JamesCaruso
Staff member
Agree with this and had the same thought as I read Mike's post. Elaborating slightly by saying "4 on a scale of 1 to 5" should remove all ambiguity.
-
While Stormtrack has discontinued its hosting of SpotterNetwork support on the forums, keep in mind that support for SpotterNetwork issues is available by emailing [email protected].
Legislation to Create a National Disaster Review Board
- Thread starter Mike Smith
- Start date
Agree with this and had the same thought as I read Mike's post. Elaborating slightly by saying "4 on a scale of 1 to 5" should remove all ambiguity.
Mike Smith
EF5
But "5" what?
Your local morning television meteorologist shows all of these colors and says "we have a five out of five risk of tornadoes and severe thunderstorms" on some early May day and later in the month says we have a "3 out of 5 risk." To non-meteorologists, this is nearly meaningless (please read the above study plus there are others from the WAS*IS era that say the same thing).
The Convective Outlooks began as guidance strictly for meteorologists. We all have the best of intentions here but since they have "gone "public," the scientific studies indicate that almost no one amongst the general public understands them well. That's why the discriptive words are important.
"Today, the red area indicates a high risk of major tornadoes along with damaging thunderstorm winds and hail. High risk is a rare forecast and it means that after 12:30pm, we should begin closely monitoring the weather." That is meaningful.
Here in KC, I've seen the colored SPC map (without adjectives) and they have said, the "yellow indicates a level 3 risk [not saying "out of five"] of tornadoes and severe thunderstorms." No one understands this. Again, this is not my opinion, it is what the studies all say.
Finally, I don't believe the numbers are linear: a "5" risk -- if it verifies -- is much more than 2.5 times the risk of a "2."
Everyone kind of understands that a 80% chance of rain is much more than a 30% chance of rain. That is because rain probabilities are frequent.
In most of the nation, John Q might experience 5-6 days with a threat of tornadoes. They don't not automatically understand the convective outlooks.
I am willing to be convinced I am incorrect, but please pass along studies that indicate why I am wrong. That is always appreciated.
Thanks, Jim, John and Everyone
Last edited:
John Farley
Supporter
I think you are right about a lot of that, Mike. Studies show, and I see in my own conversations with people that don't follow weather a lot, that people don't understand most of the terminology. Many can't even keep track of the difference between a watch and a warning. But I do think they are likely to get the idea that a level 4 out of 5 risk is more than a level 1 out of 5. And while I agree about what you say about non-linearity, I don't think that matters much. Most do not think in terms of whether numbers are linear or exponential, or even know the difference, but they do understand that a higher number out of a possible 5 means more risk. And that is probably about the best we can realistically expect. I do think the "out of a possible 5" part is important, because it gives some sense of the magnitude of the risk compared to the worst it could be. As to colors, use whatever research shows to come closest to conveying the message intended. Of course I don't know if there is enough research to rank-order the colors that are commonly used, but there is research showing that red is a trigger for many people, so it should be at or near the top.
Thanks & yep, I ofcourse have seen those (which is along the line what I was thinking - the larger more slowly rising & longer lasting floods ... compared to flash flood which as we know can happen fast) .. I'd just never seen the term "river flood warning" before.Mike Smith said:
Yep, I totally agree, most anyone not into weather isn't going to know the actual meaning, but they will know "severe thunderstorm" will be a strong & possibly damaging storm. (And unless you read the warning text, you're not going to know what the storm is bringing - hail or wind.)
I'm sure many people if they get a severe thunderstorm alert just "oh another storm" & click it off, then go about their business.
"hail warning" (with a size) would certainly grab peoples attention!
-----------
It took awhile, but I went & read through the study. Certainly an interesting read.
I'm not surprised that people got the SPC outlooks words out of (their official) order. Not only because I've seen such mentioned on various websites before, but also because unless you actually know the terminology, some of them are kinda ambiguous like 'enhanced' & 'moderate'.
How color was interpreted does surprise me with people seeing red as higher than magenta ... but that said, I'm seeing colors from an artistic / computer-graphics / light spectrum point of view (because thats stuff I've long been into) (and for weather radar also uses magenta for stronger returns/heaver rain). Maybe general-public people see their colors in a more random order? .lol.
If I was designing 'outlook' colors strictly from an artistic / computer-graphics point of view, it would literally look something like the attached. (which I'll admit on the lower-ratings (if they were alone/no higher risks) doesn't really show severe risk though it might wrongly give flood risk.... .lol.)
Attachments
Good they're looking into what all went wrong!John Farley said:
I'll have to go read that article later.
Yep, this! the "of 5" is important ... If the weather guy just said "SPC has us in a level 1 storm risk today" for general public it would be: what does that even mean? 1 of what? As Mike mentioned - in military terms, a 1 is something you would not ever want to see? or 1 being the bottom of the scale, so just some minor chance of storms?
But saying "SPC has us in a level 1 of 5 storm risk today" IMO pretty clearly indicates its on the lower end of the risk scale.
--------------------------
In my case for me, if I see I'm in a level-1/marginal (not too uncommon), I can basically ignore it and say, 'oh just another day with no storms'. And really a level-2/slight basically means only a very minimal chance storms (could almost be ignored but I will still keep a an occasional check on things on the off chance something fires up).
4/moderate or 5/high will never happen here, but those are something I'd deff be on the watch-out for storms if I was a place that got them
William Monfredo
EF4
Twenty years ago, Hurricane Katrina struck...
My shot shows the barge that broke through the Industrial Canal Levee to flood the Lower Ninth Ward, NOLA.
My next two photos show Bay St. Louis, Mississippi experienced damage from extreme storm-surge and strong wind.
In my pic below, a home in Lakeview, LA near the 17th St. Canal break flooded from Katrina...& then got hit by a tornado.
Imagine going without electricity or hot water month after month. Katrina's a poster child for the NDRB, in my opinion.
My shot shows the barge that broke through the Industrial Canal Levee to flood the Lower Ninth Ward, NOLA.
My next two photos show Bay St. Louis, Mississippi experienced damage from extreme storm-surge and strong wind.
In my pic below, a home in Lakeview, LA near the 17th St. Canal break flooded from Katrina...& then got hit by a tornado.
Imagine going without electricity or hot water month after month. Katrina's a poster child for the NDRB, in my opinion.
Last edited:
Mike Smith
EF5
Hi Everyone,
Here is good news! I am happy to report there is a solid bill to create a NDRB being marked up in the U.S. House Science Committee. It has been introduced by Rep. Jared Moscowitz (D) who, before being elected to the House, was appointed by Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) as the Emergency Manager for the State of Florida. As many of you know, Florida has frequently received high praise for the way it handles disasters.
The bill has both D and R cosponsors. It does need some tweaks. I realize wading through the info below may seem like a lousy way to spend 30-60 minutes but this is how the process works. I urge you to do it.
Please contact your congresspeople to move this forward and I'd like to make the process as straightforward as possible. You can take this info and use it as you like (don't need to credit me) to ask your congressman/woman to support the bill with, hopefully, these tweaks:
General Comment:
I have attached the bill as it was the 12th. I have al concern that, based on some press release info that came out last week, there is going to be an attempt for emergency managers to dominate the Board. I don't want any single profession to do that.
Specific Suggestions for Improvement You Can Send to Your Congresspeople (Especially if you live in Florida or Moskowitz's District
“Acts of Violence” and “Technological Disasters” (some of the latter could overlap with the responsibilities of the Chemical Review Board) are outside of the expertise required to study and make recommendations pertaining to Hurricanes, Tsunamis, Tornadoes, Earthquakes, et cetera. I recommend those responsibilities be deleted from the bill.
The NDRB should be an independent agency. Thank you for recognizing that important fact.
Findings that are “non-accusatory” and “not intended to find fault” – mentioned twice in the draft -- are contradictory to the goal of saving lives and mitigating economic loss. The National Transportation Safety Board publishes the names of the persons involved in its reports (e.g., naming the captain of an aircraft that crashes). The purpose of naming names is not accusatory, it is for the purposes of clarity. The draft makes it clear that, as with the NTSB’s findings, the NDRB’s findings will not be able to be used in litigation.
The determination of the economic loss due to disasters should be made by the Bureau of Economic Analysis rather than NOAA.
While it would be highly beneficial to have a disaster database and reference guide (similar to the NTSB’s disaster database), the discontinued NOAA Billion Dollar Disaster Database (BDDD) was discontinued because a single personprepared it via methods known only to him and he has left federal service. The BDDD was flawed as this peer-reviewed paper in Nature (one of the world’s most prestigious journals) explains: https://www.nature.com/articles/s44304-024-00011-0 My recommendation is that a new database be created based on solid scientific data and techniques. The language of the draft makes it clear the new database must be built on solid science.
The purpose of the "domestic preparedness consortium mentioned" in the draft is not clear. I comment that a federal National Disaster Review Board is needed to ensure that local, state, tribal and other entities are not involved in hiding embarrassing data and similar activities.
There is no reason for the NDRB to have field offices. The numbers of individuals with the knowledge and experience in natural hazards and social sciences is small. It would be more effective to have a national headquarters with experts in that location. The Board (like the NTSB) should have a contract with a private jet company so expert investigators can be quickly flown into the area of the disaster.
The NDRB should be located well outside of the Beltway in the central U.S. This is to attempt to insulate the Board from politics. The central U.S. is favored for logistical reasons and for climate reasons, e.g., a hurricane could take out the NDRB headquarters if it was near the East Coast and an earthquake or tsunami could take out NDRB headquarters if it was located near the West Coast.
The NDRB should not be collocated with a federal agency or laboratory nor should it be located on the campus of a university with a major department in meteorology, seismology or related sciences. This counterintuitive recommendation is to prevent a form of “regulatory capture.” Consider: if a federal laboratory recommended a defective technique or technology, there may be reluctance to criticize the lab due to personal relationships that will inevitably develop due to being in close proximity.
The language that the “Board shall not interfere with ongoing lifesaving efforts” or other activities is quite different from the way the highly successful NTSB operates. Recalling the January mid-air collision between the helicopter and the American Airlines flight, the NTSB was on-site at Reagan National Airport within two hours and it directed the operation. The “corporate knowledge” of the NTSB is usually greater than local first responders and they can be helpful in the immediate search and recovery operations. This language should be stricken from the draft.
While the parties to the review should be able to make recommendations to the Board prior to the publishing of a final report, the sharing of the draft report with third parties should be a discretionary function of the Board rather than a requirement. By making the sharing with perhaps as many as 6-9 parties the likelihood of leaks and preemptory public relations campaigns becomes far more likely. This may limit the effectiveness of the Board. This language should be modified.
The language of the draft explicitly says that one of the goals of the Board is to “avoid duplication” with other federal entities. Because the United States spends ~$5 billion annually on an expert United States Climate Assessment (USCA; see: https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/fifth-national-climate-assessment/ ), the National Disaster Review Board should not have climate among the Board’s responsibilities. Otherwise, there will inevitably be conflicts – both scientific and political – between the two groups to the detriment of the nation.
The requirement for two members of the Board to be emergency managers is excessive. I recommend that one member be required to have EM experience. Note: there is nothing to prevent the nomination of an additional member(s) with EM experience.
The requirement that two members of the Board have experience working with “at risk” populations is excessive in a seven-person board. I recommend that one member be required to have this experience.
Finally, the Board should take over the task of validating NWS storm warnings. The NWS should no longer evaluate and investigate itself.
The purpose of the “notice of inquiry” language is not clear. I recommend it be clarified in future drafts.
Letter to Congresspeople You May Adapt For Your Use
Below is the general text of a letter you may wish to send to your congressional delegation. I recommend you put it in your own words and add any of the above "specific suggestions."
Dear _________________:
The U.S. storm warning system, once the envy of the world, has developed major cracks in the past twelve months. After five decades of decreasing death rates thanks to more accurate storm warnings and response techniques, we have entered an alarming period of mega-disasters. Our nation cannot afford for this trend to continue and worsen.
Just as the NTSB has made flying incredibly safe, the NDRB will investigate and learn the causes of failures related to natural disasters (earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.) and will devise solutions. The Board’s recommendations will emphasize “best practices” which will be widely adopted – saving lives and mitigating economic loss.
The bill is currently being drafted on by the House Science Committee. I support the creation of a National Disaster Review Board and recommend you consider being a co-sponsor.
Very best wishes,
[Your Name and Any Family Members' Names]
This is the way we get bills passed. Please, please, write your congresspeople, especially your representatives in the House.
The Board is the only I know that will allow us to save lives and reverse some of the issues that have manifested themselves in recent years.
Mike
Here is good news! I am happy to report there is a solid bill to create a NDRB being marked up in the U.S. House Science Committee. It has been introduced by Rep. Jared Moscowitz (D) who, before being elected to the House, was appointed by Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) as the Emergency Manager for the State of Florida. As many of you know, Florida has frequently received high praise for the way it handles disasters.
The bill has both D and R cosponsors. It does need some tweaks. I realize wading through the info below may seem like a lousy way to spend 30-60 minutes but this is how the process works. I urge you to do it.
Please contact your congresspeople to move this forward and I'd like to make the process as straightforward as possible. You can take this info and use it as you like (don't need to credit me) to ask your congressman/woman to support the bill with, hopefully, these tweaks:
General Comment:
I have attached the bill as it was the 12th. I have al concern that, based on some press release info that came out last week, there is going to be an attempt for emergency managers to dominate the Board. I don't want any single profession to do that.
Specific Suggestions for Improvement You Can Send to Your Congresspeople (Especially if you live in Florida or Moskowitz's District
“Acts of Violence” and “Technological Disasters” (some of the latter could overlap with the responsibilities of the Chemical Review Board) are outside of the expertise required to study and make recommendations pertaining to Hurricanes, Tsunamis, Tornadoes, Earthquakes, et cetera. I recommend those responsibilities be deleted from the bill.
The NDRB should be an independent agency. Thank you for recognizing that important fact.
Findings that are “non-accusatory” and “not intended to find fault” – mentioned twice in the draft -- are contradictory to the goal of saving lives and mitigating economic loss. The National Transportation Safety Board publishes the names of the persons involved in its reports (e.g., naming the captain of an aircraft that crashes). The purpose of naming names is not accusatory, it is for the purposes of clarity. The draft makes it clear that, as with the NTSB’s findings, the NDRB’s findings will not be able to be used in litigation.
The determination of the economic loss due to disasters should be made by the Bureau of Economic Analysis rather than NOAA.
While it would be highly beneficial to have a disaster database and reference guide (similar to the NTSB’s disaster database), the discontinued NOAA Billion Dollar Disaster Database (BDDD) was discontinued because a single personprepared it via methods known only to him and he has left federal service. The BDDD was flawed as this peer-reviewed paper in Nature (one of the world’s most prestigious journals) explains: https://www.nature.com/articles/s44304-024-00011-0 My recommendation is that a new database be created based on solid scientific data and techniques. The language of the draft makes it clear the new database must be built on solid science.
The purpose of the "domestic preparedness consortium mentioned" in the draft is not clear. I comment that a federal National Disaster Review Board is needed to ensure that local, state, tribal and other entities are not involved in hiding embarrassing data and similar activities.
There is no reason for the NDRB to have field offices. The numbers of individuals with the knowledge and experience in natural hazards and social sciences is small. It would be more effective to have a national headquarters with experts in that location. The Board (like the NTSB) should have a contract with a private jet company so expert investigators can be quickly flown into the area of the disaster.
The NDRB should be located well outside of the Beltway in the central U.S. This is to attempt to insulate the Board from politics. The central U.S. is favored for logistical reasons and for climate reasons, e.g., a hurricane could take out the NDRB headquarters if it was near the East Coast and an earthquake or tsunami could take out NDRB headquarters if it was located near the West Coast.
The NDRB should not be collocated with a federal agency or laboratory nor should it be located on the campus of a university with a major department in meteorology, seismology or related sciences. This counterintuitive recommendation is to prevent a form of “regulatory capture.” Consider: if a federal laboratory recommended a defective technique or technology, there may be reluctance to criticize the lab due to personal relationships that will inevitably develop due to being in close proximity.
The language that the “Board shall not interfere with ongoing lifesaving efforts” or other activities is quite different from the way the highly successful NTSB operates. Recalling the January mid-air collision between the helicopter and the American Airlines flight, the NTSB was on-site at Reagan National Airport within two hours and it directed the operation. The “corporate knowledge” of the NTSB is usually greater than local first responders and they can be helpful in the immediate search and recovery operations. This language should be stricken from the draft.
While the parties to the review should be able to make recommendations to the Board prior to the publishing of a final report, the sharing of the draft report with third parties should be a discretionary function of the Board rather than a requirement. By making the sharing with perhaps as many as 6-9 parties the likelihood of leaks and preemptory public relations campaigns becomes far more likely. This may limit the effectiveness of the Board. This language should be modified.
The language of the draft explicitly says that one of the goals of the Board is to “avoid duplication” with other federal entities. Because the United States spends ~$5 billion annually on an expert United States Climate Assessment (USCA; see: https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/fifth-national-climate-assessment/ ), the National Disaster Review Board should not have climate among the Board’s responsibilities. Otherwise, there will inevitably be conflicts – both scientific and political – between the two groups to the detriment of the nation.
The requirement for two members of the Board to be emergency managers is excessive. I recommend that one member be required to have EM experience. Note: there is nothing to prevent the nomination of an additional member(s) with EM experience.
The requirement that two members of the Board have experience working with “at risk” populations is excessive in a seven-person board. I recommend that one member be required to have this experience.
Finally, the Board should take over the task of validating NWS storm warnings. The NWS should no longer evaluate and investigate itself.
The purpose of the “notice of inquiry” language is not clear. I recommend it be clarified in future drafts.
Letter to Congresspeople You May Adapt For Your Use
Below is the general text of a letter you may wish to send to your congressional delegation. I recommend you put it in your own words and add any of the above "specific suggestions."
Dear _________________:
The U.S. storm warning system, once the envy of the world, has developed major cracks in the past twelve months. After five decades of decreasing death rates thanks to more accurate storm warnings and response techniques, we have entered an alarming period of mega-disasters. Our nation cannot afford for this trend to continue and worsen.
- People across the nation were shocked and saddened Independence Day when they learned of the flash flood in Texas that took the lives of 138. A disproportionate number of children were killed as their summer camps flooded in a matter of minutes.
- In January more than 400 people were killed as fires swept across Southern California. Accompanying the fires were accusations of malfeasance by local officials. Estimates show these fires will be the costliest disaster in U.S. history, exceeding 2005’s Hurricane Katrina.
- In both January and August, incorrect tsunami warnings were issued for U.S. territories in the Atlantic and the State of Hawaii, respectively. These false alarms resulted in people frantically spending hours in traffic as they attempted to get away from the coast. False alarms of this nature make it less likely people correctly respond in the future.
- National Weather Service tornado warnings have been 20% less accurate and 40% less timely since 2010. They have met their accuracy goal just one year since 2011.
- Finally, 100 were killed in the Appalachians as a result of flash floods related to Hurricane Helene. The forecasts of those floods left a great deal to be desired.
Just as the NTSB has made flying incredibly safe, the NDRB will investigate and learn the causes of failures related to natural disasters (earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.) and will devise solutions. The Board’s recommendations will emphasize “best practices” which will be widely adopted – saving lives and mitigating economic loss.
The bill is currently being drafted on by the House Science Committee. I support the creation of a National Disaster Review Board and recommend you consider being a co-sponsor.
Very best wishes,
[Your Name and Any Family Members' Names]
This is the way we get bills passed. Please, please, write your congresspeople, especially your representatives in the House.
The Board is the only I know that will allow us to save lives and reverse some of the issues that have manifested themselves in recent years.
Mike