Ever wonder how often weather forecasters make mistakes? Bill Sloat and Keith Epstein of Cleveland's The Plain Dealer did after a flood in Shadyside, Ohio, killed 26 people in June. The National Weather Service issued no warning after the heavy rains. "They said the radar could not spot this kind of storm," Sloat said. "I found it odd that in 1990 that we would not be able to issue a radar warning." After asking a few questions, the team started searching through individual disaster reports.
They discovered that the weather service kept records of everything they did. Sloat said computers played an integral part in making the data available. "The story would have been impossible without the computer era because of the way the government examines itself and stores information," he said. With the help of some key sources, they were able to determine the nation's best and worst weather service stations based on the accuracy of issuing warnings for severe storms, tornadoes and floods.
"The National Weather Service - meant 'to provide weather and flood warnings for the protection of life and property' - fails to warn of most of the savage weather that each year claims more than 400 lives and accounts for more than $6 billion in losses," they wrote in the first of a four-day series that began Dec. 2. "You can get all kinds of information if you want to examine the offices in your area," Epstein said.
The weatherservice, for example, keeps data on every forecast made by every person in the bureau. Although Epstein and Sloat did not do the tape analysis themselves, they said the weather service will sell tapes for $60. They discovered that "the weather service misses more than two-thirds of all tornadoes, more than three-fifths of all flash floods and 40 percent of severe thunderstorms. Severe storms strike without warning more than 4,000 times each year and without even a preliminary 'watch' 5,000 times." The pair agreed the most difficult part was deciphering the formulas and acronyms.
"They have scores for their forecasts that are measured somewhat like a batting average," Epstein said. "One of the keys with any government agency is to cut through the gobbledegook and find meaning," Epstein said. "The computer can cover more ground and makes it easier to look at subsets of information." Crunching numbers was necessary to rank the top and bottom 15 weather service offices for accuracy in issuing warnings during a three-year period, but Sloat said the pair also relied heavily on old-fashioned reporting and did some data analysis by hand.
"I don't like computers very much," Sloat said. "I still like to use paper, pencils and a calculator." Epstein and Sloat suggested that reporters interested in similar stories should look for available databases. "Use your imagination," Epstein said. "There's all kinds of data out there. I never really thought all of this information would be there. This (computer databases) is a burgeoning area for journalists." Epstein said reporters should find out what data is available and then get beneath the acronyms and formulas to find some meaning.
People are what make the news, regardless of how significant the numbers are, Epstein stressed. "It's good to remember that sometimes you can get lost in facts, names and conclusions," Epstein said. "You need to give your information meaning and find out why something is happening. You have to get people in the story. That's what makes the numbers what they are." For Sloat and Epstein, it was the people - both those who controlled the issuance of warnings and those who saw the effects of their work - who were the victims or survivors of the natural disasters.