The 2009 College of DuPage Severe Weather Symposium is now behind me, and in the light of it, it seems a bit weird to think that the day after, I headed over to my buddy Bill’s to watch the next episode of the Storm Chasers series on Discovery Channel. It feels like two different worlds, like boarding a bus in Grand Rapids and getting off on Mars. But the difference is superficial, a matter of editorial slant; the raw material remains the same, and however it gets spun on television, it’s nevertheless the stuff of research. In reality, people really, truly are going out there and surrounding supercells with an armada of mobile radars and other devices, including manned probe vehicles, all in the interest of collecting data that can increase our understanding of, in a nutshell, what makes tornadoes happen.

The conference featured some of the most knowledgeable and revered names in severe weather research, operational forecasting, and storm chasing: Eric Rasmussen. Chuck Doswell. Roger Edwards. Roger Wakimoto. Josh Wurman. The list goes on, but the point is, a lot of very knowledgeable heads were present in the Double Tree Hotel’s conference room this past week, and some of the insights they shared were fascinating.

Some of the coolest stuff didn’t even come out of the United States. Neil Taylor and Dave Carlsen of Environment Canada shared a photogrammetric analysis of the Elie, Manitoba, F5 tornado, and preliminary findings from the 2008 UNSTABLE team’s exploration of a well-known but hitherto unresearched dryline phenomenon in Alberta. The latter featured EC’s own mobile mesonet, complete with a Doppler-equipped airlplane.

Here are just a few, representative snapshots of the many other topical materials covered:

* Adam Houston talked about the effects of entrainment on unstable parcels, and suggested that the important issue for storm formation isn’t whether a parcel is merely unstable, but whether it is “supercritical”–i.e., possesses enough CAPE to overcome the effect of entrainment.

* Eric Rasmussen shared some of the prelimary findings of VORTEX2, describing the interaction of the RFD with horizontal vortex rings in tornadogenesis.

* Roger Edwards discussed the forecast funnel and the pros and cons of numerical models in operational forecasting.

* Al Pietrycha offered an operational forecasting perspective on non-mesocyclone tornadoes, and more specifically, on landspouts.

* For his dinner presentation Saturday night, Chuck Doswell gave an overview of the history of severe weather forecasting and research, and shared his outlook on things to come.

The shape of the future was in fact a topic of concern for a number of the speakers, notably Doswell and Edwards. Amid the influx of information from the research community on misocyclones, vorticity arches, moisture

convergence, and so on, those on the operational side focused on a more pragmatic matter: the widespread over-reliance on numerical models versus hand analysis.

Will forecast models replace human forecasters? According to Doswell and Edwards, yes, at least for most forecasting scenarios. Edwards emphasized that when it comes to severe weather events–the most difficult to forecast, and the costliest in terms of lives and property–humans will still play an important role. But both men deplored the degree to which forecasters have abdicated hand analysis to the models, which continue to make advances in accuracy at the expense of human development. In a word, the attention and the money are being invested in building better technology, not better forecasters.

Doswell’s message to meteorology students was blunt: either soak in as much information as possible, and commit to becoming experts at hand analysis and motivated self-educators, or else find a different career. Chuck, who is not known for being shy about sharing his viewpoints, wasn’t being nasty, just extremely forthright.

The mets from Environment Canada, Carlsen and Taylor, were clearly shocked to learn how dependent United States WFOs have become on forecast models. The Canadian meteorologists take hand analysis as a given part of their jobs, and couldn’t imagine not rolling up their sleeves and interacting with the surface and upper-level charts firsthand.

If there was a primary take-away value for me from this conference, I guess that’s it: the importance of getting my arms around hand analysis. Practically speaking, while I found the other material fascinating and enriching, much of it was not particularly applicable to my needs as a storm chaser. The first priority is to get to the right storms. Everything else falls into place from there.