It's time to do away with severe thunderstorm warnings

[Patrick Marsh]

This will be my last post on the matter, so if you feel the need for the last word, so be it.

I'm fine with changing tornado warnings to tornado advisories. I can't tell you how many people I interact with that can't tell the difference between a tornado watch and a tornado warning. Maybe a new term will allow us to get the distinction across.

The DOT is relevant to the discussion. They are in charge of the roads. They close roads for various situations, not the NWS. Why can't they issue a road ice warning? Why is the onus on the NWS to issue a road ice warning? In almost every example, through their various products have demonstrated that precipitation is occurring with sub-freezing air temperatures. What more does the DOT need to know that ice is a concern? Furthermore, most state DOT monitor for ice. Here is AR's map: http://www.arkansashighways.com/Road/mapopt.htm. I can't tell you how many other states have numbers people can call, etc. This is better than a forecast, it's ground truth. They obviously have some sort of information. Let them issue some warning if they feel it is necessary. I'm guessing they don't because no one in the state government has asked them to do so.

I look forward to seeing your scientific study published because you explicitly stated "every time" the temperature is in the upper-20s road ice is a problem. I gave you an example of when road ice was not a big issue. While it may have existed on bridges somewhere (not on any near where I live), it didn't occur everywhere which goes toward refuting your "every time" assertion. Anomalies are important when using terms such as "every time".

Winter weather advisories do convey that road conditions may deteriorate. A quick perusal of all the current winter weather advisories indicates they all have one of the following included in them:

A WINTER WEATHER ADVISORY MEANS THAT PERIODS OF SNOW...SLEET...OR
FREEZING RAIN WILL CAUSE TRAVEL DIFFICULTIES. BE PREPARED FOR
SLIPPERY ROADS AND LIMITED VISIBILITIES...AND USE CAUTION WHILE
DRIVING.

or

* ROADS WILL LIKELY BECOME SNOW COVERED THIS AFTERNOON POSSIBLY
IMPACTING THE COMMUTE HOME.

* TRAVEL WILL BE MOST IMPACTED WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON AS SNOW...
BLOWING SNOW...AND RAPIDLY FALLING TEMPERATURES OCCUR NEAR
THE TIME OF THE AFTERNOON COMMUTE.

I'd argue that this does convey a threat to be on the lookout for ice/snow on roads.

In quoting my reply in regards to why OUN issued a freezing rain advisory (and later Ice Storm Warning) when ice on roadways wasn't occuring, you conveniently left off your original comment which stated "A freezing rain advisory, for example, is by definition a product that addresses the road ice hazard exclusively." I was merely pointing out that this is untrue. Freezing rain can have other hazards than ice on roads, such as ice on trees. Hence the need for them when ice isn't accumulating on roads. Two inches of ice on a power line will most likely snap it.

As for CTAs and tornado emergency language, you might want to check with people in NWS headquarters as to how that is debate is playing out. Quite a few people are advocating removing CTAs - not just me. This is because generic CTAs cannot account for every possible situation, and as such can give bad advice. For example, in 2007 during the re-intensification of TD Erin, there were situations where flash flood warnings and tornado warnings were in effect simultaneously. The CTA for these two warnings are contradictory. Flash flood tells you to seek higher ground whereas the tornado warning says seek shelter in the basement. An elderly resident sought shelter in the basement for the possible tornado and then drowned when her basement flooded. I argue further that if in an warning situation, I have to tell you what to do, the system (education and watch programs) already failed.

Also, the reason the tornado emergency language has become (or is becoming) official is not because headquarters thinks it is a great idea. It's becoming official because if it isn't, there are no guidelines for its use - hence so many false alarms with it. By making it official, guidelines for its use can be enforced. And for the record, the first use of a Tornado Emergency was *not* because someone in charge thought it was worth implementing. It was because the warning forecast on shift wanted to come up with some sort of phrase to capture the magnitude of the situation. It didn't come from a manager or headquarters. There has been a lot of debate about it subsequent use.

 

[Dan Robinson]

This will be my last post on the matter, so if you feel the need for the last word, so be it.

I have no problem continuing the discussion if we feel that there are valid points to be made.

Why can't they (DOTs) issue a road ice warning?

That would be acceptable. As long as someone with credibility and sufficient outbound communication channels is conveying the threat to the public. The problem is that the DOTs only have their own realtime observation sensors at best - they are generally not equipped with internal tools, data and expertise to forecast for pending hazards like the NWS is.

I look forward to seeing your scientific study published because you explicitly stated "every time" the temperature is in the upper-20s road ice is a problem.

Every time I have personally observed it, it has happened. In 2 years, roughly 30-40 events. If not on all roads, always on the bridges - if temps are less than 29F, and at least light precip of any type is falling. I feel comfortable making that statement because I have yet to see an example otherwise.

Winter weather advisories do convey that road conditions may deteriorate. I'd argue that this does convey a threat to be on the lookout for ice/snow on roads.

They do, but again, they don't communicate a threat to life and property. It's the wording and urgency of these communications that is the issue. I understand you have objections to the wording being relevant at all - and I suppose that is the crux of the debate both here and internally within the NWS.

"A freezing rain advisory, for example, is by definition a product that addresses the road ice hazard exclusively." I was merely pointing out that this is untrue. Freezing rain can have other hazards than ice on roads, such as ice on trees.

Typically though, icing that falls under warning criteria doesn't present a significant tree/power line damage threat - the primary hazard is the roads. According the official NWS warning criteria document (for New England at least), Freezing Rain Advisories are issued for "Any accretion of freezing rain or freezing drizzle on road surfaces".

http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/warningcriteria.shtml

 

[Patrick Marsh]

Dan,

While I disagree with the need for a new product on the NWS side of things, I do agree that the number of fatalities is a lot more than it should be.

Ultimately, I think you give the reach of the NWS products more credit than they deserve. Most citizens don't get their weather information directly from the NWS. They get it through the local media and other means. This is part of the reason why we have the Tornado Emergency wording...a regular tornado warning just wasn't getting through anymore. They are the ones who need to hype up the icing threat as more people watch the morning news than jump on the internet and check the local zone forecast. All a new road ice warning product from the NWS would do is try to increase the level of awareness the media is paying attention to the situation. The NWS almost always has some sort of product in place, so the break down in communication isn't between the NWS and the public. It's between the NWS and the local media.

If you really want to see a change then talk to your local media. Take your statistics and show them the numbers. Write letters to your local paper. I'm willing to be that if you contact the paper, they would let you write a full op-ed piece giving you even more room to make the case for greater awareness. As much as I hate to say it, if the local media can make a sensation of a headline, and video of cars piling up on an interstate will certainly do this they will. I mean, how many of us have watched videos on youtube of all the ice induced accidents on the hills of Seattle. By making them more aware of the situation, maybe they will pay more attention to it, and after all, isn't that what you are ultimately after?

Just my $0.02 worth of advice.

 

[Justin Wiley]

Theoretically, your chances of death increase dramatically just by entering a vehicle, period. By entering the vehicle, you should assume all risks that result in driving it. If you aren't smart enough to know that when some form of precipitation has fallen or is falling (say on your windshield) and it is cold outside and you don't act or adjust accordingly, then you shouldn't be allowed to drive in the first place.

I hate hearing about people being killed just much as the next person. I just don't think this would be a "dealbreaker", nor is it necessary under common sense assumptions.

To briefly expound further, I've driven over frozen overpasses and bridges numerous times, sometimes at speeds I probably shouldn't be going at. I haven't got into an accident. When people swerve, or jerk their wheel, or tailgate on somebody and then slam on their brakes, etc., etc., accidents tend to increase dramatically. I just don't think you can break down every death from winter weather driving and assume it's all a matter of innocence.

And honestly, if it was as cut and dry as you make it out to be, I assume the NWS would have done something by now. And if you haven't forwarded your findings to them, I think you should and I would love to see the response.

On a side note, I'm not knocking your beliefs in any way. It's a pretty good discussion and I admire your passion. I just simply disagree.

 

[Chris Nuttall]

That would be acceptable. As long as someone with credibility and sufficient outbound communication channels is conveying the threat to the public. The problem is that the DOTs only have their own realtime observation sensors at best - they are generally not equipped with internal tools, data and expertise to forecast for pending hazards like the NWS is.

That's why a lot of state DOTs use private meteorology firms that specialize in forecasting for road icing. They aren't out there guessing without guidance. Typically, the DOTs depend on the NWS for the information about the overall event (precip type, timing, locations) and rely on the private sector for more detailed information (what sections of what roads will ice, severity of the icing).

 

[Dan Robinson]

Improving the death rates involves a threefold approach: official declaration of the hazard, communication of that declaration by media and other venues, and finally driver education/awareness. All three of those need to happen, and I'm not suggesting that the NWS has sole responsibility. But without the base support coming from the NWS, it's going to be unrealistic to expect the media to relay aspects of a message that don't exist. And without that relaying of the information, the public can't be epected to respond.

It might be that the public will end up being the right audience for this message. Maybe if they see the raw data - both collectively and in individual accident cases - they will start demanding something different than the status quo from official sources who otherwise hold up their hand and say 'we won't do anything'.

Regarding the Louisville accident I keep mentioning in this thread, the mother of the two children has also now passed away from her injuries:

http://www.whas11.com/news/local/Mo...d-her-2-kids-dies-from-injuries-78821027.html

I can't ignore that type of thing and say 'there is nothing that can be done - she should have known better'. People deserve better than that.

 

[Penny Lehner]

While I actually agree with you Dan that there should be more emphasis put on icy road conditions to the public, I feel it won't do much good unless the public listens. A good campaign by the NWS would go a long way in informing the public to what conditions lead to icy roads.

I don't have a lot of faith in the general public though. We have had seat belt laws for quite awhile now. Two nights ago in the Twin Cities we had a car accident involving a family of 7 and a drunk driver. The mother died - she wasn't wearing a seatbelt. Everyone and their cousin knows that seatbelts saves lives right?

Everyone knows that when a tornado warning is issued you should take cover immediately. My 79 year old mother stands out on her front deck looking for it.

My car tells me there may be icy roads. I get in, start the car and if the temperature is 34 or below, it flashes a display telling me there may be icy roads. Last winter in Iowa I can't tell you how many times I drove home from work on slick roads. And every time someone would go flying by me only to be in the ditch somewhere down the road. I saw one girl flip her car. I was first on scene and thankfully she wasn't hurt. All she could say is "I didn't know the roads were that bad. I saw a few cars in the ditch but just thought they didn't know how to drive." I informed her she just added herself to the list of people who don't know who to drive safely on icy roads.

Keep trying Dan. I wish you the best of luck on getting people to understand the danger of icy roads.

 

[Dan Robinson]

I just finished putting together the first in a series of educational posts on my blog that will soon be part of a bigger FAQ:

http://stormhighway.com/blog/dec1109b.shtml

 

[Patrick Marsh]

I read your blog and checked out the websites. I would be very careful going around flaunting statements such as "#1 Weather Danger" and "Ice and snow on roadways kills more people than all other forms of severe weather combined." Both of these statements are absolutely and unequivocally false. Heat related fatalities is actually the number 1 weather related killer.


From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Chicago_heat_wave

The 1995 Chicago heat wave was a heat wave which led to approximately 600 heat-related deaths in Chicago over a period of five days

From the CDC in Atlanta: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5529a2.htm

During 1999--2003, a total of 3,442 deaths resulting from exposure to extreme heat were reported (annual mean: 688).

This is just from the USA. If you factor in the rest of the world it isn't even close.


From Earth Policy Institute (verified from additional websites): http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/plan_b_updates/2003/update29

A record heat wave scorched Europe in August 2003, claiming an estimated 35,000 lives. In France alone, 14,802 people died from the searing temperatures—more than 19 times the death toll from the SARS epidemic worldwide. In the worst heat spell in decades, temperatures in France soared to 104 degrees Fahrenheit (40 degrees Celsius) and remained unusually high for two weeks.

This summer's high temperatures also hit other European countries. Germany saw some 7,000 people die from the heat. Spain and Italy each suffered heat-related losses of nearly 4,200 lives. The heat wave claimed at least 1,300 lives in Portugal and up to 1,400 lives in the Netherlands.

In London—which on August 10th recorded its first triple-digit Fahrenheit temperature—an estimated 900 people died from the heat. Heat-related fatalities across the United Kingdom reached 2,045. In Belgium, temperatures higher than any in the Royal Meteorological Society's register dating back to 1833 brought 150 deaths. Since reports are not yet available for all European countries, the total heat death toll for the continent is likely to be substantially larger. (See data.)

From CNN (2007): http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/07/24/heatwave.europe.reut/index.html

Up to 500 people are estimated to have died across Hungary last week, partly due to a heat wave gripping central and southeast Europe, Hungarian medical officials said on Tuesday.

Heat related fatalities trump winter-weather fatalities year after year after year.

Oh and just because people don't see things from your point of view doesn't mean they are prejudiced. Calling out the weather community with statements like

One of the unexpected things I'm finding as a major obstacle to progress in icy road awareness is some myths, misconceptions and prejudices held by many inside the <b>weather community</b> itself - including from professionals, meteorologists, storm chasers and enthusiasts alike.

is going to result in the weather community pushing you to the fringe. You won't be taken serious. Instead of using hyperbole and complaining on the Internet about how no one is trying to do anything and that we need more warnings, follow up on some of the advice that was offered to you. Meet with the local media. Meet with your WCM. Meet with a representative from your state's DOT. Until you take some course of constructive action and quite bashing the community you want to act, things aren't going to change.

 

[Dan Robinson]

Heat mostly affects a specific demographic of the population (elderly, sick and those without access to adequate shelter) whereas road icing affects all segments of society. It is the number 1 weather threat to the average person in the USA, as most of the public will not see an appreciable nor recurring multiple-times-seasonally threat from heat. I address this on the web site.

oh and just because people don't see things from your point of view doesn't mean they are prejudiced. Calling out the weather community with statements like is going to result in the weather community pushing you to the fringe. You won't be taken serious. Instead of using hyperbole and complaining on the Internet about how no one is trying to do anything and that we need more warnings, follow up on some of the advice that was offered to you. Meet with the local media. Meet with your WCM. Meet with a representative from your state's DOT. Until you take some course of constructive action and quite bashing the community you want to act, things aren't going to change.

There IS prejudice. Statements like "all crash victims are idiots" is as prejudiced as you can get. I'm telling it like it is with facts and empirical evidence, whereas most of the opposition is due to speculation, myths and unfair assumptions.

Few are offering any solutions, only saying we can't and won't do anything. That is unacceptable, and something I am justified in criticising and will continue to do so as long as I encounter that sentiment. It is not directed at everyone.

 

[mikegeukes]

Just curious Dan, have you e-mailed the MIC's, WCM's at the various WFO's in
the Eastern, Central, Southern and Western Regions and contact the highers
up in the regions listed and NWS Headquarters. To see what their response is
in regarding your proposed warnings and better wordings in NWS products.

Mike
http://supercellweather.blogspot.com

 

[Dan Robinson]

Just curious Dan, have you e-mailed the MIC's, WCM's at the various WFO's in
the Eastern, Central, Southern and Western Regions and contact the highers
up in the regions listed and NWS Headquarters. To see what their response is
in regarding your proposed warnings and better wordings in NWS products.

Mike
http://supercellweather.blogspot.com

Yes - I have talked with a few local mets about this. I have not yet received a formal response from anyone as of yet. A couple of other chasers have graciously been talking to their local WFOs about this issue as well. I'm preparing a more formal proposal to send to the 'higher ups' when I have as much evidence and organized information for the case as I can gather.

Again, this whole effort is not a bash on the NWS. It's an issue I believe has slipped under the radar of most everyone, unintentionally. Four years ago even I never thought of it as being something to pay attention to. The goal is to work together to find ways to improve.

 

[Dan Robinson]

Hopefully this will make it clearer what I'm trying to accomplish. This is essentially the proposal that I will be presenting, sans tweaking:

Suggested Protocol/Criteria/Wording for Road Icing

The Freezing Rain Advisory and Winter Weather Advisory products are good models for a Road Ice Warning product, as they are concerned with the travel hazard almost (if not entirely) exclusively. Therefore, changes to the wording and titling of this product could easily be employed for communicating to the public the level of risk.

Therefore, this proposal suggests replacing all Freezing Rain Advisories, Winter Weather Advisories and snow/ice-related Special Weather Statements (SPS) with Road Ice Warnings. As Freezing Rain Advisories and Winter Weather Advisories are primarily travel-related products, they should be combined in an all-inclusive Road Ice Warning product that effectively communicates the hazard. The combination of the products into one should simplify warning procedures, as criteria for a Road Ice Warning would be identical to any condition that would trigger a Freezing Rain Advisory, Winter Weather Advisory or a snow/ice-related Special Weather Statement.

Road Ice Warnings should not need to be issued for ice accretions meeting Ice Storm Warning criteria nor snow events meeting Winter Storm Warning or Blizzard Warning criteria, both of the latter which should supercede/replace the Road Ice Warning. However, the same wording relating the road ice hazard should be included in all Ice Storm Warning, Winter Storm Warning and Blizzard Warning products.

Sample Text:

THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN CHARLESTON HAS ISSUED A ROAD ICE WARNING FOR THE FOLLOWING COUNTIES IN WEST VIRGINIA:

KANAWHA... PUTNAM... CABELL... WAYNE... JACKSON... MASON... CLAY... ROANE... LINCOLN... BOONE

EFFECTIVE UNTIL 12:00PM EST SATURDAY.

A ROAD ICE WARNING MEANS THAT FREEZING PRECIPITATION OR LIGHT SNOW WILL CREATE A DEADLY COATING OF ICE ON AREA ROADS. THIS IS A POTENTIALLY LIFE-THREATENING SITUATION FOR MOTORISTS. ROAD ICE FREQUENTLY CAUSES SERIOUS AND FATAL MOTOR VEHICLE CRASHES. REMEMBER THAT ICE OFTEN IS INVISIBLE AND CANNOT BE VISUALLY DISTINGUISHED FROM WET PAVEMENT. BRIDGES AND OVERPASSES ARE MORE SUSCEPTIBLE TO DEVELOPING ICY PATCHES. FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE AND ALL-WHEEL DRIVE VEHICLES ARE NOT IMMUNE TO LOSING CONTROL ON ICE. TRAVEL IS EXTREMELY DISCOURAGED - IF YOU MUST TRAVEL, PROCEED SLOWLY AND WITH EXTREME CAUTION.

In essence, the Road Ice Warning should replace all Freezing Rain Advisories, Winter Weather Advisories and snow/ice-related Special Weather Statements. The end result is a single product that adequately covers the hazard without creating any implimentation difficulties (criteria remains the same, frequency of issuance remains the same).

 

[rdale]

How can you measure the effectiveness of that warning? Very few roads have temp sensors on them, and if you can't verify a product then you shouldn't be issuing it.

 

[Dan Robinson]

How can you measure the effectiveness of that warning? Very few roads have temp sensors on them, and if you can't verify a product then you shouldn't be issuing it.

Criteria would be identical to Freezing Rain Advisories, Winter Weather Advisories and ice/snow related Special Weather Statements - all of which are primarily issued for the same hazard. In other words, any verification requirements would be the same.