Another Fatal, Poorly Warned Tornado

[Warren Faidley]

I wonder if current weather patterns producing fewer tornadoes is also contributing to the problem? Depending on shifts, it's conceivable a NWS meteorologist could only issue a tornado warning maybe once or twice a year, if even that.

 

[JamesCaruso]

@Mike Smith I was particularly interested in the images you posted in which the velocity couplet is outside of the warning polygon (post #17 in this thread). I noticed a couple of similar issues while chasing the tornadic supercell near Grady NM on May 24 of this year. I assumed it was just a RadarScope issue, causing the display of the polygon to not be timely, or properly synchronized with the radar.

In the first image below, the location cited in the warning is correct, but it lies in the extreme southwestern corner of the polygon. The warning puts the motion as southeast, yet that is not the way the polygon is oriented. With a southeast motion, the meso would almost immediately move out of the polygon.

The second image shows that, sure enough, the polygon is no longer encompassing the meso.

The third image is about an hour later. A new warning polygon, but again displaced from the meso.

I had been planning to pose a question about all this as a separate thread, but I thought it was appropriate to include it here, given your similar post #17 in this thread. I now think it truly could have been an error, not a RadarScope issue!

 

[Mike Smith]

Jim, I had been watching the Indiana storm in question. It was in the polygon and moved out. If they didn't want to continue that tornado warning, that's fine (I disagreed) but then the polygon should be cancelled.

With regard to the above image, let me convey a thought: While the public would have the meso discussion turned off, look at that. How is the public supposed to make sense of all of the overlapping polygons and lines? The NWS is supposed to cancel invalid warnings. Instead we get these messy images that, I contend, fail to communicate the location of the genuine threats.

 

[Mike Smith]

I wonder if current weather patterns producing fewer tornadoes is also contributing to the problem? Depending on shifts, it's conceivable a NWS meteorologist could only issue a tornado warning maybe once or twice a year, if even that.

Warren, that is an issue. However, I think training is the bigger issue. Consider that 2011 was tornado after tornado after tornado. Yet the numbers went down in 2012 (an above average year) after all of the experience gained the previous year.

That is one of the reasons WeatherData, Inc./AccuWeather Enterprise Solutions was so good. In addition to all of the training and testing, we were issuing warnings for the entire nation from one location with the same group of meteorologists.

But take a look at the accompanying image of the hook echo associated with the Joplin Tornado. How in the world did they get the idea it was Carl Junction that was threatened rather than JLN? Given all of the issues that we have discussed, what is to prevent another tornado causing 100+ fatalities in a city due -- in part -- to screwed up warnings?

We have to have a National Disaster Review Board.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Jim, I had been watching the Indiana storm in question. It was in the polygon and moved out. If they didn't want to continue that tornado warning, that's fine (I disagreed) but then the polygon should be cancelled.

With regard to the above image, let me convey a thought: While the public would have the meso discussion turned off, look at that. How is the public supposed to make sense of all of the overlapping polygons and lines? The NWS is supposed to cancel invalid warnings. Instead we get these messy images that, I contend, fail to communicate the location of the genuine threats.

Mike, it sounds like you are assuming that the warning was correct at one point, but then became invalid and wasn’t continued or properly cancelled. But I’m suggesting the problem is worse, because the warnings weren’t invalid. That storm in NM on 5/24 had a confirmed tornado, so the polygon should have been extended. I think it was in the wrong place to begin with, because that was the first polygon that appeared, and the meso was already in its southwest corner and moving out of it. In any case, it should have been extended as the storm moved south.

Then, in the third, later image, maybe the polygon shown had become invalid, but that should have been extended also. As I drove through Farwell, the inflow was quite strong, and sirens were blaring - so someone thought a tornado warning was needed, regardless of where the polygon was shown.

 

[Mike Smith]

Jim, thanks for elaborating.

This brings up an almost terrifying possibility: that there is/are a person(s) who don't know how to position polygons because they don't even understand the relative positioning of a tornado inside a supercell. Even I didn't believe it was that bad.

This also -- again -- brings up the question: what schools with degree programs in meteorology teaching their students these days?!

 

[Jason N]

This is a fascinating topic. Since I am not NWS employee, and am unsure of their SOP's, I have some curious Questions that I am spit balling here so bear with me.

1. What is the role of the forecaster in moving the polygon. is this all done Via AWIPS. on the Radar terminal itself?

2. Are WFO manning levels appropriate to support proper issuance and monitoring.

3. is there some way that to train AI Polygons to auto track Cells by using something like a continued 2TVS, (or some default TVS intensity level) coupled with SRV/Storm track motions & SW, CC, PTDS monitoring to issue/maintain or discontinue TOR warnings or is it too complex to manage.

4. How would the question above effect FAR? and is having a higher FAR really all that bad when in my view it's better to over notify than under notify?

5. is NWS Career Progression more important than the cost of a life? why are people afraid to call them out? (Inherent career Nepotism?), Fear of backlash making someone look bad? that statistic I saw about Warning Verification from 2011 should do that itself!


I would also concur that the Sensing Strategy probably needs to be looked at. because there are definitely some areas where there are a lot of gaps in coverage. especially when you consider that even our best radars really start to lose definition beyond 60NM. Which, I think that would be an interesting statistic alone, Verification of Radar indicated tornadoes inside 60NM, and 60-120NM.

 

[Jason N]

Another semi technical question I would posit. and hopefully worded right, but l'll keep it simple.

What's the possibility of issuing tornado warnings based on the mid and upper levels of a sensed storm (the EF2 and beyond kind). I would think there are markers like what the outflow strength, couplet rotation, Reflectivity holes to support the "risk" for storms beyond 60,80NM, and on that same line of thinking, is there any thought given to adding probability on the Polygon out beyond 60,80NM?, (I knowww-- probability). but say the radar senses, and this is hypothesis, 8 parameters of 8 needed to issue a ( Prob 90%) Tornado warning Vs say 5 of 8 Parameters to issue a TOR 63% Probability warning etc.

I've seen enough after actions reports about how the radar sensed the mid-upper levels of Tornadic storms, maybe there should be some more development on this front? maybe there has been? I'm not sure.

 

[Mike Smith]

Jason,

I'll take a shot at answers but there are people who may have more knowledge.

1. What is the role of the forecaster in moving the polygon. is this all done Via AWIPS. on the Radar terminal itself?
The NWS meteorologist makes the final warning decision and positions the polygons. That was done with a piece of software called WARNGEN but it may have been integrated info AWIPS-2.

2. Are WFO manning levels appropriate to support proper issuance and monitoring.
I think so, but current NWS employees would be better qualified to answer. There has been no cut in the number of employees as compared to 15 years ago.

3. is there some way that to train AI Polygons to auto track Cells by using something like a continued 2TVS, (or some default TVS intensity level) coupled with SRV/Storm track motions & SW, CC, PTDS monitoring to issue/maintain or discontinue TOR warnings or is it too complex to manage. Above my knowledge level.

4. How would the question above effect FAR? and is having a higher FAR really all that bad when in my view it's better to over notify than under notify? NWS issued a memo in 2013 urging offices to to try to limit false alarms. As the PoD dropped 14 points and the lead-time was nearly halved, the FAR dropped 2 points. I contend that drop was imperceptible to the public, while the PoD and LT decreases are costing lives..

5. is NWS Career Progression more important than the cost of a life? why are people afraid to call them out? (Inherent career Nepotism?), Fear of backlash making someone look bad? that statistic I saw about Warning Verification from 2011 should do that itself! You have hit on a vital point. NWS/NOAA are masters of public relations manipulation. They are on the 'right' side of the global warming debate. Most reporters are quite liberal so accept what government says unquestioningly. Finally, NWS/NOAA doles out a lot of money to researchers and academics, so they aren't going to say anything.

That is why I can't fix this alone. Please go to their websites and send a note to each member of your congressional delegation.

 

[Jason N]

4. How would the question above effect FAR? and is having a higher FAR really all that bad when in my view it's better to over notify than under notify? NWS issued a memo in 2013 urging offices to to try to limit false alarms. As the PoD dropped 14 points and the lead-time was nearly halved, the FAR dropped 2 points. I contend that drop was imperceptible to the public, while the PoD and LT decreases are costing lives..

This is interesting. See I could see an argument being made for say...warnings which effect operations of COR40 airports. Vs. notifying the regular populace of possible tornadoes. To me the general population probably needs to be over warned vs. under. it obviously has far reaching implications to make statements which can effect a persons day, over say, effecting billion dollar industries. That takes a different eye all together and I am unsure about the relationship between NWS WFO offices issuing Warnings over say AWC or even Major Airports, in general having their own requirements on ground stops due to storms and weather, surely there is a matrix for all of that as it applies to energy farms, and big business just the same I would guess. But that's the point, the general population isn't REALLY doing anything that important that a FAR for a tornado warning doesn't really do anything!....ok, you might get people to say, you're always wrong! cry wolf!.. but if a TOR warned storm dropped 3-4inch hail that's going to do just as much insurance damage to homes and cars and there wasn't a Tornado, what's to complain about!.. nothing. IMO.

 

[Mike Smith]

Another semi technical question I would posit. and hopefully worded right, but l'll keep it simple.

What's the possibility of issuing tornado warnings based on the mid and upper levels of a sensed storm (the EF2 and beyond kind). I would think there are markers like what the outflow strength, couplet rotation, Reflectivity holes to support the "risk" for storms beyond 60,80NM, and on that same line of thinking, is there any thought given to adding probability on the Polygon out beyond 60,80NM?, (I knowww-- probability). but say the radar senses, and this is hypothesis, 8 parameters of 8 needed to issue a ( Prob 90%) Tornado warning Vs say 5 of 8 Parameters to issue a TOR 63% Probability warning etc.

I've seen enough after actions reports about how the radar sensed the mid-upper levels of Tornadic storms, maybe there should be some more development on this front? maybe there has been? I'm not sure.

As to these questions: The key here is to remember that, during the period 2000-2010, the quality of NWS tornado warnings was much high than today's.

The radar data available to the NWS today is better than during the 2000-2010 period:

• WSR-88D's are dual polarized so they can sense lofted debris.
• WSR-88D's are now able to produce low-level scans as rapidly as 80 seconds. During the aughts, it was 240 seconds. More frequent radar data should translate into better lead-time, other factors equal.
• Additional radars at MLU and COU available to them.
• A network of C-band radars in western North Dakota is available to them.

So, the problem cannot be radar data.

With the above stipulated, the answers to your questions = "yes." A NWS/NSSL program called FACETS wants to create model + radar based probabilistic tornado warnings. I think it is a bad idea for many reasons.

In a bureaucracy, it is usually easier to change the subject than to fix basic issues.

 

[Mike Smith]

This is interesting. See I could see an argument being made for say...warnings which effect operations of COR40 airports. Vs. notifying the regular populace of possible tornadoes. To me the general population probably needs to be over warned vs. under. it obviously has far reaching implications to make statements which can effect a persons day, over say, effecting billion dollar industries. That takes a different eye all together and I am unsure about the relationship between NWS WFO offices issuing Warnings over say AWC or even Major Airports, in general having their own requirements on ground stops due to storms and weather, surely there is a matrix for all of that as it applies to energy farms, and big business just the same I would guess. But that's the point, the general population isn't REALLY doing anything that important that a FAR for a tornado warning doesn't really do anything!....ok, you might get people to say, you're always wrong! cry wolf!.. but if a TOR warned storm dropped 3-4inch hail that's going to do just as much insurance damage to homes and cars and there wasn't a Tornado, what's to complain about!.. nothing. IMO.

That is the purpose of private sector meteorology: to tailor forecasts and warnings to the specific requirements of individual clients. For example, in their own words, we made a huge difference when we took over forecasting and warning for KORD.

You are right, some level of false alarms -- given the state of the science -- for the public may actually be a good thing. However, we have avoidable situations with false alarms (the misplaced polygons we've been discussing) and those need to be stopped.

 

[Jason N]

5. is NWS Career Progression more important than the cost of a life? why are people afraid to call them out? (Inherent career Nepotism?), Fear of backlash making someone look bad? that statistic I saw about Warning Verification from 2011 should do that itself! You have hit on a vital point. NWS/NOAA are masters of public relations manipulation. They are on the 'right' side of the global warming debate. Most reporters are quite liberal so accept what government says unquestioningly. Finally, NWS/NOAA doles out a lot of money to researchers and academics, so they aren't going to say anything.

If that global warming debate stance is what they jump to every time because now they have enhanced the backing of the $$Feds$$ for favor of current national policy, and career path links to research grants are tant amount to becoming the Bishop and cardinal of Warming; well their priorities are all jacked up and this isn't a real surprise.

Second, you would think that if they are that serious about messaging and warming, then use their Argument against them. " The NWS needs to better its statistics and data coverage because Global Warming is killing more people due to tornadoes happening in poorer economic zones disproportionally over richer ones." So we need more Radars here, here, and here.

 

[Jason N]

You are right, some level of false alarms -- given the state of the science -- for the public may actually be a good thing. However, we have avoidable situations with false alarms (the misplaced polygons we've been discussing) and those need to be stopped.

100% agree

 

[Jason N]

As to these questions: The key here is to remember that, during the period 2000-2010, the quality of NWS tornado warnings was much high than today's.

The radar data available to the NWS today is better than during the 2000-2010 period:

• WSR-88D's are dual polarized so they can sense lofted debris.
• WSR-88D's are now able to produce low-level scans as rapidly as 80 seconds. During the aughts, it was 240 seconds. More frequent radar data should translate into better lead-time, other factors equal.
• Additional radars at MLU and COU available to them.
• A network of C-band radars in western North Dakota is available to them.

So, the problem cannot be radar data.

With the above stipulated, the answers to your questions = "yes." A NWS/NSSL program called FACETS wants to create model + radar based probabilistic tornado warnings. I think it is a bad idea for many reasons.

In a bureaucracy, it is usually easier to change the subject than to fix basic issues.

Thanks for the reply.. that makes total sense to me on your bullet points. We "the Air Force" have been testing new Portable Doppler radars with Phased Arrays that might be of some consideration to fill in the coverage gaps.

 

[Mike Smith]

Hi Everyone,

I spent a few minutes putting together some bullet points that, if you choose, can easily and quickly make to your congresspeople via their web sites.

• From 2000 to 2010, the National Weather Service (NWS) made tremendous progress in the field of tornado warnings. Warnings: The True Story of How Science Tamed the Weather: Mike Smith: 9781608320349: Amazon.com: Books
• Starting with the 2011 Joplin Tornado, which killed 161 people, the quality of the NWS’s tornado warnings has seriously deteriorated -- by 24%. See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2021/05/21/joplin-tornado-warning-improvement-nws/
• As three fatal events in the past 45 days have demonstrated, people are dying because of these warning issues.
• The reasons for the regression in the weather service’s warning program are not entirely clear. I urge Congress to investigate this issue.
• I believe the solution is for Congress to create a National Disaster Review Board modeled after the highly successful National Transportation Safety Board.

Yes, that is a link to my book. It is there in case some backup is needed as to the quality of tornado warnings in that era. Feel free to omit the link to the book and to edit these as you choose. I don't need credit.

 

[Matthew E Herbert]

It would seem that they have really gone too far with reducing the FAR. Earlier in the spring in St Louis a clearly rotating storm was not warned until the rotation was shown live on KTVI over the Valley Park area. It (thankfully) only produced an EF0 tornado over the Valley Park and Fenton areas of St Louis county. Just another example. St Louis County was slow to respond as well to that with warning siren activation taking almost six minutes but that is another issue separate from the subject at hand. We have so many ways to get people's attention that there has been a tornado warning issued including WEA, Nixle, Everbridge, radar apps that warn you if your location is on, media coverage with the latest software and multiple mets broadcasting, chasing, and working behind the scenes, and siren systems, that when properly equipped, can activate automatically based on polygon warnings without fear of a power failure. They are all useless though, if that warning is never issued. I hope this is addressed with the NWS.

 

[Jason N]

I was curious, The stats posted earlier from 2011 to now. I wonder, is it possible this could be tracked by State and WFO in terms of those offices with the consistent or egregious issues rather than the entire NWS.

Reason I ask is, if you or I go to congress and write a letter, they may say, why are you hitting me with this national problem, our state doesn't have an issue with this, we don't get many tornadoes here, or something like that.

National statistics aside, I just wonder if this messaging could be more targeted to specific states with the worst problems? However, I assume that getting that state/WFO level Warning data might not be easy to come by but, if there's a real issue with it, shouldn't it be targeted? why let the roaches crawl and hide. if people need to perform at a higher level or better trained or maybe its task saturation and a manpower study needs to be accomplished, then they need to know that.

Sure it should be messaged nationally, but I can tell you that a lot of times when a system wide message goes out for everyone to see, there are the enclaves that say quietly, "meh our stats are fine" and nothing changes.

Just pondering out loud here.

 

[Mike Smith]

Hi Jason,

It has happened again, this time involving another NWS office:
Fatal Texas Tornado Struck Without Warning

I haven't had time to look into it, but there are rumors there was a problem with the warnings for a fatal Indiana tornado on Sunday. I believe this is a national problem.

Are there some good offices out there? Likely, yes. But, with inadequate training, it is a matter of time until the "retirement cancer" hits them.

Mike

 

[JamesCaruso]

Hi Jason,

It has happened again, this time involving another NWS office:
Fatal Texas Tornado Struck Without Warning

I haven't had time to look into it, but there are rumors there was a problem with the warnings for a fatal Indiana tornado on Sunday. I believe this is a national problem.

Are there some good offices out there? Likely, yes. But, with inadequate training, it is a matter of time until the "retirement cancer" hits them.

Mike

Mike, that link goes to the May 13 TX incident, is that what you intended with the “it has happened again” lead-in?