NOAA's Trump Sycophants Even Worse Now. Meanwhile Scientists Stand Up For Science

After published reports that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross threatened
to fire NOAA employees who issued accurate forecasts that contradicted
Trump, I think this guy has gotta go.

An update to that awful story I wrote about a few days ago regarding NOAA's top brass throwing National Weather Service meteorologists under the bus for being accurate forecasters and contradicting King Trump.

According to the New York Times, scummy Commerce Secretary and Trump plaything Wilbur Ross threatened to fire meteorologists and others who contradicted Trump.

As commerce secretary, Ross oversees NOAA and by extention the National Weather Service.  

Apparently, accurate forecasts that warn people of danger are less important that massaging Trump's ego.

Ross denies the New York Times report.  But Ross his lied before, so I don't trust him.

If you don't recall what started thsi whole mess: A couple of Sundays ago, Trump mistakenly said that Alabama was in the path of dangerous Hurricane Dorian. There had been some forecasts that had suggested this could be the case several days earlier, but by the time Trump made his statement, Alabama was off the table. Forecasters knew that state was safe from Dorian.

The Birmingham, Alabams office of the National Weather Service issued a tweet saying that Trump got it wrong: Alabama was safe. These meteorologists did this to avoid unnecessary panic in the state.

This is how the Trump people think: The New York Times said a senior administration official who asked not to be identified accused the Birmingham meteorologists of issuing their correction tweet because they were motivated to embarass the president and not out of concern over safety.

Yep, everything is apparently about the president. Anyone who does anything either does it to help or hurt Trump, seems to be the thinking. There's supposedly no other motivation.

In its report, the New York Times said Ross phoned Neil Jacobs, the acting administrator of NOAA and ordered him to fix the agency's perceived contradiction of the president.

Meanwhile, fellow scientists are enthusiastically standing by the Birmingham NWS meteorlogists, which is a good thing. They're standing up for scientific accuracy and ethics. They're certainly not happy with Jacobs. There happens to be a major meteorology conference going on this week in Huntsville, Alabama, and Jacobs is scheduled to speak there today. That ought to be interesting!

At that conference in Huntsville on Monday, attendees gave the Birmingham meteorlogists a long standing ovation.

By the way, the New York Times article is definitely worth the read because it also summarizes how often Trump denies science to soothe his own ego.

As we've said here previously, this is very dangerous because the public needs to trust agencies like the National Weather Service to provide reliable, accurate, life-saving weather warnings.

Scientists within NOAA are fighting back.

NOAA"s acting chief scientist Craig McLean has said he will investigate why his supervisors at NOAA backed Trump's claim over its own forecasters.

In an email obtained by NBC News, McLean wrote that the unsigned NOAA statement that threw the Alabama meteorologists under the bus "inappropriately and incorrectly contracted the (National Weather Service) forecaster."

We hope this investigations sheds more light on this scandal.

Meanwhile, I know this won't happen, but if Ross had an ounce of dignity, which he doesn't, he'd resign.

TV Meteorologist Fired After On-Air Racial Slur: Fair Or Not?

Jeremy Kappell, a television meteorologist in Rochester, New York,
was fired after saying a racial slur on air. He says he flubbed his
words, but those who support his firing say he still shouldn't
have said it, and was not quick enough to apologize. 

Television meteorologists always have to contend with live TV. They risk embarrassing themselves with on air pratfalls, or screwing up their words, or the wrong image comes on. Anything can go wrong.

The meteorologist in this story said he just jumbled up his words on air in this story, but plenty of other people said it was more than that.

During an on-air weather forecast for WHEC in Rochester, New York, now former Chief Meteorologist Jeremy Kappell was showing a live shot of the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Park. Kappell appeared to call it the "Martin Luther Coon King Jr. Park," according to the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle. 

That "coon" is obviously a racial slur.  After pressure from local race leaders, which led to pressure from Rochester Mayor Lovely Warren and City Counci Presidet Loretta Scott to have Kappell fired, the television station did so.

Chapel said the whole thing is a misunderstanding, that he didn't mean to say "coon," but he stumbled over his words and what sounded like "coon" came out.

"That was not a word I said, I promise you that. If you did feel that it hurt you in any way, I sincerely apologize," Kappell said in a Facebook post. "Martin Luther King Jr. came out way too fast," he said, so the whole name got screwed up, and the word "coon" was accidentally inserted during the flub, he explained.

He's also mad at the television station for firing him. "I am extremely disappointed at the decisions made by my television station, who I expected a certain level of support from and I did not receive at all," Kappell said.

The people who run WHEC are having none of that. "We believe strongly in holding our reporters and anchors to the highest standard," said WHEC General Manager Richard A. Reingold about the firing.

The station followed up with a statement saying, "An utterance such as this, with no immediate apology, regardless of intent, is unacceptable an inexcusable."

There is an audio of what Kappell said about 3:10 into this commentary video, in which you can clearly hear him say "coon."

"For tomorrow, Martin Luther Coon - King Jr day is going to see temperatures in the low 60s......" was what came out. From there in the broadcast,  Kappell continued on with his forecast.

City officials, like Mayor Warren (who is black) said in a statement: "It is beyond unacceptable that this occurred. There must be real consequences for the news personality involved and also for the management team that failed to immediately apologize and address the slur."

On the other hand, some prominent black television news and weather personalities are coming to Kappell's defense.  NBC Today Show host Craig Melvin said, "Anyone who's done this, as long as we've done it on air, you flub, you make mistakes. It would seem as if the guy made a genuine mistake."

Longtime NBC meteorologist Al Roker said in a tweet that he thinks Kappell "made an unfortunate flub and should be given the chance to apologize. Anyone who has done live TV and screwed up understands."

Inside Edition said Wednesday there are two competing Change.org petitions concerning Kappell. At broadcast time, an "I stand behend Jeremy Kappell" had received more than 33,000 signatures. A competing Change.org petition called "Do Not rehire Jeremy Kappell after his racist words" had just 12 signatures.

I know that's not a scientific poll, of course.

Hindsight is 20/20, but I wonder if Kappell would have saved his job if he acknowledged right after his on-air fumble that he screwed up and apologized right there.

What do you think?

Tiff Between Storm Chaser and National Weather Service Raises Social Media Worries

Storm spotters and chasersare invaluable to help the National Weather
Service warn people of dangerous weather, but how
do they weed out non-credible sources, and how
do they encourage reputable spotters? 

Saturday, a weak tornado briefly touched down in the eastern Texas panhandle.

Compared to some tornadoes, this one wasn't much of a storm, as it didn't cause much damage in the rural area it hit.

However, there was a much bigger storm concerning this twister in the form of a social media tempest between a reputable storm chaser who saw the tornado and the Amarillo National Weather Service office, which didn't believe the report.

The dispute touched off a Twitter  storm among the storm chasing and meteorological community, though everybody, including the storm chaser and the Amarillo NWS office,  kissed and made up during the day Sunday.

But the dispute highlights the double edged sword that is storm reporting via social media.

Reputable storm chasers can be invaluable. They provide "ground truth," - observing what is actually going on in terms of severe storms and tornadoes, whether or not meteorologists are also picking up the action on radar.

However, the National Weather Service is also plagued by trolls - people who falsely report severe weather and tornadoes, trying to invoke panic or at least weather warnings, in spots where no threatening weather is actually occurring.

I guess that's fun, but what do I know about the mind of a troll?

The National Weather Service is loathe to pass along storm reports that might be false, because nobody wants to cause false panic, and nobody wants the National Weather Service crying wolf. That would mean people would dangerously ignore legitimate tornado or other weather warnings in the future.

On Saturday, storm chaser Dick McGowan spotted that relatively brief tornado in the eastern Texas panhandle.  Back at the National Weather Service office in Amarillo, the storm that wss producing the twister McGowan saw didn't look all that impressive on radar.

Certainly nothing that would produce a tornado, or so the Amarillo National Weather Service office meteorologists though. The NWS office dismissed McGowan's report.  The NWS responded to McGowan: "There are no storms where you are. This is NOT a valid report."

Meteorologists there apparently assumed it was an Internet troll at work, trying to stir up needless panic.

So no tornado warning.

It turns out McGowan was right. There was a tornado and he had a photograph to prove it.

McGowan is a reputable storm chaser,  (check out his Twitter feed) and has developed the expertise to parse whether any given storm is dangerous or not. The one he saw Saturday was dangerous, since it did produce a tornado.

Sometimes, a so-so looking storm will briefly organize into something that can produce a tornado, and all the fancy dancy Doppler radars and velocity analysis and doohickies don't pick up on this.

Apparently, the storm McGowan saw did just that.

That's why "ground truth" from actual observers is still important. 

The National Weather Service issued a mea culpa Sunday. The office released a statement (which you can see in full on the image in this post; click on it to make it bigger and easier to read.)

The statement said the National Weather Service in Amarillo values all the storm reports it receives and works hard to confirm the legitimacy to the report.

Amarillo also said this in the Facebook post:

"Unfortunately, many NWS offices have recently been the target of erroneous storm reports and this impacts our ability to discern questionable reports. We would like to extend an invitation to the storm chaser and spotter community to help us find a way that we can filter these reports, and to better handle storm reports that we may receive in the future in a timely manner."

Trained spotters can telephone National Weather Service offices directly, but of course cell service is iffy in rural areas, and in the middle of nasty storms, things get even more iffy in the cell phone department.

I would be very interested to see if there are any blanket proposals coming on how or whether the National Weather Service can accept social media storm reports, and whether they can be very quickly verified as legit or possible hoaxes.

Readers, if you have any ideas, sent them along.

Meanwhile, there were a couple tornadoes Saturday in eastern Texas that everybody immediately agreed actually occured.

One of them was captured on video by a motorist in Willis, Texas.  I love the reaction of the people in the car who happened upon the tornado, then followed it as it moved roughly in the direction they were driving:

Are Tenants Being Evicted For Complaining About A Locked Storm Shelter During Moore, OK Tornado?

Damage from Wednesday's tornado in Moore, Oklahoma
Residents of one senior housing complex
said they were locked out of a tornado shelter during the storm.  

A tornado that struck Moore, Oklahoma Wednesday continues to produce weird news.

First of all, as I previously noted, Moore has been repeatedly hit by tornadoes, including three monster, fatal ones in the past 16 years. There have been 12 tornadoes within Moore city limits since 1950.

The one that hit Moore Wednesday was weaker than those monsters, but it developed so quickly that there was no tornado warning in effect, even though local television stations were showing it sweep through town from their news helicopters.

Then, Accuweather set off a debate by saying how much better it is for warning about the tornado when the National Weather Service did, though people in Moore had no access to the Accuweather warnings unless they had previous paid for their services.

Now, television station KOCO in Oklahoma City brings us a disturbing story about a storm shelter that was locked when residents of a Moore senior living community tried to gain access to it as the tornado approached.

Says KOCO:

"When Tommie Grunhof and other seniors living on her side of the property rushed to one of the shelters, the door would not budge.

'It scared me half to death,' Grunhof said. 'I looked around at all the other people that were coming, the look on their faces, frightened and scared, and there were kids, too.'"

Luckily, the tornado bypassed the senior community, known as Langley Village.

However, there's no doubt the people trying to get into the shelter would have been in big danger had the tornado hit them. 

The storm ripped roofs from homes and businesses, overturned cars and hurled down power lines. At least 20 people were injured in Moore by the tornado.

Langely Village Manager Linda Minnick said a contractor had been told two months ago to make keys for all the residents that would get them into the storm shelter, but they keys were not ready in time for Wednesday's tornado.

That contractor should have made sure the keys were in the hands of residents immediately, and the managers at Langely Village should have REALLY pressured the contractor for those keys. (They were finally distributed on Thursday.)

Minnick also suggested that maybe the reason Grunhof and others couldn't get into the shelter was that somebody already made it in there, locked the door in a panic, thus not letting anybody in.

Grunhof rejects that argument. "Nobody is that cruel that they're going to go in and leave the rest of us out."

But here's the worst part, says KOCO:

"Grunhof and another resident who complained about the locked shelter, however, said they received termination letters.

'Grounds of terminating tenancy: Menacing or verbally or physically abusing the manager or other employees.'"

That's right. She and another person are being evicted. For complaining about no access to a tornado shelter.

The two under threat of termination probably were upset. Maybe yelled at Minnick or somebody else. But it was an upsetting situation. Evicting them seems a little extreme.

Maybe it's retaliation for telling their story to KOCO, I don't know.

I hope this is just a big misunderstanding. Stay tuned.

Are We "Weather Porn" Addicts? And Is That A Bad Thing?

There's nothing inherently wrong with viewing
images like this tornado in Moore, OK, but..... 

Lately, if you really want to create a storm in the meteorological  community, just bring up the term "weather porn."  

And this storm has nothing to do with wind, rain, snow or destruction. But maybe it does have a little to do with hot air.  Or not. You decide.

What precipitated (ha!) this latest kerfuffle among weather geeks was a recent article by David Bauder, a television writer for the Associated Press.

He noted that the evening news, and lots of other news sources are loaded up with weather stories.

This, Bauder seemed to argue, had as much to do with ratings as news value. After all, people are attracted to dramatic images of extreme weather. Weather porn, if you will.

I've always freely admitted that some of what I post on this here weather and climate blog thingy is weather porn.

Hey, I'm just as much a fan of weather porn as the next guy or gal, even as I know I also have a responsibility to offer sober stuff, non-hyped stuff, not sensationalism

I really don't see the harm in weather porn, at least in moderation.

What really drew a negative reaction, and I can see why, is a source for Bauder's story characterized ABC News meteorologist Ginger Zee as a "pornographer."

Here's news consultant Andrew Tyndall, quoted in Bauder's piece:

"If Ginger Zee reported in the role of climatologist rather than meteorologist, I would praise ABC's 'World News Tonight's' decision as a daring intervention into a crucial national and global debate.....Instead, she is more like a pornographer."

I, as a weather geek and journalist, and many outspoken meteorologists, have real problems with Tyndall's quote.

First of all, Ginger Zee has proven herself to be a highly capable, accurate and good meteorologist and journalist.

Also, implicit in the Tyndall quote is an assumption that maybe every news story that even touches on weather ought to be sounding alarms on global warming.

.....when we're done watching the dramatic tornado video,
it's time to help people like this. (Photo by Sue Ogrocki, AP)   

It's true journalists really have a duty to spread as much accurate information on climate change as possible.

But not every news story, not every weather story warrants an exhaustive examination of global warming.

If a storm is an immediate threat, if a tornado, hurricane, flood, blizzard, snow storm, ice storm, cold snap or heat wave is threatening a city, a region or a country, those potentially affected want to know what's up with this particular crisis. And how to protect themselves.

One the storm passes, that would be a good time to examine whether global warming had a role in the disaster or really bad weather.

Additionally, it's a necessary public service when people like Ginger Zee describe for us the implications and hazards of a storm or extreme weather.

That said, it's also true that TV networks and other media outlets love, LOVE showing footage of extreme weather. Frankly so do I.

I openly refer to wild, dramatic videos and photos of tornadoes, hurricanes and the like as "weather porn." People get off on it. I do, too.

Of course, this enthusiasm for "weather porn" gives me some serious pangs of guilt, and should for everyone who enjoys weather porn.

The people who were killed in that storm left behind grieving loved ones. The houses that were destroyed belonged to someone. The lives that were uprooted by the severe weather will never be the same.

I like to think our addiction to weather porn has a good side. That maybe it inspires us to help those who were victimized by dangerous weather. That it makes us lobby for better structural standards, and zoning to keep people from building in hazardous places.

I'd also like to think all these images of severe weather prompts us to become activists against climate change.

That's the hope, anyway.

The power of nature is thrilling, awe-inspiring, deadly, tragic and incredibly vivid.  I will continue to be a fan of weather porn, and I'm sure a lot of other people will, too.  

I just hope we don't sit back and do nothing once we've finished watching that video of an EF-5 tornado destroy a pleasant Great Plains small town.