It's time to do away with severe thunderstorm warnings

[Patrick Marsh]

Unfortunately winter weather advisories are not uniform around the country. The advisory can be issued for any snow up to 4" in OK, but farther north, some offices don't issue it until a minimum requirement is met. Furthermore, they may keep the advisory going until 6" of snow (or more).

A road ice warning won't accurately convey to the rest of the public that there could be 6" of snow. I'll prepare for 6" of snow differently than I would prepare for ice on the roads. Furthermore, other users will need to prepare differently for snow than road ice.

In summary, the road ice warning doesn't convey the entire threat. It is a subset of other messages, which is why I keep saying just add additional language to existing products.

 

[Dan Robinson]

A road ice warning won't accurately convey to the rest of the public that there could be 6" of snow. I'll prepare for 6" of snow differently than I would prepare for ice on the roads. Furthermore, other users will need to prepare differently for snow than road ice.

I see your point there - but wouldn't a 6" forecast for snow be covered in the zone forecast alone? In other words, the accumulation amount isn't necessarily a hazard that needs a warning, just a detail covered by the zone forecasts should the end-user want the info.

Here is another bit of info I compiled. These are sample texts from actual products:

WWA text:

A WINTER WEATHER ADVISORY MEANS THAT SNOW ACCUMULATIONS WILL CAUSE PRIMARILY TRAVEL DIFFICULTIES. BE PREPARED FOR SNOW COVERED ROADS. USE CAUTION WHILE DRIVING.

FRA text:

A FREEZING RAIN ADVISORY MEANS THAT PERIODS OF FREEZING RAIN OR FREEZING DRIZZLE WILL CAUSE TRAVEL DIFFICULTIES. USE CAUTION WHEN TRAVELING.

Snow/ice SPS:

THE HEAVIEST SNOW SHOWERS WILL AFFECT CLARK COUNTY IN INDIANA...AND LOCATIONS AROUND FT. KNOX...BRANDENBURG AND BEDFORD IN KENTUCKY THROUGH 900 AM EST. THESE HEAVIER SNOW SHOWERS WILL ALSO REDUCE VISIBILITY BRIEFLY. WITH TEMPERATURES WELL BELOW FREEZING...SOME SLICK SPOTS WILL DEVELOP ON ROADWAYS...ESPECIALLY BRIDGES AND OVERPASSES.

Essentially they are all addressing the same thing. In these three cases, the road icing hazard was the only thing mentioned in the product.

 

[Tim Shriver]

Road Ice Warning?

Doesn't cover the whole picture in the least.

While most folks know that freezing rain will cause roads
to become slick, they may not think about the power lines, trees etc.

To limit this to just one item, roads, it would not find much support
I wouldn't think.

But good job thinking outside of the box! (or polygram)

Tim

 

[rdale]

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.

Again - I ask how would you verify a road ice warning?

A freezing rain advisory is verified if spotters report .xx inches of freezing rain. A winter weather advisory is met if the snowfall accumulations and/or wind speeds etc are observed to meet the forecast.

So, since your warning is specifically related to roads, and 99.9% of roads in the country do not have sensors, how do you verify? Do you send spotters out to test for ice? Do you count bridges that the news reports having iced up? Do county roads get included, or just state and federal throughways?

 

[Dan Robinson]

So, since your warning is specifically related to roads, and 99.9% of roads in the country do not have sensors, how do you verify? Do you send spotters out to test for ice? Do you count bridges that the news reports having iced up? Do county roads get included, or just state and federal throughways?

I think that would be reasonable - again, since you're warning for hazards that previously had their own products (with their own criteria), you'd just combine those into a single product as far as criteria and verification are concerned.

Similar to severe thunderstorm warnings - you have two different hazards that can trigger the warning - either hail or wind - and each can be verified independently. But they're still covered under the one umbrella.

 

[rdale]

I don't follow... Hail only verifies a SVR if it's observed, and winds only verify a SVR if observed.

How would you verify a road ice warning? Does a patch on grandma's dirt road trigger? Do you need xx percentage of a roadway iced over? Do you add that to next year's Skywarn training, and start sending spotters out to determine braking distances?

 

[Dan Robinson]

While most folks know that freezing rain will cause roads
to become slick, they may not think about the power lines, trees etc.

Maybe someone internally can verify this, but I haven't found an example of a Freezing Rain Advisory that mentioned a threat for tree/power line damage - which Ice Storm Warnings currently cover. The primary hazard for the FRA is always road-related from what I can gather, as the criteria for FRA is under 1/4" - which is typically not enough to do significant damage. Even so, tree/power line damage would be a secondary hazard for under 1/4". Possibly enough to at least mention in the RIW as a secondary threat.

 

[Dan Robinson]

I don't follow... Hail only verifies a SVR if it's observed, and winds only verify a SVR if observed.

How would you verify a road ice warning? Does a patch on grandma's dirt road trigger? Do you need xx percentage of a roadway iced over? Do you add that to next year's Skywarn training, and start sending spotters out to determine braking distances?

Basically the criteria to trigger would be the same as a current WWA, FRA or SPS - that being subfreezing (or near freezing) surface temps and precip imminent or in progress.

Verification sources are plentiful - you have police, fire, EMS, DOTs, all of which are used for severe weather reports that could easily provide ground truth in this case also. In fact most of the DOTs have realtime (some better than others) road info web sites with cameras and sensor data. During winter events, most of the DOT units are constantly reporting back.

 

[Patrick Marsh]

Freezing rain advisories cover ice on exposed surfaces. This includes roads, sidewalks, ground, etc.

Hillary Clinton fell and broke her elbow when she slipped on ice on a sidewalk. That wouldn't be covered under the road ice warning as you have presented it.

I had written a much longer post that got lost somehow during a page refresh. I don't feel like re-writing it.

 

[rdale]

Verification sources are plentiful - you have police, fire, EMS, DOTs, all of which are used for severe weather reports that could easily provide ground truth in this case also.

So what verifies it? A single report of an icy patch on the road? 1 mile of total icing on major highways?

We picked up 3-5" of snow over the last three days, and other than main roads - there are still plenty of snowy patches on most roads. Should the RIW be in effect?

In fact most of the DOTs have realtime (some better than others) road info web sites with cameras and sensor data. During winter events, most of the DOT units are constantly reporting back.

Absolutely wrong. I know of no DOT that has full roadway coverage. In my entire DMA there are 0 (zero) road sensors or road webcams.

 

[Dan Robinson]

Freezing rain advisories cover ice on exposed surfaces. This includes roads, sidewalks, ground, etc.

Hillary Clinton fell and broke her elbow when she slipped on ice on a sidewalk. That wouldn't be covered under the road ice warning as you have presented it.

I had written a much longer post that got lost somehow during a page refresh. I don't feel like re-writing it.

I suppose that could be included also. Last year there was one death from someone falling on ice. Ironically though, they were crossing the street. Obviously we can't cover all of the potential subsets of the hazard, but we can address the primary one that is causing the most impact.

 

[Patrick Marsh]

I suppose that could be included also. Last year there was one death from someone falling on ice. Ironically though, they were crossing the street. Obviously we can't cover all of the potential subsets of the hazard, but we can address the primary one that is causing the most impact.

Actually, you can. It's called a winter weather advisory or a freezing rain advisory.

 

[Dan Robinson]

So what verifies it? A single report of an icy patch on the road? 1 mile of total icing on major highways?

We picked up 3-5" of snow over the last three days, and other than main roads - there are still plenty of snowy patches on most roads. Should the RIW be in effect?



Absolutely wrong. I know of no DOT that has full roadway coverage. In my entire DMA there are 0 (zero) road sensors or road webcams.

The ones that don't have sensor/camera data still have trucks out that report back with observed conditions.

As far as verification, it should be simple - any observed slick spots that typically occur during events covered by WWAs, FRAs and SPSs. I suppose you could narrow that down to major highways, interstates and bridges since they are where the majority of problems occur.

 

[Dan Robinson]

Actually, you can. It's called a winter weather advisory or a freezing rain advisory.

Alas, this goes back to our debate on whether wording makes a difference, IE "Warning" communicating a danger more than "Advisory". I talked to a half dozen marketing people today who think it does, FWIW.

 

[Mike Johnston]

Ah, the old Travelers Advisory. That one actually got some attention back in the day. I remember seeing crawls across the bottom of the TV screen and even local media interruptions of regular programming on the initial issuance. It served a useful purpose, I think. Wasn't confined to icy roads, but could encompass them and the product had enough latitude to be very specific and even colorful in its commentary. I think it actually was kind of a big deal...perhaps it should be revived.

Seriously, I think we need to be careful in expanding the plethora of products. Goodness gracious, we often have "flood warnings" here that relate to the same damn rivers flooding the same swamps and lowlands that they seem to flood for 2/3 of the year. These "warnings" go on for days and even weeks and are usually issued "until further notice." If I told my wife tomorrow morning she needs to check on the flood warning to make sure the lower Santee isn't about to crest, she'd look at me like I was nuts.

So, I don't think there is any magic bullet in labeling a fairly standard winter weather forecast as a warning vs. an advisory. I mean, if road icing is a distinct probability, incorporate it into the text of the existing products or bring back the old Traveler's Advisory if nothing else seems to fit. The word "warning" is already too liberally used, IMO, to the point that it's so diluted as to become almost everday fare to a public that's already complacent.

BTW, I share your skepticism about Severe Thunderstorm Warnings. Not that the concept of a Severe Thunderstorm Warning is off base, it's just being mis-applied. Seriously, I'm not a met, but I casually observe so many situations where these warnings are issued when there seems to be a very low possibility of severe criteria actually being met. I think the community needs to start taking names and exposing facts - the FAR must be ridiculuously high in some regions.