Weather Research: Let's Get Realistic

One of the three new radar trucks NOAA is putting into the field for the 2026 Vortex Project. 

Please note NOAA's photo caption. 

So far in 2026, the meteorological community has been roiled by proposed cuts in atmospheric research as well as a proposal by the Trump Administration to disband the National Center for Atmospheric Research. We've written about these several times, the most recent article is here. 

Yesterday, a new research program ("Vortex 2026") was announced by the National Severe Storms Laboratory. They are going to put three trucks with multiple mobile radars in the field. They plan to study, in real-time, tornadoes and severe thunderstorms and...

Beyond tornadoes and thunderstorms, the new radars will also support research into other high-impact hazards. In wildfire situations, mobile radars can help monitor smoke plumes, fire-induced winds, and changing weather conditions that affect fire behavior and firefighter safety. During flash-flooding events, the new radars can pinpoint where the heaviest rain is falling in real time, helping communities prepare for sudden and life-threatening floods.

All of the above is fine. But consider:

"Vortex...is intended to help improve the quality of warnings from NOAA’s National Weather Service"

Oh, wait. The above quote is from a February, 2016, press release from NOAA pertaining that year's Vortex-SE which was going to put three radar trucks in the field and how the project was going to lead to more accurate tornado warnings. Unfortunately, the reverse has occurred: official Department of Commerce stats show tornado warnings are less accurate than they were 15 or 20 years ago! The warnings for the recent, fatal, Kankakee Tornado were poor.

So, the claims pertaining to this latest field research program should be taken with a grain of salt. We have been putting "Vortex" field programs out chasing tornadoes since 1994. The photo below was taken at Pampa, TX during a Vortex program on June 8, 1995.

Al Moller

Am I against research? No! Am I against Vortex research? Of course not! 

But my enthusiasm has waned a bit for these projects in recent years. In 2016? Three state-of-the-art radar trucks in the field. In 2026? Three state-of-the-art radar trucks in the field, etc., etc. Even the press releases read about the same. 

Something is clearly off. With all of these research problems promising to improve tornado warnings -- while warnings have become less accurate implies 2 + 2 not equalling 4. 

The 2016 Vortex program explicitly included research to improve the way tornado warnings are communicated. Yet today's tornado warnings read almost verbatim to those of 10 or 20 years ago (please assume the red type was black).

2007 Tornado Warning for Greensburg, Kansas:

2026 Tornado Warning for Kankakee, Illinois:

I have personally spoken with a number of social scientists who are critical of the way the National Weather Service (NWS) tornado warnings are worded. Two pointed out the length (wordiness) of the warnings as impediments. None believe the current warning wording and format are optimal. But nothing changes. 

We have NOAA funding the research projects but, evidently, not implementing the results. 

While not a panacea, the proposed National Disaster Review Board (NDRB) would would have the ability to give the atmospheric science community a "fresh set of eyes" regarding research as the members of the board would be applied scientists rather than theorists. It would also be able to publicly encourage NWS and NOAA to implement well-founded research results.