National Weather Service Announces Unfortunate Tornado Warning Experiment

[Shane Adams]

Mike, your argument is weak: "it will confuse the public, we don't have the science..."

Actually this is a great idea. The public end doesn't matter, because the majority of the public ignores warnings anyway. You can lead a horse to water....

As far as the science to determine short-term tornado probability/strength, we have these things known as "spotters" (not to mention those other, evil things known as "chasers"). With as many eyes as there are on every storm these days, it's quite possible to get a good idea of tornado strength through radar and detailed reports coming in through various sources (SN, cell phones, HAM, social media, etc etc). When there's a tornado down that's been down for over ten minutes, and has caused damage, it's quite likely the NWS has been made aware of that fact via detailed chaser/spotter/EM reports. How is it a horrible idea to relay these real-time findings through updated warning statements? You're telling me it's a bad thing to send out enhanced tornado warning scenario #3 five minutes after the first person has died in Joplin? Your argument makes no sense.

The NWS is not responsible for what end users do with their products, they can only fine-tune them as best they can. Enhanced wording is simply an extension of the information regarding a particular warning. Most people who ignore the standard tornado warning will ignore #2 or #3 as well. The few who aren't morons will take notice when a weather bulletin comes across and says a large destructive tornado is now five minutes away from their home. There's nothing confusing about any of this, if a person is paying attention. You have #1 tornado warning, which most will ignore...#2 tornado warning that simply states the NWS has greater evidence that a significant tornado threat exists, which if people can't understand this and how it's different from #1, there's no hope for them anyway....and #3, which is basically the Tornado Emergency that was invented in Norman on May 3, 1999, and has been horribly abused ever since. There is nothing about this experiment that will "confuse the public." The doomsday scenarios you describe with principals and schools during thunderstorm warnings aren't even factors.....no principal pays enough attention to thunderstorm warnings (when there have been no tornado warnings yet) to even pick up on the "tornado" wordage in a text product.

This is a brilliant idea. The NWS is not liable if the majority of the general public chooses to ignore this advancement. There's nothing confusing about any of it, if you're not a lemming....and if you are, well maybe it's a Darwinian Karma thing if you're snatched up by Nature. Any person who gets in front of a camera after a tornado and says "we had no warning" is exactly the type person I'm referring to.

 

[rdale]

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.

And the TE system was horribly broken. There was no set standard. Now there is.

I think it is overly optimistic to think people will remember which is worse, a particularly dangerous situation versus a tornado emergency.

Nobody expects them to. This is to help the EM and TV weathercaster who needs a little extra info. And the software programmer who wants to be able to pull out pertinent data and automatically route that to his customers.

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?

A SVR is still a SVR, and a TOR is still a TOR. If that's all you need, you are in the same place you were last year. If you want to take advantage of the tiers and the tags, two months should be more than ample.

 

[Kelly Sugden]

FYI,
WFO DDC will not be participating in this experiment.

 

[Jake Orosi]

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?

Strictly speaking, they don't have to remember. As I said, the language of each product - whether they get it as text, an automated radio broadcast, or live from a TV met - will differentiate for them and will contain specific instructions so that they know what they are expected to do in each case.

In the PDF you linked in the OP, it gives a sample TE product. It's a lot of important information; they won't just only be announcing "Tornado Emergency for SW Anywhere County" and count on the public to know the difference.

 

[Greg Higgins]

I've read through the PDD several times now and unless I'm missing something, it very obviously states "3) Audience - The target audience for this product includes: national, state and local emergency managers; media partners; the private weather enterprise; government and military agencies." Nowhere does it state "the general public". As I read it, it was developed from the results of the recent service assessments. Certainty something needs to be done to "warn" the public and I see this as a step in the right direction. It appears that the "audience" needs to take this information and then disseminate the information to the public in such a manner as to encourage them to make the right decision regarding their own safety.

Mike - a question for you; Could you provide some examples that you think could improve upon what this PDD is trying to address?

And according to the PDD date, it was released on January 11, so yes, nearly 3 months. Does anyone know with certainty that the target "audience" was not provided this document back then and its now only coming to light outside of the targeted groups??

 

[rdale]

And according to the PDD date, it was released on January 11, so yes, nearly 3 months. Does anyone know with certainty that the target "audience" was not provided this document back then and its now only coming to light outside of the targeted groups??

That's when it started through the review process. The first review group wanted this to be national, but on Feb 1st they decided to do a test in 5 CR offices. It was snuck in (never publicized by NWS to absolutely anyone) later that week or early next.

None of the target audience was included in this process.

 

[Kelly Sugden]

FYI,

Got word from the offices that are participating from CR... TOP, ICT, EAX, SGF, LSX.

 

[Jeff Duda]

I guess I think the rationale behind it has been a long time coming (although it seems to me like a CYA for the NWS after the events of 2011), but the exact plan seems pretty underwhelming. For one thing, many NWS offices in the central US have been including some of these phrases in warning text for the past few years already (like the LAT LON...TIME MOT LOC...WIND...HAIL tags), and the tornado emergency became an official product a few years ago (I can't find the TIN or whatever notice proclaimed it). Also, what exactly is the difference between a tornado and a deadly tornado? Does that imply that not all tornadoes can kill? Seems like wasted verbiage to accompany bureaucracy and I think better improvements can be made by addressing other parts of warnings. For example, instead of saying "HAZARD...DEADLY TORNADO", say "THIS STORM IS MUCH MORE LIKELY THAN OTHER STORMS TO PRODUCE A TORNADO...AND IF IT DOES...THE DAMAGE WOULD BE MORE SEVERE THAN USUAL" OR in situations like a Tuscaloosa or Joplin, throw out all the stops: "THIS TORNADO WILL KILL YOU IF YOU DO NOT TAKE ADEQUATE SHELTER BELOW GROUND". Just let the individual warning meteorologists stick in their own descriptions in the message text instead of forcing them to conform to some bureaucratic standard that still won't be able to cover all events.

Also, although spotters and chasers are usually present to identify when tornadoes are or are not in progress in most springtime and summertime events in the central US, and now during many parts of the year across the southeastern US as well, they are observing, not forecasting. Thus Mike's statement about not having skill at forecasting tornado strength is pretty accurate in my opinion. It's fairly easy to get a qualitative idea of the strength of a tornado if you've seen many of them and can discern the speed of rotation, but that doesn't tell you what the strength of the tornado is going to be 5, 10, or 15 minutes later, or if the tornado will even still be in progress. The latest research I've seen regarding changes in the strength of a tornado found changes correlated with dramatic changes in the thermodynamic environment of the RFD. Since most chasers don't have the equipment to sample the RFD frequently, I'd find it tough to argue that anyone can reliably predict the strength of a tornado more than a few minutes out. Thus an NWS forecaster can't say with much certainty whether a tornado is going to end up a monster EF4/5 or just a common EF0/EF1, but can only give a guess as to the likelihood of a tornado growing to a given strength given the large-scale environment it's in and its current strength (which is not 100% given by a radar signature...see this PPT as an example).

ADD: I can informally cite Don Burgess as support for my statement above. He gave a talk about mobile Doppler radar measurements of tornadoes in my radar applications class and showed a plot of WSR-88D measured delta-V (max wind speed difference between two gates at the same range) vs. tornado rating for the May 3, 1999 Bridge Creek/Moore tornado. There was very poor correlation between the damage rating and the delta-V for KTLX, but the values measured by Josh Wurman's mobile Doppler radar did correlate very well. It's really a matter of the resolution volume size and the ability (or lack thereof) to resolve the tornado for the 88Ds.

 

[Mike Smith]

I've read through the PDD several times now and unless I'm missing something, it very obviously states "3) Audience - The target audience for this product includes: national, state and local emergency managers; media partners; the private weather enterprise; government and military agencies." Nowhere does it state "the general public". As I read it, it was developed from the results of the recent service assessments. Certainty something needs to be done to "warn" the public and I see this as a step in the right direction. It appears that the "audience" needs to take this information and then disseminate the information to the public in such a manner as to encourage them to make the right decision regarding their own safety.

Mike - a question for you; Could you provide some examples that you think could improve upon what this PDD is trying to address?

And according to the PDD date, it was released on January 11, so yes, nearly 3 months. Does anyone know with certainty that the target "audience" was not provided this document back then and its now only coming to light outside of the targeted groups??

Perhaps the intended audience is as listed, but these will be broadcast to everyone.

It was not released on January 12. It was released (by putting it on the NWS PDD board and sending an email) a week ago today. That is less than two months.

I don't understand the question you would like me to address. The science is not there to forecast short-term tornado intensity. I wouldn't even try. If I am misunderstanding the question (and I probably am), please clarify and I'd be happy to address.

For those coming into this thread late, please take a look at my blog post on this subject (which quotes a social science specialist in this area of expertise): www.mikesmithenterprises.com/2012/02/ka-boom/

 

[rdale]

tornado emergency became an official product a few years ago

Official - but as Patrick March showed, useless. This at least sets down better criteria.

For example, instead of saying "HAZARD...DEADLY TORNADO", say "THIS STORM IS MUCH MORE LIKELY THAN OTHER STORMS TO PRODUCE A TORNADO...AND IF IT DOES...THE DAMAGE WOULD BE MORE SEVERE THAN USUAL"

1) Remember, nobody in the public sees all that.

2) If you're going to use a computer to automate the information flow, you need short phrases.

"THIS TORNADO WILL KILL YOU IF YOU DO NOT TAKE ADEQUATE SHELTER BELOW GROUND"

Because that's not true. None of the Joplin hospital employees were below ground. That's where the CTA gets too precise. Just give us the meteorological facts and enable the end user to make that choice.

Just let the individual warning meteorologists stick in their own descriptions in the message text instead of forcing them to conform to some bureaucratic standard that still won't be able to cover all events.

That's what we do now, and each has their own. Some offices throw out a fake tornado confirmation message (saying "METEOROLOGISTS ARE TRACKING A TORNADO" when in reality they are watching a possible rotation on radar.) Now we'll get a YES/NO to "is there a valid report of a tornado?"

Thus Mike's statement about not having skill at forecasting tornado strength is pretty accurate in my opinion.

Not really. Look at the radar returns of a QLCS tornado. They will never show EF5 damage. Ever. But the tornado warning product for that QLCS eddy/spinup/whatever is exactly the same as the EF5 tornado warning. That's where the issue lies.

 

[Jeff Duda]

Not really. Look at the radar returns of a QLCS tornado. They will never show EF5 damage. Ever. But the tornado warning product for that QLCS eddy/spinup/whatever is exactly the same as the EF5 tornado warning. That's where the issue lies.

Actually it is. Sure, it's pretty much unheard of for a QLCS to produce an EF4 or EF5 tornado, but if you see a rotation signature at the front of a squall line, you don't know if a tornado is occurring under that and if it is EF0, EF1, EF2, or EF3 strength if there is one. I suppose the spirit of the policy change is to be able to provide tornado warnings that distinguish violent (EF4/EF5) tornadoes from other tornadoes (especially EF0/EF1), but the statement he made, taken in isolation, is generally true.

 

[Mike Smith]

Not really. Look at the radar returns of a QLCS tornado. They will never show EF5 damage. Ever. But the tornado warning product for that QLCS eddy/spinup/whatever is exactly the same as the EF5 tornado warning. That's where the issue lies.

According to a paper presented at the NWA annual meeting in BHM recently, 12 were killed by the squall line tornadoes in Alabama the morning of April 27. Those tornadoes were F-3 intensity.

Consider: That is a larger death toll than in "tornado emergency" in Greensburg (9)! In your paradigm, Rob, that situation would have been treated lightly because it was QLCS.

I stand by my statement: We cannot forecast tornado intensity. And, based on all of the TE busts, we cannot forecast microscale tornado movement or when they are going to lift. Forgetting the confusion aspect, all of these items are absolutely essential scientifically for graduated warnings to work.

We can note a "debris ball" is present or that there is a very strong couplet on the Doppler but that is current info, not a forecast. Since 86% of debris balls occur with a tornado ≥ F3, I'm all for saying, "radar indicates a tornado is doing damage in the vicinity of College Hill" (to use a Wichita example) and the tornado is moving east toward east Wichita, Eastborough, and Andover." But, that can be done with present structure. It doesn't offer an opinion as to future intensity nor a forecast of damage extent ("catastrophic") because we have no basis for making that forecast.

 

[Greg Higgins]

I don't understand the question you would like me to address. The science is not there to forecast short-term tornado intensity. I wouldn't even try. If I am misunderstanding the question (and I probably am), please clarify and I'd be happy to address.

As I understand the PDD, the idea is to change the verbage so that the affected areas / people take the correct action based on the severity of the impending storm. My question for Mike is; what solutions, thoughts, theory do you have that is different than how the PDD addresses this problem? Am I being clear?

And yes as you stated, the science is not, and probably will never be able to forecast the tornado intensity as it is occurring.

 

[rdale]

I suppose the spirit of the policy change is to be able to provide tornado warnings that distinguish violent (EF4/EF5) tornadoes from other tornadoes (especially EF0/EF1)

Exactly - in this case, QLCS tornadoes are not even going to get a Tornado Warning without more evidence than a one-scan 60kt GtG marker.

the statement he made, taken in isolation, is generally true.

Agreed, I just took it in the discussion of this thread

In your paradigm, Rob, that situation would have been treated lightly because it was QLCS.

I'm not sure what you are referring to... You are saying that the bulk of the damage that morning was from straight-line winds, with an embedded eddy on one scan that ended up being a 30 second EF3? Because that's what I am talking about and that is what this policy addresses. Maybe I'm getting confused now, but in order to avoid the confusion this is what I am saying... For 40 years, leading edge squall line spinups that last for 2 minutes and die after knocking over a trampoline were covered under SVRs. With the advent of 88D and NWS Directives, they became TORs. I think there are too many TORs. I think your book even discussed the "false alarm" / "cry wolf" situation. I'd suggest looking at the Joplin SA again or talking to the people (I met with many of the first responders yesterday and every one not knowing I was a met said "We always get warnings in Joplin and everyone ignores them.")

I don't understand why you are against REDUCING the number of siren activations and wall-to-wall coverage by eliminating a 9-county QLCS CYA blanket warning.

all of these items are absolutely essential scientifically for graduated warnings to work.

For them to work perfectly 100% of the time - sure. But why wait for us to have 100% tornado perfection? If we can get rid of the spin-ups and protect the "integrity" of TEs, why not do it? If we know that Tuscaloosa is going to be a BIG one, why only let people watching James Spann know? Why not automatically disseminate that to the public and businesses not tuning him in? Tiered warnings allows for that, even if imperfect.

 

[MClarkson]

We certainly have the technology - and general forecaster experience - to make better tornado warnings than we do now. The southernmost discrete cell on a moderate risk day thats starting to show signs of rotation? Tornado warning! Those 7 squall line weak rotational signatures on a slight risk day? No tornado warning. Or "weak" tornado warning. Or something like that. No, we can't forecast the exact tornado strength more than minutes out, but we can certainly improve the odds over what we are doing. Yes, a few people will die in unwarned tornadoes. But it will probably save more lives by making proper tornado warnings actually mean something.