter of respondents knew within five minutes whether they were in the warned part of the county. Nearly 18 percent, however, never knew with certainty before the storm passed whether they were in danger.

How soon respondents knew if they were in the warned area.
How soon respondents knew if they were in the warned area.

Best sources for location information

Among respondents who knew immediately whether they were within the warned area, nearly a third received their initial warning via their mobile phones, 24 percent via TV, 11 percent via NOAA Weather Radio and eight percent each via broadcast radio, amateur “ham” radio or outdoor warning sirens.

Among those who never knew with certainty before the storm passed whether they were in the danger area, there was a tie for the top response on how they first learned of the warning; 26 percent each reported TV and outdoor warning siren. A fifth received initial word of the warning from someone they know and 17 percent received it via their mobile phones.

Performance of outdoor warning sirens

Locations of outdoor warning sirens in Allen County, Indiana, from map provided by the website of the Allen County Office of Homeland Security
Locations of outdoor warning sirens in Allen County, Indiana, from map provided by the website of the Allen County Office of Homeland Security. Yellow symbols indicate intermittently operating sirens. Red indicates a siren known to be inoperative.

Every operating outdoor warning siren in Allen County, including sirens miles southwest of the warning polygon, sounded shortly after the NWS issued the tornado warning.

Slightly more than 59 percent of respondents reported hearing an outdoor warning siren sometime during the hour of the warning, even if it wasn’t their initial warning source. Nearly 41 percent of respondents never heard an outdoor warning siren. The survey did not ask respondents whether they were outdoors at the time of the warning.

Respondents whose initial warning came from outdoor warning sirens were nearly evenly split with regard to their awareness of whether they were actually in the warned area. Slightly more than 24 percent reported knowing immediately, nearly 28 percent reported knowing within five minutes, nearly 21 percent said they knew within 10 minutes and nearly 28 percent indicated that they never knew with certainty before the storm passed whether they were in the warned area.

How soon respondents whose first waning came from an outdoor warning siren knew whether they were in the warned area.
How soon respondents whose first waning came from an outdoor warning siren knew whether they were in the warned area.

Of respondents who got their first notifications of the warning from outdoor warning sirens, more than three fourths were within the city limits of Fort Wayne at the time. Seven percent were in the city of New Haven and no more than four percent reported being in any other location within Allen County. The vast majority of the county’s outdoor warning sirens are located within Fort Wayne and New Haven. Approximately 71 percent of Allen County’s population resides in Fort Wayne and probably even more are employed in Fort Wayne.

People close to the warning

Only seven percent of respondents reported that at the time of the warning, they were in the city of Woodburn, the town of Leo-Cedarville or rural northeastern Allen County (in other words, in or near the warning polygon) at the time of the warning. Of those, the initial warning source was more evenly divided, with 25 percent each reporting mobile phone or television and nearly 17 percent each reporting NOAA Weather Radio, outdoor warning siren or amateur “ham” radio.

Only a third of these respondents reported ever hearing an outdoor warning siren, even if it wasn’t their initial warning source. Eight percent never knew with certainty before the storm passed whether they were in the warned area.

Conclusions

Readers should use caution drawing conclusions from these data, because the survey that generated them was informal, not scientific, and the number of respondents fell far short of the number required for a representative sample of people who were in Allen County at the time of the warning.

In terms of improving the tornado warning system, it would appear that steps to increase awareness of warned locations could be helpful. Outdoor warning sirens, of course, do not provide location information. For that reason, it’s surprising that some respondents who reported initially receiving the warning via outdoor warning sirens also reported knowing immediately whether they were in the warned area. Because Allen County activates all of its sirens for every warning, citizens cannot assume that their ability to hear a siren indicates that they are near the warning polygon, but it’s possible that some people do not realize this and that additional public education might be helpful.

Readers might be surprised that a number of respondents who initially received the warning via television were not immediately aware of whether they were in the warned area. If we assume the TV meteorologists who were on the air live at the time described the warned area, it is possible that those respondents initially learned of the warning not from live meteorologists, but from on-screen textual information.

Finally, it appears that a significant portion of people initially learned of the warning via their mobile phones. The time of day might have skewed those results, because many people were likely commuting at the time, and therefore away from TVs and weather radios. Also, commuters would have been more likely to hear outdoor warning sirens than would be people inside workplaces or homes. Still, it’s possible that the Wireless Emergency Alert system that’s enabled by default on all modern smartphones proved itself to be a valuable source of warning information.

Last night’s tornado warning demonstrates why sirens aren’t your best alert source

The tweet above from Valparaiso University meteorology student and Fort Wayne resident Matthew Hayes points out something a lot of Allen County, Indiana residents probably don’t know. The county’s outdoor warning siren system is all-or-nothing. That means that when a tornado warning covers any part of the county, sirens sound throughout the county, which encompasses 660 square miles (making it the largest county by area in the state).

That’s what happened at about 9:06 p.m. last night, when the northern Indiana office of the National Weather Service issued a tornado warning that included a small part of southwestern Allen County. A very small part:

tor_polygon
The Aug. 15, 2016 tornado warning included a tiny part of southwester Allen County, Indiana (the triangle indicated by the arrow.
Maps showing the complete tornado warning polygon, with and without radar data. At the time of the warning, the radar-indicated tornado was over the town of Andrews, west of Huntington, moving northeast at 25 mph.
Maps showing the complete tornado warning polygon, with and without radar data. At the time of the warning, the radar-indicated tornado was over the town of Andrews, west of Huntington, moving northeast at 25 mph. Click the image for a better view.

The Fort Wayne-Allen County Consolidated Communications Partnership center dutifully followed protocol and activated Allen County’s outdoor warning siren system. People throughout the county who were close enough to a siren would have heard it sound. Presumably, this  included people 26 miles away in Harlan, where the storm wasn’t forecast to travel. See a map of all Allen County’s sirens.  Remember, sirens are designed for outdoor alerting only, but people can sometimes hear them from inside their homes, if their homes are close enough to a siren.

Ironically, if anyone was in the small part of Allen County that the warning covered, it is unlikely they heard a siren. The nearest operating outdoor warning siren is at least four miles away, at the headquarters of the Southwest Allen County Fire Department on Indianapolis Road.

The outdoor warning siren nearest the warned area was at least four miles away, at the Southwest Allen County Fire Department station on Indianapolis Road.
The outdoor warning siren nearest the warned area was at least four miles away, at the Southwest Allen County Fire Department station on Indianapolis Road. Click the image to see a larger version.

So, last night’s tornado warning demonstrated two weaknesses of outdoor warning sirens as primary means of learning of such warnings:

  1. Outdoor warning sirens cannot be heard in many parts of Allen County, even by people who are outdoors.
  2. Sirens are often activated where warnings are not in effect.

What should you do? For geographic precision, your best bet is a good smartphone app, like Storm Shield or Weather Radio. These apps use your phone’s GPS to determine whether it is within the actual warning area. The next best thing is the Wireless Emergency Alerts that are built into  modern smartphones. As I explained in another blog post, the geographic precision of such alerts is imperfect, but it’s better than countywide, doesn’t require installing an app, and it’s “on” by default on modern smartphones.

When you’re home, weather alert radios provide very reliable alerts but have the disadvantage of alerting an entire county for any warning that includes any part of that county. At least weather radio alerts — unlike outdoor warning sirens — come with voice messages the explain what part of the county is affected.

The bottom line, as I’ve written before, is don’t rely on tornado sirens. Not hearing one does not mean you don’t need to take cover, because you might be in a place where it’s impossible to hear a siren. Hearing one does not necessarily mean you need to take cover, because your neighborhood siren might sound for a warning that doesn’t affect you. Find a better way to know if you are in danger!

Side note: Based on what I know about how the National Weather Service generates warnings, I highly suspect that the meteorologist who issued last night’s warning probably intended to keep the warning polygon out of Allen County entirely, but accidentally overshot the county line when drawing the warning polygon.

Your wind speed estimate is probably wrong

And the Beaufort wind force scale is flawed, says storm data researcher

As an avid kite flier, I’m often out in windy conditions. More than once, on a particularly windy day, I’ve guessed at the wind speed, only to be surprised when a handheld anemometer shows a speed as much as 10 mph lower than I guessed. It’s easy to think the wind is blowing stronger than it is. And a recent scientific study proves that.

“Storm reporters overestimated the speeds of wind gusts—on average, by about one third of the gusts’ actual speeds.”

The resulting paper, “Quantitative Assessment of Human Wind Speed Overestimation,” appears in the April, 2016 issue of the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology (JAMC). Its authors report that “storm reporters overestimated the speeds of wind gusts—on average, by about one third of the gusts’ actual speeds,” according to a report on the study in Eos . (Members of the American Meteorology Society may view the full text of the original, JAMC article.)

I learned in SKYWARN storm spotter training that if I don’t have an anemometer, I can estimate wind speeds based on what I see the wind doing, using the Beaufort wind scale as a reference. Supposedly, an estimate based on whether the wind is (for example) causing large tree branches to move (32 to 38 mph, according to the Beaufort scale) is more reliable than an estimate based on how the wind feels against my body.

That might be true, but Beaufort-based estimates are still unreliable, because the Beaufort scale is flawed, study lead author Paul Miller told Eos.

What’s a SKYWARN storm spotter to do? I’ve heard a National Weather Service (NWS) warning coordination meteorologist say many times that damage reports are much more valuable to NWS weather forecast offices than are wind speed estimates. Now that I know my wind speed estimates — even those based on the Beaufort scale — are probably wrong, here’s what I’ll send NWS instead; a detailed description of damage I see the wind doing.

I encourage my fellow storm spotters to likewise report wind damage, rather than estimated wind speeds.

Learn more about weather via podcasts

If you’re interested in learning more about weather and the weather enterprise – especially while driving, exercising or doing anything else when you might listen to music or an audio book – a number of weather-related podcasts might be worth your time.

A podcast is basically a radio talk show that you can play on a web browser or download to a portable device like a smartphone or mp3 player for playback at your convenience. Some smartphone apps will automatically download a podcast’s new episodes when they become available. Several interesting podcasts are devoted to weather and often cover topics related to severe weather. Below, I list a few I’ve listened to and found to be worth my time.

WeatherBrains

WeatherBrains is the granddaddy of weather podcasts. It has been producing a weekly panel discussion for more than 10 years. Led by well-known, Alabama TV meteorologist James Spann, the WeatherBrains panel includes other broadcast meteorologists and a National Weather Service meteorologist. The panel routinely invites guests who are experts on various weather-related topics. Find more information at www.weatherbrains.com or search for “WeatherBrains” on the Stitcher or iOS podcast app or on YouTube.

Tornado Talk

Two radio meteorologists who work for a company that provides audio weather services for radio stations created a weekly podcast called, “Tornado Talk.” Episodes have focused on a number of historic tornadoes as well as more recent outbreaks, like the one in Indiana and Ohio Aug. 24, 2016. Because this podcast is produced by radio professionals, it should be no surprise that the production quality is very high. Of all the podcasts to which I listen, “Tornado Talk” sounds the most like a documentary that you might hear on a public radio station. Learn more at www.tornadotalk.com. This podcast is also available on the iOS podcast app, Stitcher and Google Play.

Carolina Weather Group

Don’t let the title of this podcast fool you. It is not solely about weather in the Carolinas. Like WeatherBrains, this is a weekly panel discussion with several regular panelists. Panelists include two TV meteorologists, a commercial meteorologist, a storm spotter (who is also a ham, with call sign KD2AYM) and a college meteorology student. Like WeatherBrains, the Carolina Weather Group tackles a different weather-related topic every week, usually with a guest, and some episodes focus on severe weather. Learn more at www.carolinaweathergroup.com. Search for the Carolina Weather Group on YouTube and Google Play. I am not able to find recent episodes on the iOS  podcast app.

Weather Junkies

Two fairly recent graduates of the meteorology school at Pennsylvania State University host this weekly podcast. One is a TV meteorologist and the other is a graduate meteorology student. Like the other podcasts, the Weather Junkies invite a guest each week (often a fellow Penn State grad) to talk about a weather-related topic. Learn more at www.theweatherjunkies.com. Search for Weather Junkies on YouTube, SoundCloud, iOS podcast app, Stitcher and Podomatic .

Storm Front Freaks

This weather podcast launched in 2016. It is produced biweekly. Two of the regular panelists have meteorology degrees. Another is working on a degree. Others are storm spotters (like me) and storm chasers. Two of the panelists (also like me) are licensed amateur (ham) radio operators: Marc Johnson, KD0TCR and Mark Massaro, KD8RIS. Johnson’s bio indicates that he’s active with his local SKYWARN group. This podcast endeavors to be less technical than others and therefore more approachable to amateur weather enthusiasts. Like WeatherBrains, it includes a recorded educational segment. Learn more at www.stormfrontfreaks.com. This podcast is available on the iOS podcast app, Stitcher, Google Play and Tunein.

Weather Hype

Two graduate students joined the weather podcasting world in 2016 with this offering. Both have particular interests in social sciences and weather communication. They bill their program as “a podcast for casual weather conversation,” and an avenue to discuss important weather-related stories and educate listeners “in a very informal, unstructured way.” They occasionally involve a guest, but most episodes are just the two of them, presenting in a style that’s unique among the podcasts on this list. Learn more at www.weatherhypepodcast.com. Search for Weather Hype on Google Play and the iOS podcast app.

Half of Indiana has marginal risk of severe storms today

Indiana map showing (Left) Risk of severe weather between 9 a.m. EDT today and 8 a.m. EDT tomorrow. Dark green shading: Marginal risk. Light green: thunderstorms possible but none expected to be severe. (Center) Probability of damaging straight-line thunderstorm winds of 58 mph or stronger within 25 miles of any point. Brown: 5% (marginal risk). Unshaded: Less than 5%. (Right) Probability of hail of one inch diameter or larger within 25 miles of any point. Brown: 5% (marginal risk). Unshaded: Less than 5%. Source: SPC "Day 1 Convective Outlook" issued at 8:52 a.m. EDT.
(Left) Risk of severe weather between 9 a.m. EDT today and 8 a.m. EDT tomorrow. Dark green shading: Marginal risk. Light green: thunderstorms possible but none expected to be severe. (Center) Probability of damaging straight-line thunderstorm winds of 58 mph or stronger within 25 miles of any point. Brown: 5% (marginal risk). Unshaded: Less than 5%. (Right) Probability of hail of one inch or more in diameter within 25 miles of any point. Brown: 5% (marginal risk). Unshaded: Less than 5%. Source: SPC “Day 1 Convective Outlook” issued at 8:52 a.m. EDT. Click the image for a larger version.

Half of Indiana (shaded in dark green on the map, above-left) has a marginal risk of severe thunderstorms between 9 a.m. EDT today and 8 a.m. EDT tomorrow, according to the “Day 1 Convective Outlook” that the National Weather Service Storm Prediction Center (SPC) issued at 8:52 a.m.

The primary risks are damaging straight-line thunderstorm winds of 58 mph or stronger and hail of one inch or more in diameter. The probability of either occurring within 25 miles of any point in the slight risk area is five percent.

The normal wind probability for any May 12 is about two percent, according to climatology data from the National Severe Storms Laboratory. Today’s probability, therefore, is roughly twice the normal probability for this date.

The normal hail probability for any May 12 is about one percent, so today’s probability is roughly five times normal.

There’s no reason to be alarmed by a marginal risk, but if you live in that half of Indiana, it’s wise to remain weather-aware today, especially if you’ll be involved in any outdoor activities (e.g. baseball games, etc.). Remember that all thunderstorms, severe or not, bring lightning, which kills people who are outdoors.

The SPC plans to update its outlook for today by 12:30 p.m. EDT.

Slight risk of severe storms in Southern Indiana Tues. May 10

National Weather Service Storm Prediction Center Day 2 Convective Outlook Mapy for Indiana issued May 9, 2016 shows a slight risk of severe storms in extreme southern Indiana between 8 a.m. EDT May 10 and 8 a.m. EDT May 11, 2016Extreme southern Indiana (shaded in yellow on the map above) has a slight risk of severe storms tomorrow, according to the “Day 2 Convective Outlook” that the National Weather Service Storm Prediction Center issued early this morning. The slight risk area includes Vincennes, Jasper, Corydon and Evansville, among other communities.

A slight risk on a day-two outlook means a 15 percent probability of any one or more of the following types of severe weather occurring within 25 miles of any point between 8 a.m. EDT tomorrow and 8 a.m. EDT Wednesday:

  • Tornado
  • Damaging straight-line severe thunderstorm winds of 58 mph or stronger.
  • Large hail of one inch or more in diameter.

The normal probability of one or more of the above on May 10 is approximately three percent, according to climatology data from the National Severe Storms Laboratory. That means tomorrow’s probabilities in the slight risk area of Indiana are approximately three times what’s normal on May 10.

The SPC plans to update its outlook for tomorrow by 1:30 p.m. EDT.

ARRL HQ: No guidance on closed ARES nets

ARRL logoA staff member of the American Radio Relay League, the United States’ largest organization of amateur (ham) radio operators, says he is not aware of any “ARRL guidance to restrict participation in a net.”

Sean Kutzko, KX9X, media and public relations manager, responded April 23 to an inquiry this blog made of the League’s emergency preparedness manager April 12. I asked the questions below after learning of a newspaper article about a Texas Amateur Radio Emergency Service (ARES) net turning away a licensed amateur. ARES is a program of the ARRL.

  • Does the ARRL provide guidance to its ARES leaders regarding the restriction of participation in ARES nets (i.e. the operation of “closed” nets during which only certain amateurs are permitted to transmit)?
  • If so, what guidance does the ARRL provide on this matter?
  • Under what circumstances (if any) should a local ARES net be closed to all outsiders?
  • What legal authority (if any) does an ARES net control station have to bar any licensed amateur from checking in and/or participating?
  • By barring certain amateurs from participating, does an ARES net risk interfering with a licensed amateur’s ability to transmit an emergency message in violation of 97.101(c)?

Below is the verbatim response from the League’s PR guy:

“One of the cardinal rules of all facets of Amateur Radio is “listen, listen, listen.” If Amateurs can provide data of _legitimate_ value to a weather net that is responding to a weather situation, they should be able to do so.  That said, if an Amateur has nothing to contribute to such a net, the Amateur should remain silent to allow legitimate traffic to be passed.

“I’m not of aware of any ARRL guidance to restrict participation in a net. Amateurs should listen to the net control station for guidance on what information is needed, and remain silent if they cannot provide information that fulfills the requested need. Net control stations should listen to the request being made of participating stations, as bona fide emergency traffic takes priority and can come from anyone.”

Texas ARES official bans closed nets

North Texas ARRL section Twitter logoA high-level Texas official of the Amateur Radio Emergency Service (ARES) has created a policy that bars ARES groups under his purview from prohibiting the participation of any licensed amateur radio operator in their ARES nets.

As this blog explained in an earlier post, ARES is a program of the American Radio Relay League (ARRL), the national organization of ham radio operators. Regional, elected ARRL section managers appoint ARES leaders within their sections, including section emergency coordinators (SEC), who lead the program at a section level and district emergency coordinators (DEC), who lead it at a multi-county level.

Matthew Morris, K5ICR is SEC for the ARRL North Texas section, which is made up of dozens of counties, including Wichita County. As SEC, Morris has authority to create policy for all ARES organizations in his section.

When contacted by this blog via email, Morris wrote, “I’m not sure it was so much a revision of policy but just that we codified into policy what’s been a long-standing best practice for ARES.”

The newly codified policy includes two parts; a definitions section and the section below:

Section 1.02 Closed Nets Prohibited

(a) All ARES nets shall be open for participation by any licensed amateur. No net control station or ARES leadership acting in an official capacity shall prohibit the good faith participation of any licensed amateur.

(b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the establishment of minimum reporting criteria by a net control station or ARES leadership as appropriate to the situation at hand, so long as these criteria are not established intentionally or knowingly to prevent the participation of an amateur or group of amateurs.

Morris promulgated the policy after an article in a Texas newspaper described the Wichita County ARES net shooing off an amateur radio operator who attempted to check into the group’s severe weather net. On an audio recording of the net, one can hear net controller Jerry R. Stanford, KD5INN tell Australian storm chaser Daniel Shaw, VK2FSRV, “I do not want to hear you transmit on this frequency. We have a closed net.”

In a subsequent email to this blog, Charlie Byars, the DEC responsible for Wichita County (who the newspaper article quoted), confirmed that the Wichita County ARES did not permit outsiders to participate in its net, except to transmit emergency reports. It accomplished this by declaring the W5US repeater — on which the net operates — to be closed, with the blessing of the repeater’s owners. A closed repeater is one that only stations authorized by the repeater owner may use.

The North Texas section’s new policy prohibits the practice of conducting an ARES net on a closed repeater. The SEC has no authority, however, over storm spotter nets that are not affiliated with the ARES.

This blog sent email April 19 to the trustee of the Wichita Falls repeater that the Wichita County storm spotters use to ask, “Will the W5US repeater comply during future severe weather nets and end its policy of becoming a closed repeater during such nets?” If the trustee responds, I’ll update this article accordingly.

It is interesting to note that one day after Morris issued the section’s new ARES net policy, the Facebook page of the Wichita County ARES changed. The page title changed to “Wichita County SKYWARN” and the profile picture changed from the ARES logo to the SKYWARN logo. That same day, Justin Reed, NV8Q reported on a storm chaser Web forum that “As of today the Wichita County ARES group has renamed themselves to Wichita County Skywarn in order to get around the ‘open net’ requirement. So nothing has really changed here.”

Today, this blog reached out again to Byars via email, who replied, “As far as I know we are still ARES, and will stay that way.” Later the same day, the group’s Facebook page changed again. Its title became “Wichita County ARES / Skywarn” and its profile picture became the the ARES and SKYWARN logos side-by-side.

This blog congratulates Morris on his prompt action to implement best practices in section policy and encourages all ARRL sections to enact similar policies, if they do not already exist.

The editor of this blog leads a SKYWARN ham radio net in Indiana. A future post will discuss how that net operates and why all licensed radio amateurs are welcome and encouraged to participate fully in it.