Legislation to Create a National Disaster Review Board

[JamesCaruso]

I think when you have the "out of five" wording most people would understand that five is the highest, and that you ought to worry a lot more about "4 out of 5" than "1 out of 5

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]

Elaborating slightly by saying "4 on a scale of 1 to 5" should remove all ambiguity.

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

 

[John Farley]

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.

 

[James K]

I have attached a river flood warning (NWS calls these "riverine" warnings)

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.

With regard to severe thunderstorm warnings, go out and find a couple friends who have nothing to do with meteorology. Ask them the definitions of "severe." I'll wager neither can say, "one inch hail and/or 58 mph winds" or worse.

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.)

 

[James K]

Following the disastrous tornado in St. Louis on May 16, the city hired an independent consultant to review what went wrong.

Good they're looking into what all went wrong!
I'll have to go read that article later.

What I have heard more often in the past year or so is something along the lines of "level 3 out of 5," etc. I think when you have the "out of five" wording most people would understand that five is the highest,

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]

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.