It's time to do away with severe thunderstorm warnings

[rdale]

You like numbers so for the sake of argument, let's say 50 deaths isn't enough to warrant change but 51 is.

That's not what I'm talking about... I'm saying - prove to me that a few lines of text will save lives. What sort of reaction will this get from the public? Who in the public would even get those lines (certainly nobody except weatherweenies reads the entire text of a bulletin.)

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.

Again - you are telling me that at least a few people WILL STOP DRIVING with these new lines, and I don't see the proof indicating that will be the case.

As Dr Doswell says about the current watch/warning system -- it's not perfect, but if you're going to change it you better be darn sure you have the new one right or you'll really mess things up.

I'm not certain that a RIW, or "enhanced text" in a WSW, will save lives. And if we try it, and then research shows that this does nothing, it's hard to start fresh with a new method.

- Rob

 

[Paul Hadfield]

That's not what I'm talking about... I'm saying - prove to me that a few lines of text will save lives. What sort of reaction will this get from the public? Who in the public would even get those lines (certainly nobody except weatherweenies reads the entire text of a bulletin.)



Again - you are telling me that at least a few people WILL STOP DRIVING with these new lines, and I don't see the proof indicating that will be the case.

As Dr Doswell says about the current watch/warning system -- it's not perfect, but if you're going to change it you better be darn sure you have the new one right or you'll really mess things up.

I'm not certain that a RIW, or "enhanced text" in a WSW, will save lives. And if we try it, and then research shows that this does nothing, it's hard to start fresh with a new method.

- Rob

I understand what you have been saying from the beginning. No argument from me with respect to wanting accountability and solid factual evidence in this matter. So do we just drop it or begin the task of compiling data that will become what is needed to implement positive change? I wouldn't even know where to begin with that but it doesn't take scientific analysis to see that the annual death toll from road ice is staggering. It's easy to disregard all of this when it isn't in your face all the time, after all, we're talking about an infrequent phenomena that occurs within a span of roughly six months or less. Due to his profession, Dan has witnessed this over and over, season after season and brought us the reality of what is happening out there while we have been tucked away enjoying hot cocoa in our Snuggies®. I think if we all donned our parkas and spent hours on end in freezing conditions watching traffic, we too would adjust our perceptions. So how does one go about finding the statistical data necessary in making positive change? NTSB? Insurance Industry? I don't know but the one thing we can be certain of, a road ice warning is not a product that we are going to see very often. It might only be used a handful of times across any given CWA for an entire season. Likewise, it may only need to be used for an hour or two during those events. It has taken over 50 years since the invention of the automobile for the importance of seat belt safety to take hold and now we even have laws and penalties for not using one. No one is trying to put another law on the books or cause the general public any sort of undue burden with more restrictions. The fire has been lit so do we fan the flames of potentially life saving positive change or let Old Man Winter and the status quo put it out?

 

[rdale]

No argument from me with respect to wanting accountability and solid factual evidence in this matter.

Sorry, that's not the tone I've picked up from all the posts wanting to start adding new lines of text or RIW's now...

Due to his profession, Dan has witnessed this over and over, season after season and brought us the reality of what is happening out there while we have been tucked away enjoying hot cocoa in our Snuggies

Speak for yourself As mentioned previously, this is not a forum of operational mets. Ice hazards have been on the minds of those of us who do this for a living, which is why we stress the dangers of road icing when doing so.

 

[Paul Hadfield]

Speak for yourself As mentioned previously, this is not a forum of operational mets. Ice hazards have been on the minds of those of us who do this for a living, which is why we stress the dangers of road icing when doing so.

LOL! I was hoping you would have something to say about the Snuggies® statement

I'm saying - prove to me that a few lines of text will save lives. What sort of reaction will this get from the public? Who in the public would even get those lines (certainly nobody except weatherweenies reads the entire text of a bulletin.)

Again - you are telling me that at least a few people WILL STOP DRIVING with these new lines, and I don't see the proof indicating that will be the case.

After last post, I spent some time thinking about your statements and honestly, I don't think it is possible to prove the effectiveness of such a change in wording till after it has been implemented. Or else if it is, the process can't be any different than that which was put forth in establishing criteria for the inclusion of dire wording for other things we encounter regularly...

Swimming in a shallow pool is a recreational activity that is typically not perceived as being life threatening. Enough statistical data exists however to warrant the implementation of a dire warning system as seen below. The graphic is somewhat gruesome if you think about it but apparently necessary in getting the point across. Now that it has been implemented, how do we measure whether or not it was effective? Do we poll every swimmer who was in a pool with this warning system to find out if it was heeded? Do we subtract the broken neck tally prior to the implementation and count that as final? What if those broken necks happened in pools without the warning system? In other words, there really is no way of ever knowing. What we can surmise from this dire warning system is that it is more effective than any other lesser descriptive and thus people will make better decisions as result.

How many lives were saved as result of this warning system? I'm joking... but obviously enough dire statistical data exists to warrant the implementation of it.

 

[Patrick Marsh]

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.

And this is the biggest argument why a RIW is not the solution. Ice does not accumulate on all surfaces equally. The NWS should *not* be in the business of having a warning for every specific hazard within the context of a larger event. In the case of RIW, the NWS does not have the expertise to know what kind of icing may be occurring on what surfaces. RIW is awfully specific, so if you start issuing them then you'll need to start issuing other products that relate to the other hazards. A winter weather advisory / freezing rain advisory are designed to alert people to the fact that wintry weather / ice is a possibility *everywhere* not just on roadways.

During a blizzard a blizzard warning is issued, not a Winter Storm Warning, High Wind Warning, RIW, etc. A blizzard warning encompasses all of those hazards. There is no need for a specific product for each hazard.

And for the record, I'd argue that RIW would end up covering a lot more of the country than you think. If we have to replace every WWA or FRA or Ice Storm Warning, etc with a RIW, that will add up to a large chunk of real estate - quickly. Not to mention the road ice threat will persist well after the parent meteorological storm has passed. A good portion of Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa still have a lot of snow on the ground. Do we still need RIW there? I'm willing to bet that the 50s on Sunday in northern KS, followed by the 0s and 10s on Sunday night into Monday resulted in some melting and refreezing. Do we need to put more RIW out for that possibility? If so, parts of northern KS might have been under a RIW for well over a week now!

 

[rdale]

I don't think it is possible to prove the effectiveness of such a change in wording till after it has been implemented. Or else if it is, the process can't be any different than that which was put forth in establishing criteria for the inclusion of dire wording for other things we encounter regularly...

I think you need to look over the WAS*IS stuff.

First you'll find out that the "dire wording" existing in products currently was just because someone thought it was a good idea. Actual social research shows they don't help - and in some cases might hurt the public response.

http://www.flame.org/~cdoswell/CTA_statements.html

Next you'll find out that social research is CRITICAL in all areas of meteorology - not just potential RIW's.

And as a side note, we've had slideoff accidents 5 of the last 7 days in Mid-Michigan. The current proposal shows that we'd have a 60+ hour RIW in affect for hundreds of square miles... Would a RIW have prevented these accidents? My (non-socially-researched) thoughts are --- no way.

 

[Rich Long]

LOL! I was hoping you would have something to say about the Snuggies® statement



After last post, I spent some time thinking about your statements and honestly, I don't think it is possible to prove the effectiveness of such a change in wording till after it has been implemented. Or else if it is, the process can't be any different than that which was put forth in establishing criteria for the inclusion of dire wording for other things we encounter regularly...

Swimming in a shallow pool is a recreational activity that is typically not perceived as being life threatening. Enough statistical data exists however to warrant the implementation of a dire warning system as seen below. The graphic is somewhat gruesome if you think about it but apparently necessary in getting the point across. Now that it has been implemented, how do we measure whether or not it was effective? Do we poll every swimmer who was in a pool with this warning system to find out if it was heeded? Do we subtract the broken neck tally prior to the implementation and count that as final? What if those broken necks happened in pools without the warning system? In other words, there really is no way of ever knowing. What we can surmise from this dire warning system is that it is more effective than any other lesser descriptive and thus people will make better decisions as result.

How many lives were saved as result of this warning system? I'm joking... but obviously enough dire statistical data exists to warrant the implementation of it.

It's nice to think that there was statistical research done and the stats were high enough to warrant these warnings, but the reality is these warnings are not meant to save lives at all. Most are the direct result of lawsuits filed against the company. A classic example of this is the hot coffee lawsuit against McDonalds. Now they have a warning sign in the drive through window and theres now a "product may be hot" warning on the lid of the cup. This was not done to prevent injury and there was no statistical data backing up the reason for the new warnings.

 

[Dan Robinson]

And this is the biggest argument why a RIW is not the solution. Ice does not accumulate on all surfaces equally.

It doesn't accumulate on all surfaces equally - but it's still there. When the ambient conditions support it, it will be present in at least enough locations to be an appreciable threat. As in the case of the 12/13 event.

The NWS should *not* be in the business of having a warning for every specific hazard within the context of a larger event.

In the case of FRAs, WWAs and ice/snow SPSs, the larger event *is* the icing. The primary hazard for those products (and even WSW, Heavy Snow Warnings, Snow advisories, etc) *is* the travel impacts/roads.

The forecasting/operational logistics aren't the issue, those won't need to change. The products are already being issued. It's about calling those products what they really are, IE, addressing the overwhelmingly primary hazard of the roads. I haven't been able to find in my research where light snow accumulations present any other real hazard to the public that would warrant warnings/advisories other than the road impacts.

In the case of RIW, the NWS does not have the expertise to know what kind of icing may be occurring on what surfaces.

Again, in practice, subfreezing temps+precip *always* results in the hazard, if only on bridges - which still poses a significant threat despite not being widespread on all roads. Again, the FRAs, WWAs and SPSs already do this - but again, they don't communicate this hazard adequately for the public nor secondary media/communication channels.

And for the record, I'd argue that RIW would end up covering a lot more of the country than you think. If we have to replace every WWA or FRA or Ice Storm Warning, etc with a RIW, that will add up to a large chunk of real estate - quickly. Not to mention the road ice threat will persist well after the parent meteorological storm has passed. A good portion of Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa still have a lot of snow on the ground. Do we still need RIW there? I'm willing to bet that the 50s on Sunday in northern KS, followed by the 0s and 10s on Sunday night into Monday resulted in some melting and refreezing. Do we need to put more RIW out for that possibility? If so, parts of northern KS might have been under a RIW for well over a week now!

Again, the RIW-worthy event happens no more than 6 or 7 times a year for any given part of the country south of an approximately I-80 line. For areas that are frequently snowpacked (a condition that has a low incidence of fatal crashes), the criteria would not be necessary to have the product in effect continuously. The data I've compiled shows that the greatest threat is during the *onset* of precip-in-progress events during subfreezing temps. For example, there was only one fatal accident last year attibuted to refreezing. All the others were due to falling precip in some form, and mostly at the onset/first few hours of the events.

 

[Rich Long]

Again, in practice, subfreezing temps+precip *always* results in the hazard, if only on bridges - which still poses a significant threat despite not being widespread on all roads.

I see that as a problem if not properly communicated. If 97% are clear of the hazard and most of the population will not be affected (Such as it has rained in the southern parts of the county) Then the less effective this will become over time. Even if it's just icy on bridges, unless people encounter it your crying wolf. Also remember that this can have an economic effect to which means that local and state officials will be questioning it if its a perceived bogus warning. They already do with tornado warnings among others. Perception is reality.

As it stands, I have talked with more than one local met who receives darn near hate mail when they break into programing for tornado warnings. These stations are a business, never forget that, they will do what is popular with their viewers

Again, the RIW-worthy event happens no more than 6 or 7 times a year for any given part of the country south of an approximately I-80 line.

Ok what data are you using to support this? Subfreezing temps+precip occur much more often than that over the course of the winter. Columbus, Ohio had about 5 instances in January 2009 alone. In the south you'd be correct but Kentucky north I think you'll be in trouble with that statement unless of course there is a certain amount of precip that would trigger the warning?

Subfreezing temps+precip DO NOT ALWAYS equal icy conditions on roadways. I have seen this repeated a few times here. If the surface temp is 40F then the freezing rain will melt on contact with the road surface. What would you suggest to prevent your warning from being issued?

 

[Jason Bolt]

EAX yesterday did a good job of trying to publicize the danger of black ice in the early morning by issuing several detailed Special Weather Statements. They were broken up in groups of three or four counties giving detailed timeframes of when a strong arctic cold front was to drop south through the CWA taking temps from the mid 40s to the mid 20s in a matter of an hour or so causing a flash freeze on roadways. The forecast was very detailed and talked specifically about black ice and hazardous driving conditions.

There was absolutely no precip in the forecast and it seemed like a perfect example of where a more highly publicized product like a "Road Ice Warning" could have had an impact on driver awareness and thus saved lives.

 

[Dan Robinson]

Ok what data are you using to support this? Subfreezing temps+precip occur much more often than that over the course of the winter. Columbus, Ohio had about 5 instances in January 2009 alone. In the south you'd be correct but Kentucky north I think you'll be in trouble with that statement unless of course there is a certain amount of precip that would trigger the warning?

If you go to icyroadsafey.com and look at the fatal accident reports, you can see the trends. The Midwest is the hotspot, mainly because the events are relatively infrequent (IE, not commonplace as they are in northern regions). For southern regions, the incidences are less, but the impacts are even greater.

Subfreezing temps+precip DO NOT ALWAYS equal icy conditions on roadways. I have seen this repeated a few times here. If the surface temp is 40F then the freezing rain will melt on contact with the road surface. What would you suggest to prevent your warning from being issued?

When area surface obs are at 32F or below, and precip is falling, icing will occur. I have yet to document an example in the field when I found no icing at temps below 32F. When temps are right at 32F and slightly above, it gets trickier to call. But most events are solidly within the ambient conditions needed to produce the hazard. It's no different from using radar-estimated rainfall to issue flash flood warnings or VIL to issue a SVR for hail. The flooding will not be everywhere, but if you see 3"+ estimates on the radar in hilly terrain, you can reasonably expect hazardous flooding to be occuring somewhere in the threat area - enough to justify a warning.

The RIW is more of a precip-onset product rather than something that needs to be in effect at all times during a winter event. Most of the fatal accidents happen in the first hour or two of an event. Again, criteria would be different depending on the region. For southern areas, full-time RIW for the duration of events would be appropriate.

 

[rdale]

EAX yesterday did a good job of trying to publicize the danger of black ice
[...]
it seemed like a perfect example of where a more highly publicized product like a "Road Ice Warning" could have had an impact on driver awareness and thus saved lives.

Either they did a good job - or they didn't... Again I ask how we know the public would react in any form differently for what they did yesterday, versus a RIW and cutting in to local TV/radio programming, sounding alerts, etc.

 

[Rich Long]

When area surface obs are at 32F or below, and precip is falling, icing will occur. I have yet to document an example in the field when I found no icing at temps below 32F.

Yep your right . I had time to do a little homework on the subject and this might clarify the science:

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~cliff/Roadway3.html

Next question. When would this warning be cancelled? After precip stops and/or air temp is >32F or after the dot treated x% of the roads?

 

[Patrick Marsh]

When area surface obs are at 32F or below, and precip is falling, icing will occur. I have yet to document an example in the field when I found no icing at temps below 32F. When temps are right at 32F and slightly above, it gets trickier to call.

I still take issue with this statement. It may verify most of the time in your location, but the truth of the matter is, ice on roads won't develop until the ground temperature reaches freezing. Period.

The RIW is more of a precip-onset product rather than something that needs to be in effect at all times during a winter event. Most of the fatal accidents happen in the first hour or two of an event. Again, criteria would be different depending on the region. For southern areas, full-time RIW for the duration of events would be appropriate.

So now we're only going to issue products for the start of an event? I can see it now...People sitting at home and as soon as the produce expires (because the icing has been occurring for awhile now) saying to themselves, "Well, the RIW expired, I don't need to be concerned now."

This also argues, once again, for additional products such as the WWA, FFA, etc because those products are valid for the duration of an event - not just the onset of the event. I can only imagine the outrage people would have if the NWS started cancelling tornado warnings (or allow them to expire) because we only need to warn about the onset of an event. I can see the headlines now, "NWS Doesn't Issue Warning Because Tornado Was On the Ground For Over An Hour." You better believe the higher ups in the NWS would find themselves hauled before Congress in that situation.

 

[Paul Hadfield]

Great discussion gentlemen, thank you for addressing my previous posts.

And this is the biggest argument why a RIW is not the solution. Ice does not accumulate on all surfaces equally. The NWS should *not* be in the business of having a warning for every specific hazard within the context of a larger event. In the case of RIW, the NWS does not have the expertise to know what kind of icing may be occurring on what surfaces. RIW is awfully specific, so if you start issuing them then you'll need to start issuing other products that relate to the other hazards. A winter weather advisory / freezing rain advisory are designed to alert people to the fact that wintry weather / ice is a possibility *everywhere* not just on roadways.

Rain does not pond on road surfaces equally yet it is common practice for the NWS to issue flash flood warnings across and entire CWA within the context of a larger event (ie: SVR TSRM watch/warning) so your first statement as to why it should not be implemented shows that it already is. The NWS does not have the expertise to know exactly what kind of flooding is occurring (minor/major or exact locations) so the blanket warning covers all possibilities. RIW is no more specific than the existing warning criteria for flash flooding because like road ice, flooding rain is the end result of a meteorological event. The warning wording for flash flooding also specifically addresses the dire concern for motorists.

During a blizzard a blizzard warning is issued, not a Winter Storm Warning, High Wind Warning, RIW, etc. A blizzard warning encompasses all of those hazards. There is no need for a specific product for each hazard.

Yes but notice how we often see the inclusion of a Wind Chill Advisory, Special Weather Statement or even Hazard Weather Outlook included among those warnings you mention. Again, another warning within the context of a larger event example and often of phenomena that you would think should be obvious since a blizzard warning is the most dire of all.

And for the record, I'd argue that RIW would end up covering a lot more of the country than you think. If we have to replace every WWA or FRA or Ice Storm Warning, etc with a RIW, that will add up to a large chunk of real estate - quickly. Not to mention the road ice threat will persist well after the parent meteorological storm has passed. A good portion of Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa still have a lot of snow on the ground. Do we still need RIW there? I'm willing to bet that the 50s on Sunday in northern KS, followed by the 0s and 10s on Sunday night into Monday resulted in some melting and refreezing. Do we need to put more RIW out for that possibility? If so, parts of northern KS might have been under a RIW for well over a week now!

We have had rivers in flood now for many weeks. It has been as such that farmer's in some locales have not been able to harvest their crops in time making this the 4th latest harvest in recorded history for the greater C IL region. During the onset of the flooding back in October, products were issued and broadcast to heighten the awareness of the immediate dire nature of the situation. Even though flooding continued, local conditions improved due to the ceasing of rainfall and thus it was not necessary to be in everyone's face. The warnings however, remained in place for what has become several months now. The point I'm saying is that the continuance of a warning for a period indefinite is a common practice put forth out of necessity even if we want to think it isn't needed. RIW is the same thing in that you broadcast the product during the most severe of situations say as precip is falling, scale back as conditions improve but quietly leave it in place if deemed necessary for an overnight refreezing situation. If a RIW product was out there, I'm confident that scores of intelligent, dedicated and well meaning OCM's would pick up on it for use in their broadcasts even if it was a clear night under a chilly dome of high pressure and radiational cooling was quietly undoing the work that the sun had begun. This isn't a product intended to make people go hide under their beds but let's call a spade a spade... just like driving down a roadway with a seemingly harmless big puddle up ahead, icing conditions can kill too.