"Without Warning" Tornado News Teaser Spawns Twitter, Weather Geek Storm

This inaccuate NBC Nightly News teaser rightly
raised the hackles of many meteorologists. 

Yesterday, more tornadoes hit South Carolina and Georgia, a day after other twisters srruck Mississippi and Alabama.

Like most news organizations,  NBC Nightly News dutifully reported on these storms. They teased it with an image of an ugly big tornado with the words "Without Warning."

Here's the problem: The tornado that they pictured, and every tornado that struck the Southeast the past couple of days was preceded by a tornado warning from the National Weather Service.

The NWS did their job and warned everyone of the tornado danger to the best of their ability.  The proof is in the pudding: While there was widespread damage, nobody died in the tornadoes and there were only a few minor injuries.

Yeah,  many people saw the tornadoes coming and took cover. But the urgent National Weather Service tornado warnings also surely prompted people to seek shelter, and that saved lives.

The "without warning" news teaser on NBC raised my hackles, and that of a lot of other tornado watchers, weather geeks and people, like me, who have facts on their side and know the National Weather Service is not "always wrong" but almost always right.

Meteorologist Brandon Sullivan of Oklahoma City saw the NBC News "without warning" teaser and Tweeted, "Whom among my weather followers believe this to be true of yesterday's tornadoes?"

The answer: Not many.

But there was a lot of debate on how exercised we should get about what I believe is a misleading teaser and how we should respond to it.

In my view, the inaccurate "without warning" tornado teaser on NBC was largely about grabbing viewers and web hits. Search Engine Optimization, or SEO you understand.

I'm guessing that "without warning" is a way to grab eyeballs, viewers and web hits to the story.

I've been in journalism a long time. You want to grab readers. You want to get people to watch your reports, follow you. What's the point of producing news if nobody is paying attention to it?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with telling the story in a compelling, thoughtful way. In journalism, you must do that.

But you have to be accurate, though. The "without warning" teaser fails that test.

Which is too bad. I watched the actual complete NBC Nightly News segment on the tornadoes and storms and as far as I can tell he actual reporting was accurate. As you always want to do in journalism, NBC soundly captured the human element of the story by interviewing tornado victims.

Maybe the question is what do you mean by "without warning"

Operational meteorologist Matt Lanza in Houston Tweeted "'Without warning' can mean a lot of things beyond a forecast, but it's tough for us to accept that."

For instance, Lanza says, if you wake up tomorrow and your house is hit by a tornado, regardless of forecasts, the fact that your house was destroyed by the twister kind of came without warning, because a half hour before the tornado, you didn't know the home would be destroyed.

A bigger issue is how much of a lead time cancels out the meme that the tornado was without warning? You really can't issue a tornado warning for a very specific location unti you see signs of it on radar. Which means you only have a half hour lead time or less in most instances.

I don't think the public, or many in the news media, understand the scientific limits of how far in advance you can warn of dangerous weather, like tornadoes.

In this week's tornadoes, forecasters knew four or five days in advance that the area around Alabama faced the risk of twisters, but there was no way to tell which specific towns would be hit.

As Texas environmental scientist Tom Gill Tweeted: "Until we can tell them 'a tornado will hit 742 Evergreen Terrace at 1:56 p.m. Friday,' they'll say it was without warning."

The "without warning" meme you see in so many news media stories about extreme storms is also an annoying cliche. When you can't think of an interesting way to tell a news story under deadline, you resort to these tired old phrases.

This dilutes the accuracy of news media accounts of storms.

Which frustrates a lot of people, including Dr. Marshall Shepherd. He knows a lot about the intersection of weather forecasting and media, since, among many other things, he is a meteorologist, hosts The Weather Channel's "WxGeeks" show, and writes about weather and media for Forbes.

His Tweets about the NBC Nightly News report showed his, and our exasperation. Shepherd Tweeted:  "Major media, PLEASE refrain from Knee Jerk, 'Without Warning" stuff about tornadoes. It is Sloppy reporting. Weather community beyond that"

Shepherd also highlighted the sad irony behind the news media slavishly reporting on a rodent's  Groundog Day long term forecast for the rest of the winter while seemingly dismissing meteorologists' tornado warnings as inadequate.

One of the meteorologists who accurately warned the public in advance of the tornadoes this week is James Spann of Alabama, who sighed, "I am really getting tired of these nitwits."

If you really need convincing that meteorologists' warnings are actually quite good and save many lives, watch this video of Mike Smith discussing the issue at a recent American Meteorological Society gathering.

Smith cites example of example of how the National Weather Service, private weather companies like AccuWeather and television meteorologists have saved countless lives with their timely tornado warnings.

All this is not to say we let any meteorologist off the hook. If the National Weather Service, television or private meteorologists fall short, through incompetence, circumstances beyone their control or any other reason, we DO need to hold them accountable and find ways to improve forecasts and weather warnings.

In fact, I can think of several meteorological shortcomings that need to be addressed. Examples include short staffing and equipment failures at the National Weather Service, and social media weather enthusiasts who promote hysterical hype rather than fact based forecasts. 

I honestly don't know how we stop the news media from inaccurately portraying meteorologists as not providing warnings. I guess the only thing to do is, every time this sort of thing comes up, complain loudly but rationally to the media outlet in question.

Which is why I was so glad there was such a Twitter storm over NBC Nightly News' "no warning" bullcrap about this week's southeastern United States tornadoes.

I hope they're listening and taking this to heart.

Government Shutdown Could Affect Weather Forecasts

This is the message that greeted us on the
National Weather Service web site during
the 2013 government shutdown. It might be
about to happen again.  

The morons in Washington DC who want to shut down the federal government to score their elusive political points instead of serving their nation might even affect your weather forecasts.

By the way, if Congress Creatures and the grandstanders among them don't get their act together by September 30, there might be another government shutdown even stupider than the one in 2013.

Thanks Ted Cruz! 

Marshall Shepherd, writing in Forbes, says National Weather Service forecasts will go on, just as they did in the last government shutdown, but there are risks that things won't go smoothly.

For starters, we wouldn't have the great access to NWS products that we're used to, and there are a lot of 'em.

The last time we went through this ridiculousness, National Weather Service web sites were down, except for the parts that conveyed critical weather forecasts and updates during dangerous weather.

That was frustrating to say the least, because it's the go to place for all things weather.

True, there are private weather forecasters and other outlets, like the Weather Channel and AccuWeather, that do a fine job.

But Shepherd points out in Forbes that even these outfits depend on NWS and federal resources.

He writes: "Satellites monitoring the tropics for looming threat of hurricanes are federal assets. The dual-polarimetric, Doppler radar network watching for tornadic storms or flood-inducing rains are federal assets. The major weather models that provide day-to-day and long range forecasts are federal assetts.

I have often said, 'We wouldn't have french fries with the potato farmer, yet most people just see the french fries.'"

Many of the federal assets Shepherd describes would still run during a shutdown, but if something went wrong with them, maybe nobody would be around to  maintain them.

And what of morale among all federal employees, including NWS meteorologists?  Many would keep working while being promised to be paid eventually during a shutdown, but geez, talk about an employer - the federal government and Congress - disrespecting their employees!

I wonder how many talented NWS meteorologists would flee, leaving a weaker agency?

Shepherd takes an even handed, sober approach in his Forbes article, which is better than I can do.

I can't take that approach. So hey Congress Creatures: Stop your stupid politicizing and being big dicks and get to work!

Do your job!

Thanks for letting me rant.

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.

Science, Schmience: Two Depressing Stories This Week About Climate Change Response

A scary number of Americans think
global warming is not caused by
greenhouse gases, but "Biblical
end times."

The Washington Post today reported on a distressing poll that suggests that nearly half of Americans think climate change is at least in part due to "biblical end times" rather than us putting too much carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

With that many people thinking there's some mystical reason for climate change, rather than pretty much basic physics and meteorology, no wonder there is not much political will to do something about global warming.

There's probably a fair number of politicians who think it's "biblical end times" and not greenhouse gases causing the problem, so no wonder they're not doing anything.

Plus, other politicians don't want to offend their evangelical Christian constituencies with trivialities like science.

(Political contributions from the oil industry surely play a role in the politics, too, but that's another story.)

I admit I'm not clear on the math in this poll, as it says 62 percent say its humans causing climate change and 49 percent say it's biblical end times. It looks like some people think it's both.

I get it. Science doesn't have all the answers. You'd think, though, that people would want to at least listen to what scientists says, since their pretty much experts in their field and seem willing to share their knowledge.

But I guess it's easier to make up your own story. It's more comforting than hearing news that doesn't fit your world view.

Which brings us to the second distressing bit of news. It appears Republicans in Congress don't want scientists influencing Environmental Protection Agency rules that have to do with, um, science.

If Salon and other publications are interpreting this right, under this bill, scientists would not be able to share with Congress their own research with lawmakers:

Says Salon:

".....the bill forbids scientific experts from participating in 'advisory activities' that either directly or indirectly involve their own work. In case that wasn't clear, experts would be forbidden from sharing their expertise in their own research - the bizarre assumption, apparently, being that having conducted peer-reviewed studies on a topic would constitute a conflict of interest.

'In other words,' wrote Union of Concerned Scientists director Andrew A Rosenberg in an editorial for RollCall, 'academic scientists who know the most about a subject can't weigh in, but experts paid by corporations who want to block regulations can.'"

The legislation is presented by Republican as a bid for transparency. They say they don't want the federal Environmental Protection Agency to enact regulations unless Congress is presented with scientific studies backing up those regulations.

Which I guess would be fine, if they actually let the scientists present their information. But the bill seems to prevent that, or at least strongly discourage scientists from talking about their findings.

Oh, right! It's the industries that would be regulated who should write the rules. Scientists familiar with the issue shouldn't. That seems to be the "logic" here.

I guess education and rigor are totally passe. Mysticism and corporate lobbying, it's the American way!

I wonder what really is a bigger sign of the End Times: Global warming or the incompetence and venal wackiness of at least a good chunk of Congress.

W. Va. Congressman At It Again: Tries To Block Federal Agencies From Factoring in Climate Change

David McKinley is at it again.

David McKinley seems to
think if we pretend something
doesn't exist then, POOF! it's gone. 

 
He's the  U.S. Representative from West Virginia who proposed a measure that would    stop the Department of Defense from considering climate change while making its strategic plans.

After all, if climate change ultimately causes conflicts, refugee crises and unstable governments, why should the Department of Defense be ready for it? Who cares if such things threaten U.S. security?

As a March Pentagon report states, "poverty, environmental degradation, political instability and social tensions ... can enable terrorist activity and other forms of violence."

I guess if we pretend climate change doesn't exist, and that it would never cause any problems, we can just ignore it, right?

Now, McKinley has promoted a bill that would block two key U.S. government agencies from factoring climate change into their decisions, according to the Charleston, (W.Va) Gazette.

He seems to think that if he blocks U.S. agencies from gathering the facts about issues like climate change, the problem will go away.

McKinley's latest masterpiece would prohibit the U.S. Department of Energy and the Army Corps of Engineers from using funds to "design, implement, administer or carry out specified assessments regarding climate change."

He's continuing his rich tack of using fact-free political ideology to say government agencies shouldn't plan for climate change because that very idea is political ideology.

Don't believe me? I'll quote McKinley:  "With all the unrest around the (world) why should Congress divert funds from the mssion of our military and national security to support a political ideology?"

Yeah, like the sea level is rising a bit and the weather is getting more erratic because Mother Nature is a flaming liberal who wants to stick it to conservative Republicans.

Some conservatives say they're not scientists, so they won't try to understand what climate scientists are saying. I'm not a scientist, either, but when I don't know about something and need to find out, I go to the experts.

When I had a recent illness, I went to a doctor who specializes in the problem I had, and I'm much better now.  Had I pretended the illness didn't exist, I would have gotten sicker and sicker until my ailment was harder if not impossible to treat.

In other words, I consultant an expert. And no, there's not some grand conspiracy among climate scientists hoaxing us on climate change. If there were such a hoax, some loudmouth would have spilled the beans right now. (And, no offense to you scientists, but there's plenty of loudmouth scientists out there.)

Luckily, the Senate, at least in its current configuration, would never pass McKinley's measures so tey wil die.

And that's good, since the Department of Energy is heavily involved in dealing with climate change, says the Charleston Gazette article.

I'm sure much of McKinley's motivation is to protect the coal industry in West Virginia. I don't like to see coal miners lose their jobs, either. But maybe it's time to spend government time and energy re-training them for better, safer jobs and stop just making things up to suit your political viewpoint on climate change.

Of course, maybe if McKinley stops blowing hot air, global warming might slow a bit.