Expanding warning times for tornadoes....

[Patrick Marsh]

Patrick,

Thank you for jumping in. Here are my comments...

It isn't the job of the NWS to worry about "an end user." That is the purview of the private sector. I want to emphasize this again: WeatherData (and many other commercial weather companies) has hospitals, aviation companies, cities worried about flash flood evacuations, and numerous sports venues as clients. During the recent NYC tornado, the Mets moved their early arriving fans into shelter based on our warning long before the NWS issued its first warning.

Because we work one-on-one with clients we can fashion solutions that meet each client's unique needs and we have been extremely successful in these endeavors. Given today's budgetary climate, I'm not sure why the Norman branch of NWS/NOAA/NSSL/OAR doesn't seem to realize or acknowledge that the private sector has complementary capabilities and the NWS does not need to duplicate them.

Greg said of the program, "It's not really an extension of warning lead times." If you go to the home page of http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/projects/wof/ you will find that extending lead times is the only goal mentioned. You say it is not NWS doing the work. The NWS is talked about on the home page and not NSSL/OAR. What the two of you are saying in this discussion is inconsistent with the official documentation.

The result is a confusing set of mixed messages that makes me wonder what this program is really about. The description that Greg gives is quite different than the one John Snow gives. I suggest that some thought be given to reworking the descriptions and messaging regarding WoF. That way, we all might be able to generate more light than heat on this topic.

I hope none of this comes across as harsh because I do not intend it that way.

Mike

Mike,

I appreciate your concerns and I'm glad to have this discussion. It underscores just how important it is to have good communication in the sciences.

Your opening paragraph is a perfect argument FOR WoF. The idea is that the WoF paradigm would have been able to give tornado probabilities (albeit low) well before a warning would have been issued. Your argument is that we shouldn't develop the WoF technologies because it competes with the private sector. That's not true. Development is different from implementation. If we develop all these technologies, for more than just warning purposes, it would be a shame if we didn't see what we could do to improve warnings. (This isn't going to happen overnight, and social scientists are a part of WoF to make sure this is done appropriately.) If WoF is such a threat to the private sector, send me an email offline and I'm more than happy to share ideas on how to turn a huge profit off this information. I'd be doing it myself if I 1) had finished my PhD and 2) had monetary resources to acquire the necessary computing power.

I also take umbrage at your singling out the Norman branch of NOAA to score brownie points. Take a look at the collaborators page on the link you've oft posted regarding WoF. There are a lot of different NOAA (and non-NOAA) players that are working on WoF. It isn't just Norman. You should know better than to take what comes across as a cheap shot. You keep focusing on the perceived competition between the public and private sectors. Why don't you ever discuss the good that can come out of this research? The improved data assimilation techniques, the improved observation networks, the improved numerical modeling? All of these are very beneficial to the private sector? Why do you only focus on the dissemination of probabilistic hazards information? (Now it isn't a warning so the current warning system remains untouched.) In some sense. all of what NSSL (and other weather-related government laboratories) does is geared toward "increasing lead-times". This ranges from improving model forecasts, improving radar technologies, improving verification datasets, etc? Does this mean we should stop doing all research altogether? That doesn't seem like a wise-idea, and wouldn't be good for the public/private weather enterprise partnerships?

You can't consider a web-page that is maintained by people outside the WoF process to be "offcial". The stuff on the website isn't geared toward people intimately involved in the weather enterprise. That's what the official publications and project plans are for. Go here: (http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/projects/wof/documents/) to see the "official documentation. Read the BAMS article by David Stensrud. You'll find several goals mentioned in the "Roadmap Foward" section. Better yet, read the "Warn-on-Forecast Project Plan", particularly section 4 titled "Project Priorities and Goals". You'll get even more concrete goals. Yes, WoF hopes the end goal is to improve warnings, but that doesn't mean it is the only goal. In fact, in official documents, that's a by-product, not a direct goal.

Lastly, it isn't fair to refer to comments by John Snow as official WoF positions. (You did it here, and I'm pretty sure you've done it before either via email or on a previous WoF thread.) He works for OU, not NOAA and is not involved in any of the research or decision making process. How would you like it if I made claims about WeatherData (true or false; good or bad) and people took those comments as the official stance? I'm certainly not affiliated with WeatherData, but I may have former students of mine working for you. Does that give me a license to speak officially on your behalf? Again, a person of your expertise should read the scientific documentation/publication, and debate that, not accept as "official" what a website states or unaffiliated person says.

Respectfully,
Patrick

 

[Greg Stumpf]

1. Huh? I'm talking about warnings where people should take cover in this discussion.

I define a warning as a decision point at which a user takes some necessary action. That action isn't necessarily "take cover". For example, who "takes cover" during a flash flood? It's the opposite.

I know you are probably thinking tornado/wind/hail/lightning. But even for those phenomena, there are actions that some folks may take to protect themselves from the hazard that don' necessarily require finding suitable cover. For example, if we can improve short-term tornado forecasts to a point at which our 2 hour forecasts are 80-90% accurate (yes, pie in the sky), then when a future "tornado warning" is issued, perhaps the suggested action for "public at large in their homes" will be to get in the car and drive out of the storm's path, with sufficient time between the action and the event.

2. Greg, if you go to the web site you linked to, there are numerous statements about increasing warning lead time. The very first sentence on the web site says,

Warn-on-Forecast is a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) research program tasked to increase tornado, severe thunderstorm, and flash flood warning lead times.

I know what the web site says about WoF and I know how the management is touting WoF. I'm merely trying to clarify what is really underneath those words in a way how *I* understand them, and I disagree with their choice of words - it doesn't accurately describe the goal....and please note my disclaimer on all ST posts.

I don't know how anyone would reasonably expect that this program is not about increasing warning lead times. I think that -- as stated above -- is bad idea. If the program is about something else, then I urge you and NSSL to reword the descriptions of the program on the web site.

I have nothing do to with the WoF program's web site, nor do I work for NSSL, so that won't help.

 

[Greg Stumpf]

Other than the target audience, how do they differ?

Market research is seeking out ways to expand a business' profit. Social science research is seeking out ways to understand human behavior.

There's always that fine line between determining what a user wants and what they need. Sometimes, it only takes some "educating" to show users what is *possible*, and then they may realize a need. For example, at a workshop I attended last year, when we presented the concept of digital probabilistic hazard grids, some of the EMs in the audience admitted that they had never even considered that concept, and now after being introduced to it, they could see a real use for it.

 

[rdale]

Imagine the response if you would have asked Joe Public this 10 years ago -- "Would you like to see polygon warnings replace county-based warnings for tornadoes?" Talk about hearing crickets chirp.

Yet even with all the struggles some offices have, it's still widely successful and nobody would suggest going back to the old way. Market research would have nipped this one a long time ago.

 

[Greg Stumpf]

Greg said of the program, "It's not really an extension of warning lead times." If you go to the home page of http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/projects/wof/ you will find that extending lead times is the only goal mentioned. You say it is not NWS doing the work. The NWS is talked about on the home page and not NSSL/OAR. What the two of you are saying in this discussion is inconsistent with the official documentation.

That is an NSSL page, so I don't see how you are drawing the conclusion that NWS is conducting the research.

Yes, I'm being inconsistent with the "official documentation", but that's because I don't agree with the wording being used. Again...my disclaimer.

 

[Mike Smith]

I also take umbrage at your singling out the Norman branch of NOAA to score brownie points... You should know better than to take what comes across as a cheap shot. You keep focusing on the perceived competition between the public and private sectors. Why don't you ever discuss the good that can come out of this research? The improved data assimilation techniques, the improved observation networks, the improved numerical modeling? All of these are very beneficial to the private sector? Why do you only focus on the dissemination of probabilistic hazards information? (Now it isn't a warning so the current warning system remains untouched.) In some sense. all of what NSSL (and other weather-related government laboratories) does is geared toward "increasing lead-times". This ranges from improving model forecasts, improving radar technologies, improving verification datasets, etc? Does this mean we should stop doing all research altogether? That doesn't seem like a wise-idea, and wouldn't be good for the public/private weather enterprise partnerships?

You can't consider a web-page that is maintained by people outside the WoF process to be "offcial". The stuff on the website isn't geared toward people intimately involved in the weather enterprise. That's what the official publications and project plans are for.

Go here: (http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/projects/wof/documents/) to see the "official documentation. Read the BAMS article by David Stensrud. You'll find several goals mentioned in the "Roadmap Foward" section. Better yet, read the "Warn-on-Forecast Project Plan", particularly section 4 titled "Project Priorities and Goals". You'll get even more concrete goals. Yes, WoF hopes the end goal is to improve warnings, but that doesn't mean it is the only goal. In fact, in official documents, that's a by-product, not a direct goal.

Lastly, it isn't fair to refer to comments by John Snow as official WoF positions. (You did it here, and I'm pretty sure you've done it before either via email or on a previous WoF thread.) He works for OU, not NOAA and is not involved in any of the research or decision making process. How would you like it if I made claims about WeatherData (true or false; good or bad) and people took those comments as the official stance? I'm certainly not affiliated with WeatherData, but I may have former students of mine working for you. Does that give me a license to speak officially on your behalf
Again, a person of your expertise should read the scientific documentation/publication, and debate that, not accept as "official" what a website states or unaffiliated person says.

Respectfully,
Patrick

Patrick,

I genuinely appreciate your response. Please let me assure you I never attempt to score cheap shots. This may be a "culture" difference. Let me explain..

1. John Snow. At the time he gave his presentation I referenced wasn't he the director of the "National Weather Center" of which NSSL/NWS/OAR are a part? Didn't he give the "keynote" address on this topic?

I think you are asking a lot for people who live nearly 200 miles from Norman to keep track of who speaks for who there. It seems to me there is a lot of overlap.

This is where the culture comes in. In the private sector, we don't have people not authorized to speak for us speaking on our behalf unless we have vetted their presentation. I think it is reasonable to assume that if John gives a talk as Director of the NWC then he speaks for the NWC.

Note: This is NOT a criticism of John. My intent is to point out there are a lot of mixed messages coming out of OUN on WoF.

2. Can't take the website maintained by people outside of WoF as official. Patrick, how are we supposed to know who maintains the site? Subsequent to your post, Greg posted:

I know what the web site says about WoF and I know how the management is touting WoF. I'm merely trying to clarify what is really underneath those words in a way how *I* understand them, and I disagree with their choice of words - it doesn't accurately describe the goal....and please note my disclaimer on all ST posts.

Again, there may be a culture issue here. Whether it is our web site, our "one pagers" or our brochures, they all say the same thing about our products and services. We go through a formal review process where all three affected managers have to sign off on a marketing document to insure that the messaging is correct. We would not consider asking a customer or potential customer to read our web site and then say, "now, that's not really correct, go look at an outside document to get the real story."

My point is that I am probably guilty of thinking that you operate under the same ways of doing business that we observe when in fact there are more "voices" in the public sector than the private sector. I'll try to keep that in mind going forward.

Finally, I want to address what I call the Norman culture issue. I am not attempting to score cheap shots but pointing out what I see as a genuine problem.

In September, the NWS senior management invited me to their meeting in Silver Spring. There was an excellent give and take about the respective roles of NWS and private sector. I was impressed at the high level of the discussion.

In the communications (formal and informal) with the folks in Norman there appears to be little realization the private sector exists and is a valuable complement to the meteorological community. From where I sit, there seems to be a lot of "reinventing the wheel" (not just with WoF). As a taxpayer, that concerns me.

With regard to the one other time you mentioned where you thought I made a cheap shot, let me refresh your memory: I said I thought the OUN NOAA people needed to get outside of NOAA and government more often and listen to other voices.

So, I made a sincere offer to go to a neutral location (Winfield) where I know no one (they were kind enough invite me based on what they had heard about my presentation) and let Greg (or you) hear the discussion for yourself and participate. The offer was declined. That's fine, but you or Greg might have gotten a perspective that can't be obtained by talking with a large group of colleagues. The offer still stands. If one or both of you changes your mind, I'll buy you a soft drink after and we can discuss what we have heard.

I have no doubt that if I only listened to my very talented colleagues at WeatherData and AccuWeather, I would have a different perspective than what our clients and the public think. That is why I spend so much time outside the office meeting with clients and the public and the time is very well worth it.

I hope this clarifies my intent. I have nothing but respect for NOAA and everyone in Norman. That does not mean NOAA cannot gain from additional perspectives and that is what I am trying to achieve.

Mike

 

[Mike Smith]

Imagine the response if you would have asked Joe Public this 10 years ago -- "Would you like to see polygon warnings replace county-based warnings for tornadoes?" Talk about hearing crickets chirp.

Market research would have nipped this one a long time ago.

Rob,

Depends on whether the market research was conducted properly. If the question had been asked, "How would you like fewer storm warnings but the ones you still get remain at the same level of accuracy?" virtually 100% of the population would have said yes. From the PoV of the public, that is all that needed to be asked because they didn't have to do anything or change their behavior with regard to the warnings (i.e. a tornado warning for their neighborhood still means the sirens go off and go to the basement).

Mike

 

[Greg Stumpf]

Again, there may be a culture issue here. Whether it is our web site, our "one pagers" or our brochures, they all say the same thing about our products and services. We go through a formal review process where all three affected managers have to sign off on a marketing document to insure that the messaging is correct. We would not consider asking a customer or potential customer to read our web site and then say, "now, that's not really correct, go look at an outside document to get the real story."

The point I've been trying to make is that I am not officially connected to the "marketing" of the WoF concept. If I were, then I might come up with different words.

BTW - I have voiced my concerns to NSSL management, but that's where it ended. I guess to them (the "official marketers" of WoF), they feel the wording is appropriate. So instead of arguing about it, I'm trying to enlighten folks on this list beyond the printed words.

In the communications (formal and informal) with the folks in Norman there appears to be little realization the private sector exists and is a valuable complement to the meteorological community. From where I sit, there seems to be a lot of "reinventing the wheel" (not just with WoF). As a taxpayer, that concerns me.

...as I glance out my window at the buildings housing the U.S. headquarters of Weather Decision Technologies and WeatherNews Incorporated...

Is WoF reinventing the wheel? Do these capabilities already exist in the private sector? If so, how are they managing to cover the enormous cost of resources and research to cover a profit? According to the WoF research, they're still many years away from the technological capabilities to run these storm-scale models affordably in real-time.

 

[Mike Gibson]

I'll toss in a comment as a "private sector" person: GRS is 100% in favor of this effort and would actually recommend speeding up development. Start with somewhat longer timeframes than warnings, see how that develops and perform fine tuning, then squeeze down the timeframe and increase resolution to the warning scale.

Keep up the good work.

Mike

 

[Mike Johnston]

Imagine the response if you would have asked Joe Public this 10 years ago -- "Would you like to see polygon warnings replace county-based warnings for tornadoes?" Talk about hearing crickets chirp.

Yet even with all the struggles some offices have, it's still widely successful and nobody would suggest going back to the old way. Market research would have nipped this one a long time ago.

Oh, I'm not so sure about that. When the polygons were introduced (2005 IIRC), I remember learning about it at a spotter training in Independence, MO (KC suburb.) I came home and even made a post about it here on the forum. It seemed to just be a logical, common sense enhancement. After all, the path of a storm doesn't heed man-made political boundaries. There was nothing controversial about it at all 5 years ago, and there's really no intervening reason to believe it would have been controversial 5 years before that.

 

[rdale]

Mike - you aren't Joe

 

[Melissa Jablonski]

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

Thanks for the correction. Sorry about the wrong year.

 

[Patrick Marsh]

1. John Snow. At the time he gave his presentation I referenced wasn't he the director of the "National Weather Center" of which NSSL/NWS/OAR are a part? Didn't he give the "keynote" address on this topic?

I'll respond more fully tomorrow, but I did want to make this clarification.

John Snow was never the Director of the National Weather Center. He was Dean of the College of Atmospheric and Geographic Sciences, which was tasked with running the National Weather Center building. The title "Director of the National Weather Center" was given to the new dean (Berrien Moore III), but was not a part of the previous dean's titles.

 

[Mike Johnston]

Mike - you aren't Joe

True, but my wife is a Jane (at least when it comes to things like the weather.) And I can envision her response if she recieved a "warning" that was worded: there is a 20% chance of a tornado in your area during the period ranging from 85 to 105 minutes from now. She would probably go shopping! Why? Because the 20% probability would be below her personal threshold of concern. Where did this come from? Like most of us, she has dealt with probabilities of precipitation her whole life. And she tells me that anytime it is less than 40% "around here", it never rains! So, she would apply her own personal rule of thumb, and behave accordingly.

As a previous poster said, the polygons don't really require the user to do anything differently. (If I asked my wife today whether warnings are based upon county lines or polygons, she wouldn't know or care.) It's just a refinement, and keeps the onus of the warning decision strictly with the forecaster. Frankly, I think "off loading" the warning decision to the citizen by using probability forecasts is kind a cop out - certainly not in the spirit of Fawbush and Miller. What we need to improve is the accuracy of the warning and this will come about through advancement of the science, namely understanding tornadogenesis better.

 

[rdale]

And I can envision her response if she recieved a "warning" that was worded: there is a 20% chance of a tornado in your area during the period ranging from 85 to 105 minutes from now.

I don't meant to be rude - but have you been reading this thread? There is no chance that your wife would ever get that sort of information unless she specifically dug into the data to get it. She'd still get her warning information from hearing the sirens or getting a text message from the local TV station or seeing a crawl on the screen. There is 0% chance of her seeing percentages.