National Weather Service Announces Unfortunate Tornado Warning Experiment

Wow; thanks to Mike for bringing this up.

The blog post should be read in its entirety, but this is one of the best quotes in summation of the issue.

It has taken forty years to get the “watch” and “warning” concept to where they have widespread acceptance. I doubt this can be done in forty days.

Dr. Laura Myers, a social scientist at Mississippi State University, wrote yesterday,
My conclusion: It would seem that more detail and more warning levels would help, but I think it just leads to confusion and [warning] fatigue.
Click to expand...

As always, though, the warning process is a double-edged sword as far as public perception is concerned. After last year's seriously horrific death tolls across multiple states, its really not surprising that some form of rethinking of the warning language is occurring, but this new system - albeit an experimental one - definitely presents some major 'cons' that will need to be addressed. I'll be curious to see how this whole thing evolves.
 
While the implementation tiers may be flawed, this is the best idea to come out of the NWS in ages... NWS mets already know the difference between an EF0 squall line gustnado and an EF5 wedge, but they can't transmit that in a product. They are all a TOR.

TV mets know when to emphasize a storm with wall-to-wall and when the system might pull a few shingles off a shed.

EMs don't. Business owners don't. This allows them to get that sort of info.

Obviously anyone who thinks this will lead to warning fatigue is missing some important features... 1) QLCS potential tornadoes will no longer get a TOR by default. So an 80mph leading edge gust with a 60mph eddy can stay with the SVR. 2) Businesses that simply won't shut down operations for a TOR since most would never impact their structure to begin with now can look for the intensity/confirmation and base decisions on the data that us in the weather world already know.

Great idea - less than perfect execution - but worthy of a test. Good job NWS...
 
rdale said:
While the implementation tiers may be flawed, this is the best idea to come out of the NWS in ages... NWS mets already know the difference between an EF0 squall line gustnado and an EF5 wedge, but they can't transmit that in a product. They are all a TOR.
Click to expand...

They are all still TOR's. The NWR's will still go off the same way they do now.

Doing this with very little advance notice (April 1) is a terrible idea.
 
Mike Smith said:
They are all still TOR's. The NWR's will still go off the same way they do now.
Click to expand...

No - a QLCS event with little eddies on the leading edge are now SVR's. That's how they were until the late-90's when 88D really started to show the rotation. So they will NOT activate companies' tornado warning plans, which is a good thing. Save that for systems that really require action.

Doing this with very little advance notice (April 1) is a terrible idea.
Click to expand...

3 months should be ample time - I'd much rather they start now instead of waiting another year and seeing two more service assessments saying that we need a better way to transmit the threat level... Granted they needed to work with the WRN community, so by no means am I saying they did this correctly, but it's a needed step forward. It makes automated alerting systems MUCH better, even if it's just the new taglines.
 
rdale said:
3 months should be ample time -
Click to expand...

How do you get three months? This has not been publicly announced. I posted it for that very reason. We're 45 days away from this and the public has been told nothing.

Had lunch with a TV chief meteorologist in our market today and he was not aware of this experiment.
 
Sorry - math in my head typo. 2 months. It was posted on the PDD server the first week of this month, and discussion flared up pretty hot-n-heavy on the WAS*IS forum / FB group soon after.

But I do agree that the NWS is doing a HORRIBLE job advertising this. I don't see any WFO offering info.
 
Last edited:
Mike Smith said:
Effective April 1, multi-tiered TOR and SVR from EAX, SGF, TOP, ICT, DDC, and GLD. My commentary is here: http://www.mikesmithenterprises.com/2012/02/ka-boom/

The NWS product description document is here: http://products.weather.gov/PDD/PDD_CR_IBW_011012.pdf

From where I sit, this is a terrible idea made worse by the fact it is six weeks away.

Mike
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree with your statement, "We have no skill at short-term tornado strength forecasting," as a valid argument against an enhanced warning. A "warning" is based on a real-time radar image that is not a forecast but an actual event. I would sooner trust a Mike Umscheid at DDC, writing his own warning to Greensburg, KS about what was heading their way, than to make him tailor an urgent life-saving message to some limited bureaucratic shorthand. The more explanation (not less), the better.

Secondly, I believe the target population in the plains has become much more knowledgeable over the years, than for which jaded bureaucrats give them credit. Modern communication (television, cell phones, and Weather Radio) has greatly enhanced the delivery and range of information, which wasn't available "forty years" ago. I think they are ready for the next phase of warnings. Better to give more information than withholding it, risking lives(?), and trying to boilerplate some uniform message, that applies to everyone, all the time, in every situation.

An enhanced warning need not include exactly how to react. Trying to anticipate public reaction and specific preparedness steps should not thwart this effort. Deal with that later. I would sooner trust the COMMON SENSE of the market audience in the plains, than depend on a bureaucratic list of do's and don'ts. This may not satisfy Government lawyers, wanting to protect it against every possible claim, but that shouldn't stop doing what is right.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think this is a step in the right direction. There is a problem with having the same basic warning for some minor radar indications of rotation on a slight risk day, as opposed to your classic velocity couplet/debris ball. Ultimately, you have to think that fewer people will die in unwarned small tornadoes than the current trend where tornado warnings get ignored by many because they are so frequent. There should be a higher level of warning, for more solid velocity couplets, dual pol debris echos, large tornadoes confirmed by spotters, things like that, that is higher than your "run of the mill" tornado warning. Maybe don't even sound sirens for the lower end ones, or classify them as severe warnings and not tornado warnings. Having the sirens only sound inside the polygons would also help. Bottom line, there should be a warning class that means "people are about to die". Use it sparingly.
 
I think that the tiered warnings are conceptually a good idea. Remember that 90% or more of tornadoes are EF0 or EF1, and most are small and of short duration. Entirely different animals than Joplin, Tuscaloosa, etc. I am not sure yet whether the way it is being implemented is good - I share some of the concerns that others have articulated - but I think it is important to remember that this an experiment involving a handful of CWAs, not a blanket policy change. Because it is an experiment, though, I do think that it is important to have in place a process for evaluating its effectiveness - and I have not heard much about that aspect yet. It needs to be a true experiment, with a methodologically sound evaluation process in place. I hope this is the case, but I don't have enough info at this time to know whether it is.
 
I'm going to tentatively judge this to be a step in the right direction. Considering that the special codes and "levels" will all be dealt with backstage and the only difference in the product that the public will notice is increasingly dire verbiage depending upon the urgency of the situation, I'm not even all that sure that NWS's poor advertising will be that much of a problem. When products include language like "tornado was spotted" and "catastrophic damage is occurring", I'm pretty confident that consumers will immediately understand that they're not dealing with a mere "thunderstorm capable of producing a tornado".
 
Though I believe it won't be perfect at the start, I also believe that this is a step in the right direction. I know many many people who have complained about the current tornado warning system and stating that it should be a multi-tiered system. My boss at work and myself have discussed this many of times. I think given time, with trial and error, this will be a good thing and the public will respect the system more than they do the current warning system. Simply put, people are tired of our current warning system, it works but it could be better and I think this is a step in the right direction.
 
Mike,
I like the awareness that you are bringing up regarding this, but I think most of the people out there couldn't tell you how a warning is worded now. They just want to know if a tornado is going to hit them. I think the NWS made a huge step forward with the polygons and time will tell how this works out. I really don't think the general public will care if it is a PDS/Tornado Emergency or not, but if those words are mentioned when they are impatiently waiting for the warning to get off the radio...it may change things. I forget that 99% of the people in my life have never heard of a "PDS watch" or "Tornado Emergency Tornado Warning" as it is. They may have never heard of either of those, but if a PDS watch is issued and they hear the person on TV/radio mention it then they may take things a step further in their preparation for a storm. I get you points, but I think this is worth a try.

Keep on doing what you are doing. It is much appreciated sir.
 
David Hoadley said:
I respectfully disagree that your statement, "We have no skill at short-term tornado strength forecasting," is a valid argument against an enhanced warning. A "warning" is based on a real-time radar image that is not a forecast but an actual event. I would sooner trust a Mike Umscheid at DDC, writing his own warning to Greensburg, KS about what was heading their way, than to make him tailor an urgent life-saving message to some proscribed bureaucratic language.

Secondly, I believe the target population in the plains has become much more knowledgeable over the years, than for which jaded bureaucrats give them credit. Modern communication (television, cell phones, and Weather Radio) have greatly enhanced the delivery and range of information, which wasn't available "forty years" ago. I think they are ready for the next phase of warnings. Better to give more information than withholding it, risking lives(?), and trying to boilerplate some uniform message, that applies to everyone, all the time, in every situation.
Click to expand...

As I have said numerous times (including in my book, Warnings) Mike U did a great job on that storm.

Greensburg will be five years in May. How about the two TE's issued by ICT the next day that didn't verify at all? Or, the literally dozens of TE's that didn't verify since? Or, for Joplin, the watch was not a PDS nor was a TE issued. A broken clock is right twice a day.

I think it is overly optimistic to think people will remember which is worse, a particularly dangerous situation versus a tornado emergency. And, if they do remember, what do we want them to do differently?

Finally, you believe that all of the companies that have software-based solutions (TV weather software, smart phone apps, etc.) will be able to rewrite the software, test it, and get it out in (now) 44 days?

If any of this goes wrong, it might cost lives. I'm strongly against "experimenting" on innocent people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Matt Gingery
Chase Case #1 2011
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
80
Views
19K
Matt Gingery
Matt Gingery
Back
Top