Activate sirens for SVR warning?

[John Farley]

The discussion on the 5/1 DISC thread is getting pretty far from the actual storms then, so I thought I would start a thread on activating the sirens.

A number of areas the last couple years in IL and eastern MO have been routinely activating the sirens for many, if not all, severe thunderstorm warnings. This does not seem like a good idea to me, as it will worsen the already prevalent "cry wolf" effect. Most SVR warnings are for 3/4 to 1 inch hail, or wind in the 60 mph range. I think it is good to warn people for such storms (though I might up the hail criteria to one inch), but if you activate the sirens for all of these warnings, it will get to the point where nobody pays attention. In areas of the country prone to strong thunderstorms, these kinds of events can happen fifteen or twenty times a year or more, and if you activate the sirens every time, people won't pay attention when the really life-threatening event occurs.

On the other hand, I do think that warning sirens are appropriate for more extreme events, such as 80-100 mph straight-line winds, or baseball or larger hail. Deaths and serious injuries do occur with such events, so in these cases I think it is appropriate to sound the sirens. But not every time a SVR warning is issued.

 

[Chris Lott]

I agree. Obviously all tornado warnings, but I think they should be used at night to alert people to approaching severe weather. Not everyone has a weather radio, and could be oblivious to what's coming there way. But not every severe weather event. I don't think 50 mph winds and nickel size hail call for sirens to be blown.

 

[Mike Peregrine]

One thing I see with the system is its disconnect from the way most lay people think ... it really isn't intuitive. People don't really know the difference between a watch and a warning, for example. Why? Because the two sound similar, and most people just don't pay attention enough to learn the difference. They lead lives. They are busy with the kids, with the job, going shopping, paying bills, doing all the things people do. So hearing there is a tornado watch or a tornado warning or a severe thunderstorm warning does not quite make sense to the way most ordinary people actually think out there.

The Department of Homeland Security implemented a threat level system, that while ignored much of the time these days, at least makes sense. The higher the threat to me, the higher up the level proceeds. When the threat really does go up, we are alerted and people can take precautions. Do I really want to take that trip to the Middle East this year? Maybe it can wait until the climate cools off over there a bit -

I think our system attempts to pigeon hole weather by forcing it to fit within a lot of specific criteria ... and that's pretty tough to do with something as enormous and dynamic as a spring sky in the plains. We say that when a storm reaches 57 mph and has the potential to produce penny size hail, then it becomes a threatening storm worth warning. This discounts a lot of smaller storms that may not reach that specific criteria, but could still take my life. On the other end of the spectrum, we will not issue a tornado warning unless a storm fits certain TVS signature criteria or there is a spotter verified report. This fails to consider all of those damaging thunderstorms that can and do produce tornadoes at times that we are always talking about.

I think we would be better off with a threat system that people can grasp. We take terminology and criteria for granted because we like weather and we learn about it ... what about the MILLIONS of people who live here to whom weather is not even a secondary consideration? We can blame them for not paying attention, but in a way I can kind of see why they don't.

 

[Dennis Sherrod]

I got many thoughts on this and have changed my view a few times trying to look at it from different perspectives. But, I think that they should be warned and the sirens, warning systems activated. I suppose most of us have seen where storms will change drastically in a matter of minutes or even mere seconds. They will go from strong, to severe, to tornado or visa versa. Sort of like the tornado I was watching yesterday dangerously close to hitting Carlisle, AR. I was on the phone with 911 telling them this tornado was on the ground about 1/2 - 1 mile from the western edge of town. Three minutes later it roped out, thankfully, right before clobbering the town. Not exactly the type of storms we are speaking of, but just to emphasize how quickly they can change. 45 seconds to 1-1/2 minutes later, it would have been hitting the town.

1. If they are not warned, people will scream, yell, and complain they didn't know and nobody is doing their job. They do it now, even when they are warned.

2. No matter what it is, there will always be people that are going to grow complacent with some things and ignore logic. My view is, if the people want to ignore the warnings, shame on them. The others, which I think are the majority, heed the warnings. A few minutes lost is a very small price to pay to stop and take precautions that may save yours or your family's lives.

I sort of look at it like, many people choose to ignore speed limits, other laws, eating habits, smoking, drinking to extreme, participating in extreme sports and hobbies. (chasing tornadoes) I would think they probably know the consequences of their actions, but that is their choice. Same thing with the warning systems.

I know before in similar threads, people have expressed opinions that differ on the warning system's use and type of warnings put out. Many have stated they get tired of certain warnings, turn off or unplug the radios, etc. Well, that is their choice and they are entitled to do so. This is just my opinion. A few minutes spent is very small compared to the possible consequences of doing nothing and getting whacked good from doing nothing and ignoring warnings.

 

[rdale]

I see what you're saying Mike, and I agree with the theory - I just don't think that it's workable with the public. There has to be a point where we either tell people 'this is going to be a bad storm, be careful' and 'your life is in danger, sound the sirens and go to shelter.'

Any storm that doesn't meet that second criteria will be ignore by Joe Public no matter how we redefine the categories.

 

[Chris Lott]

How do you set a threat level for severe weather? Tornado warning says it all for me. I believe no matter what you do alot of the public will continue to ignore these warnings.

 

[Danny Neal]

For one I think the help of the media and live streaming video by chasers, helicopters, whatever it may be, is a big plus and needs to continue to grow. I think that will probably hush the "it can't happen here" expression. Being able to see Tornado Warning and a live picture of a tornado or wall cloud. Does the general public know what a wall cloud is? I would doubt the majority do. BUT put pictures instead of just "take cover" it may have a positive effect. Is this a plausible idea that everyone will have this option? Of course not. But I think thats the first step to actually making the warning system able to be taken without a grain of salt. Start with major outlets and then move on. OKC does an excellent job of this and I would probably say that the majority tune in and heed warnings. Sirens or no sirens, new warning or no new warning.....it's up to the individual.

 

[Jeremy Lemanski]

correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't MSP use a "Very Severe thunderstorm warning" a couple years back for storms with confirmed 75mph winds and greater. I thought i read when those were issued, it would be the same as a tornado warning, I.E the sirens would be sounded.

It would make sense to have sirens sounded for storms producing confirmed winds of lets say 75mph and higher and hail two inches and greater, but how do we go about this i don't know. Like rob said, a threat level based system would be useless, because anything below the highest threat would be largely ignored by the public.

 

[rdale]

correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't MSP use a "Very Severe thunderstorm warning" a couple years back for storms with confirmed 75mph winds and greater.

Yes, but it was stopped. What I heard at the time was higher-ups did not like it, because it implied that "regular" SVR's weren't as bad.

Some offices get around that by adding "EAS ACTIVATION REQUESTED" to the SVR if if meets extreme criteria. EM's are being trained to recognize that as the phrase to use for sounding sirens too...

 

[Danny Neal]

Do you for-see an amendment to the current severe thunderstorm warning system?? For example, a couple years back, didn't they discontinue tornado warnings for landfall-ing hurricanes for an extreme wind warning? Not just landfall but more specifically the eye wall? While using that terminology for a strong bow-echo isn't called for, but something like a destructive wind warning? Something that would display on NWR and bottom crawls other than a severe thunderstorm warning. However that would pose a problem with hail and prolific lightning producers as well. Can't really say an extreme hail warning even though in some cases it is confirmed.

I think of the 8/23/07 severe line that produced intense damage across the KLOT area. There too were tornadoes in the line, but the majority was intense winds. The public probably takes one look at the sky to know if they are going to get hammered or not. Media coverage around here is never wall to wall. Sirens rarely sound, and when they do you usually see the gawkers out and about. No matter what things probably won't change, people have set their ways. I am sure terminology does save lives, I.E the famous "you need to be below ground to survive this storm" from 5/3/99. But really, outside of the maybe 15,000 involved with weather, does anyone really care?

Realize the threat ----> issue the warning ----> broadcast the warning and survival tips -----> ??????? What more can be done?

 

[Todd Friskey]

Just my own thoughts here...My community in SW MO also sounds the sirens if damaging wind (i.e. severe t-storm) has been reported and headed for the town. The majority of the homes do not have basements. Also there is a large elderly population. One time the sirens were going off and it was partly sunny over my head, but a couple miles east of my house a funnel was seen by law enforcement. Sirens are meant for people who are outside, thats what I am told. I guess my biggest complaint is our local TV weathermen, but that should be dedicated to another post.

 

[Jesse Risley]

No matter what we think, do or say, the decision will ultimately fall at the discretion of local emergency management agencies. Individual communities, counties and/or parishes can modify suggested procedures at their discretion. When I was a kid, my hometown of Streator, IL used to sound the sirens for severe warned storms. That practice suddenly ceased about twenty years ago. It created apathy and confusion, so the city caved and changed their procedures.

When the sirens are sounded for a TOR warning and the homes of the general public are left unscathed, they already seem to automatically assume that the warning was "another" false alarm. I believe that using this outdoor siren warning criteria for SVR storms will worsen this problem. I can understand choosing to activate sirens for very high end wind events, but even that can potentially cause problems in the long run.

 

[rdale]

I can understand choosing to activate sirens for very high end wind events, but even that can potentially cause problems in the long run.

Why? If straightline 100mph winds are coming in, those can be MORE damaging than an EF0 tornado... So you'd sound them for the 60mph tornado but NOT the 100mph straightline? I guess I don't see what problems there would be.

 

[Jesse Risley]

Why? If straightline 100mph winds are coming in, those can be MORE damaging than an EF0 tornado... So you'd sound them for the 60mph tornado but NOT the 100mph straightline? I guess I don't see what problems there would be.

I can see where it could eventually get abused, much like the recent debates over the TOR Emergency warning criteria. Sure, if you're going to have a policy recommending siren activation only when wind speeds are greater than a certain speed (let's say 80+ mph for example), then I say go for it. However, it shouldn't get to the point that every SVR warned storm possibly producing damaging winds blows the birds nests out of the local civil defense sirens.

 

[rdale]

Sure, if you're going to have a policy recommending siren activation only when wind speeds are greater than a certain speed (let's say 80+ mph for example), then I say go for it.

That's what we've done in this CWA (well, 75mph.) Any confirmed reports in that range, with radar indicating those numbers will be widespread, gets a siren.

And I see a few posts saying "so what, nothing will change?" Nothing will change if you do nothing. Get to know your EM. He may not know diddly about weather. He may be okay with that - or he may welcome someone willing to sit down and train on radar or discuss warning criteria or spotter usage or the like.

Change can happen. But not without trying.