Expanding warning times for tornadoes....

[Mike Smith]

I feel like if there were fewer, more accurate warnings, people would heed them. That's what I think the research should focus on.

The warnings are being heeded. The death rate from tornadoes (deaths per million population) has dropped 95% since the 1930s.

In your area, Jennifer, 203 white people (blacks were not included in tornado statistics in the South until the 1950s) were killed and 1,600 were injured in a single tornado that struck Gainesville in 1936. It is likely the total death toll in that tornado was more than 400!

The day before, a tornado struck Tupelo, MS and killed 216 white people.

Those numbers are unthinkable today. The warning system is the reason.

I really do not mean to be self-serving but I wrote Warnings, in part, to help inspire the next generation of scientists. In order to better chart the future, we need to understand what has worked and what has not worked in the past. Yes, the warning system can be improved but it is not in need of radical change.

But, when I am in a meeting in Norman enjoying my lunch and one of the scientists at my table proclaims the warning system a "failure" because 11 people died in the Greensburg event, I get very worried. That type of thinking could lead to degrading a system that works very, very well at low cost to society.

Please consider reading the book. It is written in story form and has gotten great reviews.

 

[Jennifer Palmer]

You make an excellent point, Mike! Things are much different (and better now) than they were then!

I just get very frustrated at the lack of care when severe weather events are happening in our area.

 

[Melissa Jablonski]

The warnings are being heeded. The death rate from tornadoes (deaths per million population) has dropped 95% since the 1930s.

In your area, Jennifer, 203 white people (blacks were not included in tornado statistics in the South until the 1950s) were killed and 1,600 were injured in a single tornado that struck Gainesville in 1936. It is likely the total death toll in that tornado was more than 400!

The day before, a tornado struck Tupelo, MS and killed 216 white people.

Those numbers are unthinkable today. The warning system is the reason.

I really do not mean to be self-serving but I wrote Warnings, in part, to help inspire the next generation of scientists. In order to better chart the future, we need to understand what has worked and what has not worked in the past. Yes, the warning system can be improved but it is not in need of radical change.

But, when I am in a meeting in Norman enjoying my lunch and one of the scientists at my table proclaims the warning system a "failure" because 11 people died in the Greensburg event, I get very worried. That type of thinking could lead to degrading a system that works very, very well at low cost to society.

Please consider reading the book. It is written in story form and has gotten great reviews.

I thought I'd throw this in the last tornado to kill 100 people in 1 town was in 1955. Flint Michigan was the town.

 

[Jeff House]

I have a couple points. First, regarding lead-time, I like the 10-20 minutes usually in practice. It is long enough for people to take shelter but not excessive. Points about excessive length are well covered above. Arrival times are often provided by local media, but I like the current NWS start times implied as "now." People need a sense of urgency to prepare during those 10-20 minutes; there is no cushion. Worked out well recently in Chattanooga, Tenn. An F2 ripped through town, but with no serious injuries.

Like to add that I still like sirens. They provide a good audible for the public if they are not 100% in tune with the wx. Of course the idea is for people to get to media to learn details; sirens are not a substitute for the warning. They are just an audible alert. Though designed as an outdoor audible, often they can be heard inside. It is a great way to save lives at night while people sleep. Sure, they should have a wx radio with an alarm. However, right or wrong, our society spends tax money (sirens in this case) to protect those who fail to protect themselves. I'm bullish sirens.

 

[Mark Sundquist]

I thought I'd throw this in the last tornado to kill 100 people in 1 town was in 1955. Flint Michigan was the town.

June 8, 1953 actually...known as the "Flint-Beecher" tornado...

 

[Chris Nuttall]

In the end, it's up to each individual to take action during a warning. If someone ignores a fire alarm in a building, doesn't evacuate, and is killed, it's not the fault of the fire department. Same thing goes with tornado warnings. There is also fighting the "it can never happen to me" mindset.

I'm all for fewer and more accurate tornado warnings. That would be fantastic. Unfortunately, our current remote sensing technology does not allow us to find tornadoes with 100% accuracy. I'd also like to reiterate that radar does not "see" or "detect" a tornado. All the radar sees is a target moving toward or away from it. As long we have to rely on interpretation of this data, I do not believe a 1.0 POD w/0.0 FAR is attainable.

I agree with you, Mike, that it is disheartening to hear those statements that the warning system is broken. It's been vastly improved just in the short 28 years that I've been alive thanks to newer technology and better information dissemination. As far as the people in Greensburg that were killed, I believe that is a poor example. That's using an outlier event (regarding tornado size/strength) and throwing out a blanket statement saying that 50 years of work is crap. Not exactly a good statistical study. I would be interested to those scientists' thoughts on what parts of the warning system are "broken" and their proposed solutions.

 

[Mike Smith]

I agree with you, Mike, that it is disheartening to hear those statements that the warning system is broken. It's been vastly improved just in the short 28 years that I've been alive thanks to newer technology and better information dissemination. As far as the people in Greensburg that were killed, I believe that is a poor example. That's using an outlier event (regarding tornado size/strength) and throwing out a blanket statement saying that 50 years of work is crap. Not exactly a good statistical study. I would be interested to those scientists' thoughts on what parts of the warning system are "broken" and their proposed solutions.

Chris, with the exception of a truck driver from California, all of the 8 other people killed in Greensburg (two others killed northeast by other tornadoes in the series) were in shelter. The problem is that tornadoes of F-5 strength can kill you even in your basement as this one did.

Going back to the lunch conversation, after I got over my shock I asked the question what he would replace the warning system with and the answer was "warn on forecast." As I previously stated in a different thread, while there may be a limited role for "warn on forecast" the idea of replacing the current warning system is, to me, a terribly dangerous one. There are few things as I scientist that I would guarantee, but a wholesale replacement of the current warning system with "warn on forecast" will cost additional lives.

 

[Greg Stumpf]

...but a wholesale replacement of the current warning system with "warn on forecast" will cost additional lives.

Would you have considered the change from county-based to storm-based warnings a replacement of the then-current warning system?

Not me. It was an enhancement. Just like the concepts of "threats in motion", adding probabilistic information, and extending warning durations are enhancements to the present warning system that have the ability to add value to the current warnings. Storm-based warning were designed to more accurately denote the areas under threat with smaller false alarm area.

BTW, to clarify, "warn on forecast" is a misnomer (and I wish it wasn't being called that). Warnings *are* forecasts, just on a short time scale. What really is the goal of WOF is to enhance the capability to more-accurately predict hazardous convective weather events on a short-time scale (0-2 hours) by incorporating numerical model guidance, versus the present mode of warning using detection and extrapolation. Although WOF is being touted as "increasing lead time", that too is misleading. Instead, the objective is to create more accurate warnings at longer forecast periods (fewer misses and fewer false alarms). Both of these measures are intrinsically coupled with lead time. For example, if a 60 minute forecast using numerical guidance is 50% more accurate that one using only extrapolation, then a 60 minute warning will have a higher certainty, and one can extend the duration of the warning with greater confidence that it will verify, resulting in greater lead time.

I'll reiterate from a previous post - extending warning durations must include the provision for time of arrival and departure information for all points downstream of the hazards, so that we don't have users "on guard" for 60 or more minutes waiting for the event. The "threats in motion" concept provides for that.

Finally - none of this is going anywhere without full vetting from social scientists!

 

[Mike Johnston]

Greg, can you provide an example of numerical models that are likely to provide an advantage over detection - given the current state of the art?

While I don't discount the possibilities of the future, don't we need to have a more advanced knowledge of tornadogenesis?

 

[Mike Smith]

Greg,

Smaller warnings within the current warning/no warning paradigm make sense -- polygon warnings had strong support from me since they required no additional education for the public. The warning simply got more specific.

WOF is a huge can of worms that I don't want to rehash here. It is completely different than the current system that took 50 years to get to work as well as it does.

You, I, and the other members of this board live and breathe this stuff. The vast majority of the public views warnings as a giant inconvenience but they tolerate them because they know they save lives. They don't want additional complexity. "Just tell me whether to go to the basement," I'm told.

Tell you what, I am giving a speech to the Winfield, KS Rotary Club next Wednesday over lunch. Why don't you come and we'll do an informal "focus group" and you can see for yourself?

Mike

 

[Chance Metz]

The more time the etter. It does not happen often but every now and then you have a tornado with no warning at all or aften the tornado has already lifted. It has happend where I have lived a few times. I understand that if you have a tornado on the ground for 30 seconds it is hard to issue a warning for it but it only takes 30 seconds for a disaster to happen.

 

[Bart_Comstock]

The more time the etter. It does not happen often but every now and then you have a tornado with no warning at all or aften the tornado has already lifted. It has happend where I have lived a few times. I understand that if you have a tornado on the ground for 30 seconds it is hard to issue a warning for it but it only takes 30 seconds for a disaster to happen.

There is a fine line between not enough time to prepare and getting out a warning too soon. The problem is that people are impatient creatures that will not just sit around in their shelter for prolonged times and wait. If you give the public too long they either try to evacuate, end up waisting their time trying to get things done that are not important before the tornado arrives, or simply loose their patience while waiting. All of those points have already been discussed so I would recommend reading back on the discussion that is already present to see an elaboration on what I said.

 

[Chance Metz]

We are creatures of habit. It is a lot like Chicken Little if a warning is issued and nothing happens then the next time people will ignore it. Then if something does happen they demand to know why there was no warning. Guess you can never please evrybody.

 

[rdale]

Tell you what, I am giving a speech to the Winfield, KS Rotary Club next Wednesday over lunch.

I'm going out on a limb here - but my guess is that crowd's average age is 75 and they're retired. With WOF, the only message they'll get is "go to the basement."

But for the guy who has workers in the field 40 miles from the parent storm, he doesn't have to wait for the storm to cross into his CWA and get 4 minutes of notice when he could have had a 30% chance of tornado alert 40 minutes ahead of time.

 

[rdale]

It is a lot like Chicken Little if a warning is issued and nothing happens then the next time people will ignore it.

I posted scientific research that shows your statement to be completely false. It also depends on who defines "nothing happened".