It's time to do away with severe thunderstorm warnings

[Randall Marable]

When I saw the title of this thread I thought it was a severe weather warning discussion, so I didn't know it was continuation of the freezing rain thread. Had I known this, I would have just posted this...http://www.stormtrack.org/forum/showthread.php?t=19030&page=13 here instead. I'll add more to this discussion later on tonight.

 

[Mike Umscheid]

** Comments DO NOT necessarily reflect official views, products, policy of the NWS agency **

This is an interesting topic. It is a sticky topic. It is a topic that is not easy to deal with. I applaud Dan for his passion on this particular issue, and his data certainly argues that it is an issue. The difficult task is how to deal with this problem. I am not entirely sure Dan's approach of introducing an Ice Road Warning is the appropriate measure. Here is why I believe this, as well as why I believe the NWS agency as a whole believes this:

Voluntary vs. Involuntary deaths.

The NWS does NOT *officially* recognize automobile accident deaths. You will not see them in StormData publications, which is why Dan's research is commendable because he has to gather this data from news sources. Until the NWS recognizes automobile accidents as an *INVOLUNTARY* death attributed directly to the meteorological hazard, then Dan's push of implementing a NWS product Ice Road Warning will be a loooong uphill struggle. NWS *must* first recognize these deaths as *INVOLUNTARY* direct weather related incidents.

Here is the problem that Dan faces. Driving is a VOLUNTARY activity. Driving must be done on roads... of which a very large percentage of them are paved. Driving is also a privilege, not a right.

from dictionary.com
VOLUNTARY: done, made, brought about, undertaken, etc., of one's own accord or by free choice: a voluntary contribution.

INVOLUNTARY: not voluntary; independent of one's will; not by one's own choice: an involuntary listener; involuntary servitude.

Icy roads, in my mind, and also in the mind of the NWS agency, is an INDIRECT hazard brought upon by certain meteorological conditions. It is not a DIRECT meteorological hazard. The NWS agency is in the business of warning the public of DIRECT meteorological hazards.

To illustrate this point a little bit better... let us step back in time in the United States... say 10,000 years. There were still tornadoes, hurricanes, first-freezes, 1" diameter hail, 60 mph straight line winds... and rivers even flash-flooded. The NWS issues warning products for all of these *meteorological hazards*. Ask yourself this: How many roads were there 10,000 years ago? I think this is the problem you run into when you ask meteorologists to start issuing warning products for something that is not a a DIRECT meteorological hazard.

This is my own opinion here, but when it comes to driving, it comes down to personal situational awareness (SA) -- knowing the conditions you will be potentially driving in is a part of this SA. I think this should begin in drivers education. I think the NWS's role in this is outreach. Teach the general public about how meteorological hazards can affect road surfaces. Teach the public how to get road weather information in a reliable manner. People need to remember that driving is a privilege, it is a VOLUNTARY activity, and icy roads are not a DIRECT meteorological hazard.

Again, I will say that this is a difficult topic with lots of shades of grey, otherwise there wouldn't be a 13-page thread on it. Greg Stumpf is right in that the NWS and other agencies will be evolving over the years with many shared roles. At the current time, though, it is the DOT that is responsible for the roads, not the NWS. That said, the DOT *relies significantly* on the NWS for accurate and timely weather information. The DOT is one of the most important partners of the NWS.

Maybe organizing a national outreach campaign akin to "When Thunder Roads, Go Indoors!" and "Turn Around Don't Drown" would be a better direction for Dan's passionate energy on this topic, rather than simply changing a NWS product. You could still help save lives this way. Dan's website is a wonderful start to such an educational/outreach campaign.

Again, these are all my opinions on this topic and do not necessarily represent the views of the NWS agency (my employer)

Mike U

 

[Dan Robinson]

Randall and Mike, I appreciate your input. It is very insightful to hear views from those inside the NWS, and I can definitely understand how current protocol has come into being. I want to make sure that it is understood that I'm in no way suggesting that the NWS has not done its job or hasn't lived up to its mission. Mike I would love to hear more from you and those inside the agency about some of the thought processes that go into how hazards are classified.

The point about driving being voluntary and personal responsibility is a good one. I think that is true for the vast majority of situations that drivers face. But I wonder if it's time to reevaluate that a little. In not too distant history, the automobile was an 'adventure' reserved for the wealthy - and getting into a car and heading out was truly a voluntary and in many cases unecessary expedition. But today, driving is an everyday-life situation in which people don't have many choices. Employees need to get to work, mothers take their kids to school and when the cupboards start running low, a trip the grocery store requires the use of the roads. The way our society has become suburbanized/decentralized means that it's difficult to get by without a car. In other words, driving is much less of a voluntary act than it used to be many decades ago.

With many icing events (particularly with freezing precipitation), the threat is very subtle and difficult to detect visually, particularly for the average person untrained in even the most basic principles of meteorology. And as Randall pointed out, many people don't realize just how bad even a light dusting of snow can be. It is in this way that I feel some assistance and 'reminders' would be helpful. And while the NWS doesn't typically communicate with the public directly, it is the 'authoritative source' from which the second-tier communication channels relay the information directly to the public.

In the other thread, Mike Smith alluded to the fact that the tornado warning system has been an effective and low-cost way to save hundreds of lives over the years. That demonstrates that the sociological logistics of the general warning process are fairly well-established and field-tested for effectiveness. I feel if we can take some of those principles and apply them to this hazard, the chances to save even a small percentage of those 500 lives per year would be at least worth considering.

 

[Paul Hadfield]

The F scale for measuring tornado intensity based upon observed damage is among the most significant achievements in the history of meteorology. No one disputes the validity of this system however, due to the advancements in the science of tornadoes as well as building technology, it has been determined that the old system needed some improvement. As result we now have the EF scale which provides for a more accurate measurement of tornado related phenomena.

The criteria for measuring severe thunderstorms as we have known for many years has been very good and namely for protecting property that once could not withstand damage from hail that was up to 1/2". Over time it was determined that advancements in surface technologies (automotive, roofing, glass) as well as a better understanding of crop resiliency concluded that the old system was overdoing it and thus, changes were made. As result we now have a level of thunderstorm warning criteria that appropriately reflects the genuine severity of the situation and people are shedding the once complacent attitude that had been anchored in place.

Please don't get me wrong, the current system of warning for ice is very good. By definition, an advisory for that which is 1/4" or less and a warning for that which is 1/4" or greater seems appropriate enough. The problem with this is that it does not address the end result of what is happening with the event therefore, is not effectively warning as you would think it was intended. The best way to illustrate this is by example. Please take a look at the following clips and decide for yourself...

December 1, 2006 - Epic ice storm blankets the Central Illinois region with up to .70 inches or more of ice. This resulted in widespread power outages as well as damage and closed roadways due to falling trees. We were respectively under an Ice Storm Warning and in the matter of severity, you couldn't get much worse than that. As you view the following short video, take note of clip two. Though the trees are on the verge of collapse under the weight, pay attention to the paved surfaces, they were merely wet with minimal ice accumulation if any at all. Temperatures the day before were in the 60's with thunderstorms and ground temps were nowhere close to freezing. I was out driving in it and can verify that roads were no worse than any other rainy night. In this case despite an icing event so severe that nothing like it had come close in nearly 30 years, a road ice warning would NOT be necessary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcfIMbSWM2Y

December 8, 2008 - Overnight rain showers lift across the Central Illinois region. Associated with a warm front, they were elevated in nature and under normal circumstances would be completely disregarded. Unfortunately, this precipitation fell on surfaces that were at or below freezing and left a paper thin glaze that could only be described as a TRACE since it was less than .10 of an inch. An advisory was appropriately issued because it met the existing criteria. However, "light icing" as it was described did not seem to phaze motorists or more importantly as you will see at the end, school administrators. It did not matter how slow you traveled, vehicles were no match. By 10AM and after temps rose, the ice was completely gone and life was back to normal. Though I do not have numbers and can only recall news of the day from memory, there were numerous injuries reported as result of this event. Had a road ice warning been issued and travel severely discouraged, the outcome could have been different and maybe too for those motorists you see in the video who were probably not expecting what would happen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EitgOLM6sj4

 

[Rob Satkus]

What time in the morning did this event occur? If people went out, even though there was a thin glaze of ice on their cars, streets etc. would a road ice warning really have mattered? I mean if they went out anyway even with icy conditions obvious do you really think a road ice warning would have stopped them? If an advisory was in effect that should have been enough for school officials to take action to delay the start of classes or at least look into things.

RS

December 8, 2008 - Overnight rain showers lift across the Central Illinois region. Associated with a warm front, they were elevated in nature and under normal circumstances would be completely disregarded. Unfortunately, this precipitation fell on surfaces that were at or below freezing and left a paper thin glaze that could only be described as a TRACE since it was less than .10 of an inch. An advisory was appropriately issued because it met the existing criteria. However, "light icing" as it was described did not seem to phaze motorists or more importantly as you will see at the end, school administrators. It did not matter how slow you traveled, vehicles were no match. By 10AM and after temps rose, the ice was completely gone and life was back to normal. Though I do not have numbers and can only recall news of the day from memory, there were numerous injuries reported as result of this event. Had a road ice warning been issued and travel severely discouraged, the outcome could have been different and maybe too for those motorists you see in the video who were probably not expecting what would happen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EitgOLM6sj4

 

[Paul Hadfield]

What time in the morning did this event occur? If people went out, even though there was a thin glaze of ice on their cars, streets etc. would a road ice warning really have mattered? I mean if they went out anyway even with icy conditions obvious do you really think a road ice warning would have stopped them? If an advisory was in effect that should have been enough for school officials to take action to delay the start of classes or at least look into things.

RS

The precip began on the overnight and had concluded before the sun came up. In the first clip where I allow the camera to slide across the pavement on it's own, you can see that it was still dark. There was definitely plenty of lead time to make a determination about road conditions before the majority of people ventured out. Here's the thing, based upon current guidelines, everything was done right. The point I am hoping to illustrate is how you can have advisory conditions be more hazardous for travel than warning conditions based upon the current definition.

 

[Justin Wiley]

A couple of other points I'd like to make after taking a decent break from the action:

1.) If "ice road warnings" ever became a reality, there's a good likelihood that large areas would be put under warnings with no immediate danger present. IMO, having this type of "warning" messaging would enhance further "cry wolf" situations which would actually cause more harm than good.

2.) The wording used in some of your warnings Dan, i.e. "high likelihood of death", and "extremely dangerous driving conditions, driving is not advised" would cause quite a bit of headaches and again more potential over-exaggerating situations. Judging by the criteria used, this wording would be used a great deal in large parts of the country. And with that extreme wording in your sample warnings, schools would likely wanna cancel and people would be calling into work left and right. Cities would essentially shut down for something that can easily be succeeded if proper caution and common sense preparations are made.

3.) You say it's the NWS's job is to protect life from all forms of weather whenever possible. Well what about lightning? It exists outside of severe thunderstorms. I could be wrong but I believe it's the second deadliest form of severe weather out there??? Does this mean lightning warnings need to be issued everytime a clap of thunder is reported or a lightning strike is detected?

Again, like Jason Boggs said and others, it's all about basic common sense and personal responsibility. Tornadoes and severe thunderstorms and greatly affect lives AND personal property quickly and potentially more destructively, all without leaving the confines of your home. However, when entering a motor vehicle, you need to assume all risks and liabilities associated with it and take whatever precautions necessary to protect yourself when doing so.

 

[Dan Robinson]

If "ice road warnings" ever became a reality, there's a good likelihood that large areas would be put under warnings with no immediate danger present. IMO, having this type of "warning" messaging would enhance further "cry wolf" situations which would actually cause more harm than good.

Doesn't this currently happen with other hazards as well? I chased the PDS tornado watch event in North Carolina earlier this month, and there was barely a SVR report in the watch area, let alone a significant tornado outbreak. We all know first-hand how common busted high risks and PDS events are, but it's not necessarily reason to shut them down.

The wording used in some of your warnings Dan, i.e. "high likelihood of death", and "extremely dangerous driving conditions, driving is not advised" would cause quite a bit of headaches and again more potential over-exaggerating situations.

Take a look at what happened in Pennsylvania yesterday. The entire state was literally crippled by a freezing rain event that took place in a matter of about 3 hours at sunrise. At least six people were killed (and I expect more reports will come in later today).

Watch this video clip from Pittsburgh, pay close attention to how the roads appear:

http://www.wpxi.com/video/21956959/index.html

If all of that doesn't count as a high likelihood of getting into an accident, I don't know what does. Find me ONE other weather event in recent memory that has come close to the impact - the death, injury and property damage rates that happened with this one. If you can find one, I'll bet it was covered by some sort of warning.

And again, look at the roads. The average person is supposed to forecast and identify that hazard themselves? Icing like this tends to be intermittent, IE, not in their driveway, not on their street - they hit it once they've been on the highway or come over a hill.

Judging by the criteria used, this wording would be used a great deal in large parts of the country.

Wording in virtually every product issued can be modified under the discretion of the WFOs depending on the expected impact of the event.

And with that extreme wording in your sample warnings, schools would likely wanna cancel and people would be calling into work left and right. Cities would essentially shut down for something that can easily be succeeded if proper caution and common sense preparations are made.

They should do that. That is exactly what needs to happen. The news articles from Pittsburgh said that that very thing happened, only AFTER the event was in progress and the damage was done.

You say it's the NWS's job is to protect life from all forms of weather whenever possible.

Not me - the NWS's mission statement says that.

Well what about lightning? It exists outside of severe thunderstorms. I could be wrong but I believe it's the second deadliest form of severe weather out there??? Does this mean lightning warnings need to be issued everytime a clap of thunder is reported or a lightning strike is detected?

That is debatable, but at least lightning is a more obvious threat with highly audible natural warning signs - that does not generally threaten people (either in their cars or homes) unless they are outdoors.

However, when entering a motor vehicle, you need to assume all risks and liabilities associated with it and take whatever precautions necessary to protect yourself when doing so.

That may have been widely applicable when the Model T came out, but today, being threatened by a weather hazard in a car is no different than being threatened by one at home. Unless you live a block away from your work, the grocery store, the doctor's office and all of your friends and family, then you have no choice but to get on the roads. That's equally as involuntary as being at home.

 

[Jason Boggs]

And again, look at the roads. The average person is supposed to forecast and identify that hazard themselves? Icing like this tends to be intermittent, IE, not in their driveway, not on their street - they hit it once they've been on the highway or come over a hill.

Someone with a little common sense could very easily identify icy streets. It's really no that hard. I know when I go down my stairs at my apartment and fall on my ass from the icy steps, I think to myself...Hmmm, maybe the street is like this too.

Now, why the heck wouldn't a freezing rain event be on their driveway or their own street?

Since when did ice form only on hills and highways? Really, stop giving excuses for the way people drive. They would have definitely noticed the ice either on their porch, their driveway, or all over their car. That was a freezing rain event in PA so ice would have been all over most exposed surfaces. That would have been the first clue that there just might be ice on the roads. At that point, its their own decision whether to risk it or not. Period...END OF STORY

 

[rdale]

Dan - instead of posing this question to storm chasers - have you posed it to people who actually can do something about it? Maybe the WAS*IS group?

 

[Paul Hadfield]

Someone with a little common sense could very easily identify icy streets. It's really no that hard. I know when I go down my stairs at my apartment and fall on my ass from the icy steps, I think to myself...Hmmm, maybe the street is like this too.

Now, why the heck wouldn't a freezing rain event be on their driveway or their own street?

Since when did ice form only on hills and highways? Really, stop giving excuses for the way people drive. They would have definitely noticed the ice either on their porch, their driveway, or all over their car. That was a freezing rain event in PA so ice would have been all over most exposed surfaces. That would have been the first clue that there just might be ice on the roads. At that point, its their own decision whether to risk it or not. Period...END OF STORY

Jason, I grew up in PA and the terrain is everything when it comes to Winter wx. Just as a Chicago driver is conditioned to be better at handling high stress traffic situations unlike their rural counterparts who do not regularly encounter such, PA drivers are better than those of the Midwest simply because they have to be. Besides hills, curves and inclines, roads are also much more narrow and congested. They are also often sheltered either by trees or surrounding topography. Elevation as well as whether or not an exposed surface is on the wind or leeward side of an incline are also factors as to how much ice can or will accumulate. These are the kinds of things that cause fluctuations in road conditions over a given area like what Dan is saying unlike out here where precip goes down uniform across the landscape like paint on a wall. Now I don't say any of this to insult anyone's driving ability but PA drivers KNOW that when icing conditions abound, it is going to be a nightmare of a commute. So then why didn't those people in W PA stay home if they already know better? Simple, they have been conditioned to believe that by definition, current "advisory" criteria means "inconvenience" and will therefore choose to head out because naturally, no one thinks anything will happen to them. When I was a resident, I did the same thing and in retrospect, it's a miracle that I didn't get creamed in many events although at the time I was more or less oblivious like everyone else to the true danger. In February 2004 when I was in Hershey PA and during the evening following my Dad's funeral, we had a light icing event that by definition should have been no big deal for being within advisory criteria. I even admit to disregarding it for being conditioned by Midwestern advisory wording but will never forget driving up 322 towards Harrisburg from my Grandparents in Hummelstown as it was among the most difficult commutes I have ever made. The experience was only worsened because I had also forgotten how to drive in heavy traffic like a Nor'easter. As a person with a reasonable amount of common sense (believe it or not), had a RIW or other more serious and appropriate wording been used thus drilling the severity into my conditioned head that was still somewhere out in Pancake Flat IL, I would have most certainly stayed put. Thankfully someone was looking out for me that night. Here now we have the chance to look out for others just the same with the inclusion of a few basic lines of text that influence social consciousness for the better and hopefully save a few more lives.

From the morning after, two things I don't miss about PA

 

[rdale]

Here now we have the chance to look out for others just the same with the inclusion of a few basic lines of text that influence social consciousness for the better and hopefully save a few more lives.

What evidence / backing / studies etc. (if common sense was common, we'd all have it) shows that a few basic lines of text would save lives?

 

[Dan Robinson]

Either warnings work or they don't work. Take your pick. If they don't work, then there is no justification to warn for anything. If they do, then there is no reason to say that they won't work for icing.

Freezing rain icing is not uniform. It does not coat all surfaces equally and at the same time. In fact, most events see only patchy icing at varying elevations and on bridges, as was the case with the PA event yesterday. It is not always there when someone leaves their house.

If icing is completely a matter of personal responsibility, then why does the NWS currently address it exclusively with FRAs, WWAs and snow/ice SPSs? If it were truly a matter that the NWS completely washes its hands of, why have those products at all?

See the official definitions straight from the source:

Freezing Rain Advisory: A freezing rain advisory is issued when a trace or more of freezing rain is expected, but less than half an inch is expected. Light amounts of freezing rain can still result in very dangerous travel conditions, but will not be likely to result in downed trees and power lines.

From:
http://www.erh.noaa.gov/car/Newslet...es/weather_events/nws_winter_headlines_mb.htm

Freezing Rain Advisory (NWS Glossary): Issued when freezing rain or freezing drizzle is forecast but a significant accumulation is not expected. However, even small amounts of freezing rain or freezing drizzle may cause significant travel problems.

From:
http://www.weather.gov/glossary/index.php?word=Freezing Rain Advisory

Winter Weather Advisory (NWS Glossary): This product is issued by the National Weather Service when a low pressure system produces a combination of winter weather (snow, freezing rain, sleet, etc.) that present a hazard, but does not meet warning criteria..

From:
http://www.weather.gov/glossary/index.php?word=Winter Weather Advisory

So, we are not talking about adding forecasting duties or public safety burdens that aren't already covered. We're talking about enhancing wording that is already there.

The above is absolute proof that road icing is a hazard within the realm of the NWS umbrella. If that is the case, why would it not be subject to the same periodic re-evaluations that other hazards undergo, such as 3/4" to 1" hail criteria for SVRs?

 

[Dan Robinson]

Dan - instead of posing this question to storm chasers - have you posed it to people who actually can do something about it? Maybe the WAS*IS group?

I definitely will. I've been preparing a formal proposal to send to the appropriate agencies. These threads have been great ways to see what the criticisms are and how to address each one.

 

[Paul Hadfield]

What evidence / backing / studies etc. (if common sense was common, we'd all have it) shows that a few basic lines of text would save lives?

I don't have numbers, you know that. What I do have that you do as well is experience from living to know full well there is a problem with too many people getting killed during icing events. You like numbers so for the sake of argument, let's say 50 deaths isn't enough to warrant change but 51 is. So what about all those statistics err... I mean people prior to the 51st? Was it right for us to just stick our heads in the snow... I mean sand... and do nothing? Of course stuff happens and people die. As it has been said already, we can't save everyone so let's just forget about it. Well then lets stop treating people for Alzheimer's or Cancer since we can't cure it. Imagine the money are resources that wouldn't be bogged down in trying to pursue such hopeless endeavors (I do not make light of those illness for I have been dealt the short end with both yet feel a cure is still worth seeking). We're at a point in history where we can promote the status quo or take a shot at making a positive difference. Everyone here knows someone or has been in a situation themselves to realize firsthand the gravity of ice regardless of numerical statistics. Granted maybe to you that isn't enough to warrant an enhancement but for someone who has suffered loss and is plagued by grief and hindsight, it is everything. So will it hurt to try? Absolutely not. Will it be a waste of manpower and resources? Absolutely not and to the contrary, fewer people on the road, even just a handful, significantly lightens the load that EMS personnel must carry during these events. A few less people on the road because of enhanced wording will result in fewer insurance claims which would be music to regional adjusters. Statistically we don't know how far reaching a simple change like this will be but any measure that saves lives, manpower and taxpayer dollars is well worth a look. This is especially true in our time when everyone and their mother is counting pennies and scaling back as we have been in this economy.

Even if nothing comes of all this forum dialogue, we will all walk away with a different perception of this topic since we've now been all over it. Guaranteed everyone will have a better appreciation of ice and make appropriate decisions from here on out. What about the rest of the US that is not discussing this the way we have and could stand to benefit from a renewed perception?