It's time to do away with severe thunderstorm warnings

[Dan Robinson]

After all, there are too many instances of them. People have grown accustomed to the warnings and don't pay attention any more. The load on forecasters is burdensome. People should hear the thunder and see the dark clouds and lightning, and know that they should take cover. They are responsible for their own safety - after all, they voluntarily chose to be outdoors where the hazard is known to be. SPS (special weather statements) are sufficient to cover this weather hazard.

Does that sound rediculous? Well, that is the way that the road icing hazard is being treated. 33 people have died in the US during the past 4 days. This morning, two children on their way to school in Kentucky were killed and their mother seriously hurt during an event that had no warnings, only an overnight SPS in effect.

I challenge any critic of a road ice warning product to come up with a real reason why a hazard that is directly responsible for more deaths than any convective threat does not deserve a warning product, while a severe thunderstorm - a hazard that kills a handful of people a year - gets the massive allocation of resources and manpower that it does.

 

[Mike Smith]

After all, there are too many instances of them. People have grown accustomed to the warnings and don't pay attention any more. The load on forecasters is burdensome. People should hear the thunder and see the dark clouds and lightning, and know that they should take cover. They are responsible for their own safety - after all, they voluntarily chose to be outdoors where the hazard is known to be. SPS (special weather statements) are sufficient to cover this weather hazard.

I challenge any critic of a road ice warning product to come up with a real reason why a hazard that is directly responsible for more deaths than any convective threat does not deserve a warning product, while a severe thunderstorm - a hazard that kills a handful of people a year - gets the massive allocation of resources and manpower that it does.

I'll take the challenge.

First of all, a severe thunderstorm is a purely meteorological event. Either a golfball-sized hailstone occurs or it does not.

A snowplow is a non-meteorological event. So is a sand truck. It is beyond the role of a meteorologist to proclaim a road "safe" or "unsafe." Our job is to forecast the weather.

And, yes, I think there are way too many severe thunderstorm warnings.

 

[Jason Bolt]

I agree with Mike, there are waaay to many severe thunderstorm warnings, but that would probably need another thread. About road ice, NWS broadcasts many products that are not strictly meteorological based. I've seen Civil Emergency Messages, Fire Warnings, and other special products that were really not meteorological in nature. I think there may be a possibility here to have a new winter weather related product titled Road Ice Warning or something similar. It is was PR'ed correctly where it was broadcast over FM radio drivers would likely hear the message and it could save lives. Worth considering...

 

[Mike Smith]

The NWS doesn't originate Civil Emergency Warnings.

While the analogy to fire warnings is interesting, there is no one in the forest spraying trees with water to lessen fire danger (i.e., spraying anti-ice solution on a roadway).

The other problem with the safe/unsafe road analysis is that all automobiles are not the same. A vehicle with new tires, antilock breaks and antiskid is far safer than a junker with bald tires.

 

[Dan Robinson]

I'll take the challenge.

First of all, a severe thunderstorm is a purely meteorological event. Either a golfball-sized hailstone occurs or it does not.

Our job is to forecast the weather.

A snowflake and supercooled raindrop are also 100% purely meteorological events.

Snowplows and salt trucks are not capabile of completely mitigating the hazard. They can't be everywhere at once, and are often not out at all during the more subtle events.

Those arguments just don't hold up, guys. Are 500 deaths a year acceptable? We can do better than this.

 

[Scott Weberpal]

Should this be an issue for the NWS, or an issue for you DOT? You can warn people all you can about a severe t-storm, but they'll still go out in it. You can warn people all you want about icy roads and they'll still drive. Signage in the immediate vicinity of problem areas is the only thing that might get people to pay attention.

 

[Dan Robinson]

You can warn people all you can about a severe t-storm, but they'll still go out in it. You can warn people all you want about icy roads and they'll still drive.

This is exactly the point. The question is why we have one but not the other. We will always have the 'ignorers' - the warnings are intended for the demographic who will listen. Otherwise, if warnings are totally useless, then we should push to have all of them discontinued. After all, we taxpayers pay for them. If they do no good, then the answer is let's just stop warning for anything.

 

[Patrick Martin]

Agree there are to many severe storm warnings, but for road conditions do we seriously believe a warning product is going to save lives? Are we going to replace one set of obvious wording for another?

I think there is already plenty of warning and indication for motorists regarding poor driving conditions on TV and radio, not to mention what should be obvious (like the fact it's cold) yet people persist in driving to fast for conditions. We all see it every time it snows or there is freezing rain. I personally would find it hard to believe that a warning product would change anything and see it as another means by which we get further and further away from people being accountable for their own actions.

Let's also not forget there are parts of this country where an icy road warning could exist for weeks, if not months. Would that really help?

 

[Dan Robinson]

Agree there are to many severe storm warnings, but for road conditions do we seriously believe a warning product is going to save lives? Are we going to replace one set of obvious wording for another?

I think there is already plenty of warning and indication for motorists regarding poor driving conditions on TV and radio, not to mention what should be obvious (like the fact it's cold) yet people persist in driving to fast for conditions. We all see it every time it snows or there is freezing rain. I personally would find it hard to believe that a warning product would change anything and see it as another means by which we get further and further away from people being accountable for their own actions.

Let's also not forget there are parts of this country where an icy road warning could exist for weeks, if not months. Would that really help?

Again - apply that same standard to the severe thunderstorm hazard, and there is no justification to keeping that watch/warning product active. That's the dichotomy I'm pointing out in my original statement.

In places where road ice typically persists for weeks, warning criteria would need to be regionally subjective just as it is for WSWs.

 

[David Wolfson]

I understand Dan's frustration. But I think it's more a question of jurisdictional roles and who has the best specific information. Here in AZ a severe thunderstorm warning alerts the general public surely, but more importantly the various agencies that assess and respond to the specific localized hazards the storm may cause, e.g. high-profile vehicle overturning, dust storms, flooding, frequent CG lightning, etc.

Unfortunately I see the road ice hazard this same way. The NWS does alert to conditions that favor icing. But following Dan's argument, the general public would quickly grow weary and inattentive to frequent, wide-area warnings that basically say, "Don't drive." Alas, transportation department operations nationwide are being heavily impacted by the bad economy. They're the ones -- together with public safety -- who know the local conditions and need to take the NWS information and apply it on the spot. They're the ones best equipped to be out there with the sand, signs, and flashing barricades.

 

[Dan Robinson]

The conditions where a road icing warning (RIW?) would be needed occur very infrequently. It would not be an everyday occurence. I have been researching this for over two years, watching events across the country. The deadly icing events are not common. They are the light snows that happen before rush hour. The light freezing drizzle or freezing rain events. South of an I-80 line is where most deaths are occuring, and most deaths are in the two or three serious events these regions see each season.

We are talking about a product that would need to be issued by any given CWA in the US maybe once or twice a week at the very most. On average, maybe one or twice a month! Criteria in the north would be different from the south to avoid repetition apathy issues, just as it is for WSWs and advisories.

Criteria would closely follow that of current winter products, only triggered by much lower precip amounts. I don't see the implementation and execution of a RIW as being a major undertaking.

 

[Patrick Martin]

Again - apply that same standard to the severe thunderstorm hazard, and there is no justification to keeping that watch/warning product active. That's the dichotomy I'm pointing out in my original statement..

I can understand the frustration and I do see the parallel. But you have to admit there are differences as well. Like David said, the warnings alert the public safety agencies, and to a lesser extent are acknowledged by the general public. And as mentioned previously, I think road conditions are the business of the DOT, and sky conditions are the matter of the NWS. Nothing wrong with both agencies working together to try and find a more effective way of educating the public, but a NWS alert is not going to reduce accidents or injuries IMO.

Think of it this way. The surgeon general warning on the side of a pack of cigarettes is not responsible for reduced smoking rates or dissuading people from smoking. Public education/campaigns is what makes that happen.

Edit: So you are essentially talking about a regional product for areas of the country that see infrequent icing conditions b/c in reality, the drivers just don't have the experience to deal with the adverse conditions and a product of some type would heighten their awareness?

 

[Chip Redmond]

I 100% agree Dan. I was just thinking about such a thing tonight when heading home from a church function. We got just a trace of snow in Ohio today, enough to put a cosmetic coating on everything including roadways around 11am. The snow quickly tapered off and moved on-but the ground was cold enough and most didn't completely melt. Instead the roads stayed wet and moist through the entirety of the day. When leaving tonight I overheard some people saying how they were glad it didn't snow much and it wasn't a bother and the road conditions hadn't deteriorated. I jumped on that and told them that it is, infact, not true. With the sun's setting the roads that were wet and damp would freeze over. This would permit the development for black ice in many areas and atop bridges. Walking through the parking lot they found a such patch as one of them nearly fell on their back.
People don't think about these things when the snow "has stopped" and "tapered off". They believe as with a thunderstorm or such, since it has moved on the threat has therefore been eliminated. Although its gone, the threat remains and can sometimes be even more dangerous, especially with the arrival of nighttime.
As mentioned, the conditions needed for a such warning can be changed for the region/area that it is located similar to winter storm warnings, etc. However, I feel these should be issued for such days as today, when people would think the threat has passed and conditions are safe. It should be the DOT's responsibility to take care of the roads-but it is also in the NWS's commitment/statement of purpose-"to save lives and property". A warning of such would do just that.

Just a few comments on the matter.

Chip

 

[Dan Robinson]

Edit: So you are essentially talking about a regional product for areas of the country that see infrequent icing conditions b/c in reality, the drivers just don't have the experience to deal with the adverse conditions and a product of some type would heighten their awareness?

Yes-exactly. That and activation during early and late season events in the north and in the mountain regions - any event that has an element of surprise.

The Midwest is the big hotspot for deaths, following roughly in between the I-80 and I-40 corridor from the Appalachians to the Plains. With the large percentage of those occuring in a dozen or so events during the 2008-2009 winter.

 

[Dan Robinson]

Like David said, the warnings alert the public safety agencies, and to a lesser extent are acknowledged by the general public.

This is true. However, the warning process involves a three-step chain: the official issuing entity (NWS), the communication channel (media, etc), and the end user (the public). The problem with the current system is that the advisories and statements "from the source" don't convey the level of threat to life and property. "Tornado warning" has an urgency that everyone understands. 'Advisory' or 'Statement' doesn't. That lack of grave urgency is reflected through all steps in the chain, and ultimately results in many people not taking the threat as seriously as they should.

I can't help but wonder if the mother and her two kids this morning in Kentucky would have done things differently if she had heard someone say that there was a weather hazard outside that could do the very thing it did. Road icing is treated more like a nuisance phenomenon than a potential killer, and this by all steps in the "chain of information". By starting at the source (the NWS) the gravity of the hazard has a way to propagate and filter down to the public consciousness.